What does "Advanced" mean in 2023? reflecting on 10 years of the ESTRO advanced Skills in modern radiotherapy course.

The roles and responsibilities of radiation therapists (RTTs) are many and varied. Professional expectations are influenced by the technology available, as well as the level of autonomy RTTs have in their daily practice. This professional range requires RTTs to possess a unique set of ever evolving skills, posing challenges from an educational perspective. Teaching these "advanced skills" has been the ambition the ESTRO Advanced Skills in Modern Radiotherapy course. In the 10th year of this course, the Faculty look back and reflect on how our programme has evolved and what it has achieved.

Technical feasibility and clinical evaluation of 4D-MRI guided liver SBRT on the MR-linac.

PURPOSE: Image-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an important local treatment for liver metastases. MRI-guidance enables direct tumor visualization, eliminating fiducial marker implantation. The purpose of this study was to test technical feasibility of our 4D-MRI guided liver SBRT workflow. Additionally, intra-fraction target motion and consequent target-coverage were studied. MATERIALS & METHODS: Patients with liver metastases were included in this sub-study of the prospective UMBRELLA-II clinical trial. Patients received mid-position (midP) SBRT. The daily adapt-to-position workflow included localization, verification and intra-fraction tumor midP monitoring using 4D-MRI. Technical feasibility was established based on persistence of the treatment protocol, treatment time ≤1 h, no geographical miss and no unexpected acute toxicity grade >3. All 4D-MRIs were registered to the planning midP-CT and tumor midP and amplitude were calculated. Additionally, delivered target dose was accumulated incorporating the 4D-MRI intra-fraction tumor motion and evaluated with Monte-Carlo error simulations. RESULTS: 20 patients with liver metastases were included and treated with 4D-MRI guided SBRT. Feasibility criteria were met in all-but-one patient. No grade ≥3 acute toxicity was observed. Group mean (M), systematic and random midP-drifts were 2.4 mm, 2.6 mm and 3.1 mm in CC-direction. 4D-MRI tumor CC-amplitudes were reduced compared to the simulation 4D-CT (M = -1.9 mm) and decreased during treatment (M = -1.4 mm). Dose accumulation showed adequate target-coverage on a population level. CONCLUSION: We successfully demonstrated technical feasibility of 4D-MRI guided SBRT in a cohort of 20 patients with liver metastases. However, substantial midposition drifts occurred which stress the need for intra-fraction motion management strategies to further increase the precision of treatment delivery.

Field size reduction enables iso-NTCP escalation of tumor control probability for irradiation of lung tumors.

PURPOSE: With the mean lung dose (MLD) as an estimator for the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of the lung, we assessed whether the probability of tumor control of lung tumors might be increased by dose escalation in combination with a reduction of field sizes, thus increasing target dose inhomogeneity while maintaining a constant MLD. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An 8-MV AP-PA irradiation of a lung tumor, located in a cylindrically symmetric lung-equivalent phantom, was modeled using numerical simulation. Movement of the clinical target volume (CTV) due to patient breathing and setup errors was simulated. The probability of tumor control, expressed as the equivalent uniform dose (EUD) of the CTV, was assessed as a function of field size, under the constraint of a constant MLD. The approach was tested for a treatment of a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient using the beam directions of the clinically applied treatment plan. RESULTS: In the phantom simulation it was shown that by choosing field sizes that ensured a minimum dose of 95% in the CTV ("conventional" plan) taking into account setup errors and tumor motion, an EUD of the CTV of 43.8 Gy can be obtained for a prescribed dose of 44.2 Gy. By reducing the field size and thus shifting the 95% isodose surface inwards, the EUD increases to a maximum of 68.3 Gy with a minimum dose in the CTV of 55.2 Gy. This increase in EUD is caused by the fact that field size reduction enables escalation of the prescribed dose while maintaining a constant MLD. Further reduction of the field size results in decrease of the EUD because the minimum dose in the CTV becomes so low that it has a predominant effect on the EUD, despite further escalation of the prescribed dose. For the NSCLC patient, the EUD could be increased from an initial 62.2 Gy for the conventional plan, to 83.2 Gy at maximum. In this maximum, the prescribed dose is 88.1 Gy, and the minimum dose in the CTV is 67.4 Gy. In this case, the 95% isodose surface is conformed closely to the "static" CTV during treatment planning. CONCLUSIONS: Iso-NTCP escalation of the probability of tumor control is possible for lung tumors by reducing field sizes and allowing a larger dose inhomogeneity in the CTV. Optimum field sizes can be derived, having the highest EUD and highest minimum dose in the CTV under condition of a constant NTCP of the lungs. We conclude that the concept of homogeneous dose in the target volume is not the best approach to reach the highest probability of tumor control for lung tumors.

Set-up verification using portal imaging; review of current clinical practice.

In this review of current clinical practice of set-up error verification by means of portal imaging, we firstly define the various types of set-up errors using a consistent nomenclature. The different causes of set-up errors are then summarized. Next, the results of a large number of studies regarding patient set-up verification are presented for treatments of patients with head and neck, prostate, pelvis, lung and breast cancer, as well as for mantle field/total body treatments. This review focuses on the more recent studies in order to assess the criteria for good clinical practice in patient positioning. The reported set-up accuracy varies widely, depending on the treatment site, method of immobilization and institution. The standard deviation (1 SD, mm) of the systematic and random errors for currently applied treatment techniques, separately measured along the three principle axes, ranges from 1.6-4.6 and 1.1-2.5 (head and neck), 1.0-3.8 and 1.2-3.5 (prostate), 1.1-4.7 and 1.1-4.9 (pelvis), 1.8-5.1 and 2.2-5.4 (lung), and 1.0-4.7 and 1.7-14.4 (breast), respectively. Recommendations for procedures to quantify, report and reduce patient set-up errors are given based on the studies described in this review. Using these recommendations, the systematic and random set-up errors that can be achieved in routine clinical practice can be less than 2.0 mm (1 SD) for head and neck, 2.5 mm (1 SD) for prostate, 3.0 mm (1 SD) for general pelvic and 3.5 mm (1 SD) for lung cancer treatment techniques.

The probability of correct target dosage: dose-population histograms for deriving treatment margins in radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To provide an analytical description of the effect of random and systematic geometrical deviations on the target dose in radiotherapy and to derive margin rules. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The cumulative dose distribution delivered to the clinical target volume (CTV) is expressed analytically. Geometrical deviations are separated into treatment execution (random) and treatment preparation (systematic) variations. The analysis relates each possible preparation (systematic) error to the dose distribution over the CTV and allows computation of the probability distribution of, for instance, the minimum dose delivered to the CTV. RESULTS: The probability distributions of the cumulative dose over a population of patients are called dose-population histograms in short. Large execution (random) variations lead to CTV underdosage for a large number of patients, while the same level of preparation (systematic) errors leads to a much larger underdosage for some of the patients. A single point on the histogram gives a simple "margin recipe." For example, to ensure a minimum dose to the CTV of 95% for 90% of the patients, a margin between CTV and planning target volume (PTV) is required of 2.5 times the total standard deviation (SD) of preparation (systematic) errors (Sigma) plus 1.64 times the total SD of execution (random) errors (sigma') combined with the penumbra width, minus 1.64 times the SD describing the penumbra width (sigma(p)). For a sigma(p) of 3.2 mm, this recipe can be simplified to 2.5 Sigma + 0.7 sigma'. Because this margin excludes rotational errors and shape deviations, it must be considered as a lower limit for safe radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Dose-population histograms provide insight into the effects of geometrical deviations on a population of patients. Using a dose-probability based approach, simple algorithms for choosing margins were derived.

3-D portal image analysis in clinical practice: an evaluation of 2-D and 3-D analysis techniques as applied to 30 prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical importance and feasibility of a 3-D portal image analysis method in comparison with a standard 2-D portal image analysis method for pelvic irradiation techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this study, images of 30 patients who were treated for prostate cancer were used. A total of 837 imaged fields were analyzed by a single technologist, using automatic 2-D and 3-D techniques independently. Standard deviations (SDs) of the random, systematic, and overall variations, and the overall mean were calculated for the resulting data sets (2-D and 3-D), in the three principal directions (left-right [L-R], cranial-caudal [C-C], anterior-posterior [A-P]). The 3-D analysis included rotations as well. For the translational differences between the three data sets, the overall SD and overall mean were computed. The influence of out-of-plane rotations on the 2-D registration accuracy was determined by analyzing the difference between the 2-D and 3-D translation data as function of rotations. To assess the reliability of the 2-D and 3-D methods, the number of times the automatic match was manually adjusted was counted. Finally, an estimate of the workload was made. RESULTS: The SDs of the random and systematic components of the rotations around the three orthogonal axes were 1. 1 (L-R), 0.6 (C-C), 0.5 (A-P) and 0.9 (L-R), 0.6 (C-C), 0.8 (A-P) degrees, respectively. The overall mean rotation around the L-R axis was 0.7 degrees, which deviated significantly from zero. Translational setup errors were comparable for 2-D and 3-D analysis (ranging from 1.4 to 2.2 mm SD and from 1.5 to 2.5 mm SD, respectively). The variation of the difference between the 2-D and 3-D translation data increased from 1.1 mm (SD) for zero rotations to 2.7 mm (SD) for out-of-plane rotations of 3 degrees, due to a reduced 2-D registration accuracy for large rotations. The number of times the analysis was not considered acceptable and was manually adjusted was 44% for the 2-D analysis, and 6% for the 3-D analysis. CONCLUSION: True 3-D analysis of setup errors for a group of 30 patients with prostate cancer demonstrated that setup rotations are rather small. The deformation of the projected anatomy in portal images caused by out-of-plane rotations leads to a reduced 2-D registration accuracy. For rotations larger than 3 degrees this effect can be quite pronounced, making 3-D registration the preferred method. Furthermore, the automatic 3-D registration has a higher success rate, most likely because this technique uses more information compared to the 2-D method.

Comparison of prostate cancer treatment in two institutions: a quality control study.

PURPOSE: To minimize differences in the treatment planning procedure between two institutions within the context of a radiotherapy prostate cancer trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients with N0 M0 prostate cancer underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan for radiotherapy treatment planning. For all patients, the tumor and organs at risk were delineated, and a treatment plan was generated for a three-field technique giving a dose of 78 Gy to the target volume. Ten of the 22 cases were delineated and planned in the other institution as well. The delineated volumes and dose distributions were compared. RESULTS: All treatments fulfilled the trial criteria. The mean volume ratio of the gross tumor volumes (GTVs) in both institutions was 1.01, while the mean volume ratio of the planning target volumes (PTVs) was 0.88. The three-dimensional (3D) PTV difference was 3 mm at the prostate apex and 6-8 mm at the seminal vesicles. This PTV difference was mainly caused by a difference in the method of 3D expansion, and disappeared when applying an improved algorithm in one institution. The treated volume (dose > or =95% of isocenter dose) reflects the size of the PTV and the conformity of the treatment technique. This volume was on average 66 cm3 smaller in institution A than in institution B; the effect of the PTV difference was 31 cm3 and the difference in technique accounted for 36 cm3. The mean delineated rectal volume including filling was 112 cm3 and 125 cm3 for institution A and B, respectively. This difference had a significant impact on the relative dose volume histogram (DVH) of the rectum. CONCLUSION: Differences in GTV delineation were small and comparable to earlier quantified differences between observers in one institution. Different expansion methods for generation of the PTV significantly influenced the amount of irradiated tissue. Strict definitions of target and normal structures are mandatory for reliable trial results.

A general methodology for three-dimensional analysis of variation in target volume delineation.

A generic method for three-dimensional (3-D) evaluation of target volume delineation in multiple imaging modalities is presented. The evaluation includes geometrical and statistical methods to estimate observer differences and variability in defining the Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) in relation to the diagnostic CT and MRI modalities. The geometrical method is based on mapping the 3-D shape of the target volume to a scalar representation, thus enabling a one-dimensional statistical analysis. The statistical method distinguishes observer and modality related uncertainties, which are expressed in terms of three error components: random observer deviations, systematic observer differences, and systematic modality differences. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that the standard errors of each of the three model parameters are inversely proportional to the square root of the product of the patient group size and the number of observers and proportional to the intraobserver variation. For 18 patients and 3 observers the standard errors of the estimated systematic modality and observer differences are 19% and 14% of the intraobserver standard deviation, respectively. A scalar representation of the shape of the prostate, delineated by 3 observers for 18 patients, was obtained by sampling the distance between the average center of gravity of the prostate in CT and the prostate surface for a large number of directions (2500), using polar coordinates. Observer variability and differences were obtained by applying the statistical method to the samples independently. The intraobserver variation for CT was largest in regions near the seminal vesicles (s.d: 3 mm) and the apex (s.d: 3 mm). The systematic observer variation in CT was largest in a region near the plexus Santorini, at the caudal-anterior side of the prostate (s.d.: 2 mm). The sensitivity for the choice of origin was tested by using the average center of gravity from axial MRI instead of CT. The results were almost identical. The polar map measures distances in the scanning directions. A correction procedure to get the variability in directions perpendicular to the surface of the prostate yielded variations that were a factor of 0.85 smaller for all directions. It is concluded that by separating the shape evaluation in a geometrical and a statistical part, the complexity of the analysis of 3-D shape differences can be significantly reduced. The method was successfully applied to a group of prostate patients, where we demonstrated that delineation variability is nonhomogeneous, with the largest variations occurring near the seminal vesicles and the apex.

Definition of the prostate in CT and MRI: a multi-observer study.

PURPOSE: To determine, in three-dimensions, the difference between prostate delineation in magnetic resonance (MR) and computer tomography (CT) images for radiotherapy treatment planning. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three radiation oncologists, considered experts in the field, outlined the prostate without seminal vesicles both on CT, and axial, coronal, and sagittal MR images for 18 patients. To compare the resulting delineated prostates, the CT and MR scans were matched in three-dimensions using chamfer matching on bony structures. The volumes were measured and the interscan and interobserver variation was determined. The spatial difference between delineation in CT and MR (interscan variation) as well as the interobserver variation were quantified and mapped three-dimensionally (3D) using polar coordinates. A urethrogram was performed and the location of the tip of the dye column was compared with the apex delineated in CT and MR images. RESULTS: Interscan variation: CT volumes were larger than the axial MR volumes in 52 of 54 delineations. The average ratio between the CT and MR volumes was 1.4 (standard error of mean, SE: 0.04) which was significantly different from 1 (p < 0.005). Only small differences were observed between the volumes outlined in the various MR scans, although the coronal MR volumes were smallest. The CT derived prostate was 8 mm (standard deviation, SD: 6 mm) larger at the base of the seminal vesicles and 6 mm (SD 4 mm) larger at the apex of the prostate than the axial MRI. Similar figures were obtained for the CT and the other MRI scans. Interobserver variation: The average ratio between the volume derived by one observer for a particular scan and patient and the average volume was 0.95, 0.97, and 1.08 (SE 0.01) for the three observers, respectively. The 3D pattern of the overall observer variation (1 SD) for CT and axial MRI was similar and equal to 3.5 to 2.8 mm at the base of the seminal vesicles and 3 mm at the apex. CONCLUSION: CT-derived prostate volumes are larger than MR derived volumes, especially toward the seminal vesicles and the apex of the prostate. This interscan variation was found to be larger than the interobserver variation. Using MRI for delineation of the prostate reduces the amount of irradiated rectal wall, and could reduce rectal and urological complications.