Inter-institutional variability of knowledge-based plan prediction of left whole breast irradiation.

PURPOSE: Within a multi-institutional project, we aimed to assess the transferability of knowledge-based (KB) plan prediction models in the case of whole breast irradiation (WBI) for left-side breast irradiation with tangential fields (TF). METHODS: Eight institutions set KB models, following previously shared common criteria. Plan prediction performance was tested on 16 new patients (2 pts per centre) extracting dose-volume-histogram (DVH) prediction bands of heart, ipsilateral lung, contralateral lung and breast. The inter-institutional variability was quantified by the standard deviations (SDint) of predicted DVHs and mean-dose (Dmean). The transferability of models, for the heart and the ipsilateral lung, was evaluated by the range of geometric Principal Component (PC1) applicability of a model to test patients of the other 7 institutions. RESULTS: SDint of the DVH was 1.8 % and 1.6 % for the ipsilateral lung and the heart, respectively (20 %-80 % dose range); concerning Dmean, SDint was 0.9 Gy and 0.6 Gy for the ipsilateral lung and the heart, respectively (<0.2 Gy for contralateral organs). Mean predicted doses ranged between 4.3 and 5.9 Gy for the ipsilateral lung and 1.1-2.3 Gy for the heart. PC1 analysis suggested no relevant differences among models, except for one centre showing a systematic larger sparing of the heart, concomitant to a worse PTV coverage, due to high priority in sparing the left anterior descending coronary artery. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed high transferability among models and low inter-institutional variability of 2% for plan prediction. These findings encourage the building of benchmark models in the case of TF-WBI.

Impact of inter-observer variability on first axillary level dosimetry in breast cancer radiotherapy: An AIRO multi-institutional study.

This study quantified the incidental dose to the first axillary level (L1) in locoregional treatment plan for breast cancer. Eighteen radiotherapy centres contoured L1-L4 on three different patients (P1,2,3), created the L2-L4 planning target volume (single centre planning target volume, SC-PTV) and elaborated a locoregional treatment plan. The L2-L4 gold standard clinical target volume (CTV) along with the gold standard L1 contour (GS-L1) were created by an expert consensus. The SC-PTV was then replaced by the GS-PTV and the incidental dose to GS-L1 was measured. Dosimetric data were analysed with Kruskal-Wallis test. Plans were intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)-based. P3 with 90° arm setup had statistically significant higher L1 dose across the board than P1 and P2, with the mean dose (Dmean) reaching clinical significance. Dmean of P1 and P2 was consistent with the literature (77.4% and 74.7%, respectively). The incidental dose depended mostly on L1 proportion included in the breast fields, underlining the importance of the setup, even in case of IMRT.

Patient specific quality assurance in SBRT: a systematic review of measurement-based methods.

This topical review focuses on Patient-Specific Quality Assurance (PSQA) approaches to stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). SBRT requires stricter accuracy than standard radiation therapy due to the high dose per fraction and the limited number of fractions. The review considered various PSQA methods reported in 36 articles between 01/2010 and 07/2022 for SBRT treatment. In particular comparison among devices and devices designed for SBRT, sensitivity and resolution, verification methodology, gamma analysis were specifically considered. The review identified a list of essential data needed to reproduce the results in other clinics, highlighted the partial miss of data reported in scientific papers, and formulated recommendations for successful implementation of a PSQA protocol.

The influence of basic plan parameters on calculated small field output factors - A multicenter study.

PURPOSE: The influence of basic plan parameters such as slice thickness, grid resolution, algorithm type and field size on calculated small field output factors (OFs) was evaluated in a multicentric study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three computational homogeneous water phantoms with slice thicknesses (ST) 1, 2 and 3 mm were shared among twenty-one centers to calculate OFs for 1x1, 2x2 and 3x3 cm2 field sizes (FSs) (normalized to 10x10 cm2 FS), with their own treatment planning system (TPS) and the energy clinically used for stereotactic body radiation therapy delivery. OFs were calculated for each combination of grid resolution (GR) (1, 2 and 3 mm) and ST and finally compared with the OFs measured for the TPS commissioning. A multivariate analysis was performed to test the effect of basic plan parameters on calculated OFs. RESULTS: A total of 509 data points were collected. Calculated OFs are slightly higher than measured ones. The multivariate analysis showed that Center, GR, algorithm type, and FS are predictive variables of the difference between calculated and measured OFs (p < 0.001). As FS decreases, the spread in the difference between calculated and measured OFs became larger when increasing the GR. Monte Carlo and Analytical Anisotropic Algorithms, presented a dependence on GR (p < 0.01), while Collapsed Cone Convolution and Acuros did not. The effect of the ST was found to be negligible. CONCLUSIONS: Modern TPSs slightly overestimate the calculated small field OFs compared with measured ones. Grid resolution, algorithm, center number and field size influence the calculation of small field OFs.

Geometric contour variation in clinical target volume of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer radiotherapy: an AIRO multi-institutional study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine interobserver variability in axillary nodal contouring in breast cancer (BC) radiotherapy (RT) by comparing the clinical target volume of participating single centres (SC-CTV) with a gold-standard CTV (GS-CTV). METHODS: The GS-CTV of three patients (P1, P2, P3) with increasing complexity was created in DICOM format from the median contour of axillary CTVs drawn by BC experts, validated using the simultaneous truth and performance-level estimation and peer-reviewed. GS-CTVs were compared with the correspondent SC-CTVs drawn by radiation oncologists, using validated metrics and a total score (TS) integrating all of them. RESULTS: Eighteen RT centres participated in the study. Comparative analyses revealed that, on average, the SC-CTVs were smaller than GS-CTV for P1 and P2 (by -29.25% and -27.83%, respectively) and larger for P3 (by +12.53%). The mean Jaccard index was greater for P1 and P2 compared to P3, but the overlap extent value was around 0.50 or less. Regarding nodal levels, L4 showed the highest concordance with the GS. In the intra-patient comparison, L2 and L3 achieved lower TS than L4. Nodal levels showed discrepancy with GS, which was not statistically significant for P1, and negligible for P2, while P3 had the worst agreement. DICE similarity coefficient did not exceed the minimum threshold for agreement of 0.70 in all the measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences were observed between SC- and GS-CTV, especially for P3 with altered arm setup. L2 and L3 were the most critical levels. The study highlighted these key points to address. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The present study compares, by means of validated geometric indexes, manual segmentations of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer from different observers and different institutions made on radiotherapy planning CT images. Assessing such variability is of paramount importance, as geometric uncertainties might lead to incorrect dosimetry and compromise oncological outcome.

Multi-institutional application of Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to CyberKnife Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT).

BACKGROUND: A multidisciplinary and multi-institutional working group applied the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) approach to assess the risks for patients undergoing Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) treatments for lesions located in spine and liver in two CyberKnife® Centres. METHODS: The various sub-processes characterizing the SBRT treatment were identified to generate the process trees of both the treatment planning and delivery phases. This analysis drove to the identification and subsequent scoring of the potential failure modes, together with their causes and effects, using the risk probability number (RPN) scoring system. Novel solutions aimed to increase patient safety were accordingly considered. RESULTS: The process-tree characterising the SBRT treatment planning stage was composed with a total of 48 sub-processes. Similarly, 42 sub-processes were identified in the stage of delivery to liver tumours and 30 in the stage of delivery to spine lesions. All the sub-processes were judged to be potentially prone to one or more failure modes. Nineteen failures (i.e. 5 in treatment planning stage, 5 in the delivery to liver lesions and 9 in the delivery to spine lesions) were considered of high concern in view of the high RPN and/or severity index value. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of the potential failures, their causes and effects allowed to improve the safety strategies already adopted in the clinical practice with additional measures for optimizing quality management workflow and increasing patient safety.

A feasibility dosimetric study on prostate cancer : are we ready for a multicenter clinical trial on SBRT?

PURPOSE: The Italian Association of Medical Physics (AIFM) started a working group dedicated to stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment. In this work, we performed a multicenter planning study on patients who were candidates for SBRT in the treatment of prostate cancer with the aim of evaluating the dosimetric consistency among the different hospitals. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fourteen centers were provided the contours of 5 patients. Plans were performed following the dose prescription and constraints for organs at risk (OARs) of a reference paper. The dose prescription was 35 Gy in five fractions for the planning target volume (PTV). Different techniques were used (3D-CRT, fixed-Field IMRT, VMAT, CyberKnife). Plans were compared in terms of dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters. Furthermore, the median DVH was calculated and one patient was re-planned. RESULTS: A total of 70 plans were compared. The maximum dose to the body was 107.9 ± 4.5 % (range 101.5-116.3 %). Dose at 98 % (D98 %) and mean dose to the clinical target volume (CTV) were 102.0 ± 0.9 % (global range 101.1-102.9 %) and 105.1 ± 0.6 % (range 98.6-124.6 %). Similar trends were found for D95 % and mean dose to the PTV. Important differences were found in terms of the homogeneity index. Doses to OARs were heterogeneous. The subgroups with the same treatment planning system showed differences comparable to the differences of the whole group. In the re-optimized plans, DVH differences among institutes were reduced and OAR sparing improved. CONCLUSION: Important dosimetric differences with possible clinical implications, in particular related to OARs, were found. Replanning allowed a reduction in the OAR dose and decreased standard deviations. Multicenter clinical trials on SBRT should require a preplanning study to standardize the optimization procedure.

Tissue heterogeneity in IMRT dose calculation for lung cancer.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in accuracy of dose calculation between 3 commonly used algorithms, the Pencil Beam algorithm (PB), the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA), and the Collapsed Cone Convolution Superposition (CCCS) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The 2D dose distributions obtained with the 3 algorithms were compared on each CT slice pixel by pixel, using the MATLAB code (The MathWorks, Natick, MA) and the agreement was assessed with the γ function. The effect of the differences on dose-volume histograms (DVHs), tumor control, and normal tissue complication probability (TCP and NTCP) were also evaluated, and its significance was quantified by using a nonparametric test. In general PB generates regions of over-dosage both in the lung and in the tumor area. These differences are not always in DVH of the lung, although the Wilcoxon test indicated significant differences in 2 of 4 patients. Disagreement in the lung region was also found when the Γ analysis was performed. The effect on TCP is less important than for NTCP because of the slope of the curve at the level of the dose of interest. The effect of dose calculation inaccuracy is patient-dependent and strongly related to beam geometry and to the localization of the tumor. When multiple intensity-modulated beams are used, the effect of the presence of the heterogeneity on dose distribution may not always be easily predictable.

Comparison between the ideal reference dose level and the actual reference dose level from clinical 3D radiotherapy treatment plans.

PURPOSE: Retrospective study of 3D clinical treatment plans based on radiobiological considerations in the choice of the reference dose level from tumor dose-volume histograms. METHODS AND MATERIALS: When a radiation oncologist evaluates the 3D dose distribution calculated by a treatment planning system, a decision must be made on the percentage dose level at which the prescribed dose should be delivered. Much effort is dedicated to deliver a dose as uniform as possible to the tumor volume. However due to the presence of critical organs, the result may be a rather inhomogeneous dose distribution throughout the tumor volume. In this study we use a formulation of tumor control probability (TCP) based on the linear quadratic model and on a parameter, the F factor. The F factor allows one to write TCP, from the heterogeneous dose distribution (TCP{(epsilon(j),D(j))}), as a function of TCP under condition of homogeneous irradiation of tumor volume (V) with dose D (TCP(V,D)). We used the expression of the F factor to calculate the "ideal" percentage dose level (iDL(r)) to be used as reference level for the prescribed dose D delivery, so as to render TCP{(epsilon(j),D(j))} equal to TCP(V,D). The 3D dose distributions of 53 clinical treatment plans were re-evaluated to derive the iDL(r) and to compare it with the one (D(tp)L) to which the dose was actually administered. RESULTS: For the majority of prostate treatments, we observed a low overdosing following the choice of a D(tp)L lower than the iDL(r.) While for the breast and head-and-neck treatments, the method showed that in many cases we underdosed choosing a D(tp)L greater than the iDL(r). The maximum difference between the iDL(r) and the D(tp)L was -3.24% for one of the head-and-neck treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Using the TCP model, the probability of tumor control is compromised following an incorrect choice of D(tp)L; so we conclude that the application of the F factor is an effective tool and clinical aid to derive the optimal reference dose level from the dose-volume histogram (DVH) of each treatment plan.