Smart Radiotherapy Biomaterials for Image-Guided In Situ Cancer Vaccination.

Recent studies have highlighted the potential of smart radiotherapy biomaterials (SRBs) for combining radiotherapy and immunotherapy. These SRBs include smart fiducial markers and smart nanoparticles made with high atomic number materials that can provide requisite image contrast during radiotherapy, increase tumor immunogenicity, and provide sustained local delivery of immunotherapy. Here, we review the state-of-the-art in this area of research, the challenges and opportunities, with a focus on in situ vaccination to expand the role of radiotherapy in the treatment of both local and metastatic disease. A roadmap for clinical translation is outlined with a focus on specific cancers where such an approach is readily translatable or will have the highest impact. The potential of FLASH radiotherapy to synergize with SRBs is discussed including prospects for using SRBs in place of currently used inert radiotherapy biomaterials such as fiducial markers, or spacers. While the bulk of this review focuses on the last decade, in some cases, relevant foundational work extends as far back as the last two and half decades.

Clinical application of a template-guided automated planning routine.

PURPOSE: Determine the dosimetric quality and the planning time reduction when utilizing a template-based automated planning application. METHODS: A software application integrated through the treatment planning system application programing interface, QuickPlan, was developed to facilitate automated planning using configurable templates for contouring, knowledge-based planning structure matching, field design, and algorithm settings. Validations are performed at various levels of the planning procedure and assist in the evaluation of readiness of the CT image, structure set, and plan layout for automated planning. QuickPlan is evaluated dosimetrically against 22 hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiotherapy patients. The required times to treatment plan generation are compared for the validations set as well as 10 prospective patients whose plans have been automated by QuickPlan. RESULTS: The generations of 22 automated treatment plans are compared against a manual replanning using an identical process, resulting in dosimetric differences of minor clinical significance. The target dose to 2% volume and homogeneity index result in significantly decreased values for automated plans, whereas other dose metric evaluations are nonsignificant. The time to generate the treatment plans is reduced for all automated plans with a median difference of 9' 50″ ± 4' 33″. CONCLUSIONS: Template-based automated planning allows for reduced treatment planning time with consistent optimization structure creation, treatment field creation, plan optimization, and dose calculation with similar dosimetric quality. This process has potential expansion to numerous disease sites.

Application programming interface guided QA plan generation and analysis automation.

PURPOSE: Linear accelerator quality assurance (QA) in radiation therapy is a time consuming but fundamental part of ensuring the performance characteristics of radiation delivering machines. The goal of this work is to develop an automated and standardized QA plan generation and analysis system in the Oncology Information System (OIS) to streamline the QA process. METHODS: Automating the QA process includes two software components: the AutoQA Builder to generate daily, monthly, quarterly, and miscellaneous periodic linear accelerator QA plans within the Treatment Planning System (TPS) and the AutoQA Analysis to analyze images collected on the Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) allowing for a rapid analysis of the acquired QA images. To verify the results of the automated QA analysis, results were compared to the current standard for QA assessment for the jaw junction, light-radiation coincidence, picket fence, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) QA plans across three linacs and over a 6-month period. RESULTS: The AutoQA Builder application has been utilized clinically 322 times to create QA patients, construct phantom images, and deploy common periodic QA tests across multiple institutions, linear accelerators, and physicists. Comparing the AutoQA Analysis results with our current institutional QA standard the mean difference of the ratio of intensity values within the field-matched junction and ball-bearing position detection was 0.012 ± 0.053 (P = 0.159) and is 0.011 ± 0.224 mm (P = 0.355), respectively. Analysis of VMAT QA plans resulted in a maximum percentage difference of 0.3%. CONCLUSION: The automated creation and analysis of quality assurance plans using multiple APIs can be of immediate benefit to linear accelerator quality assurance efficiency and standardization. QA plan creation can be done without following tedious procedures through API assistance, and analysis can be performed inside of the clinical OIS in an automated fashion.