RESUMEN
Introduction: Stereotactic MR-guided on-table adaptive radiotherapy (SMART) allows the precise delivery of high-dose radiation to tumors in great proximity to radiation-sensitive organs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the toxicity and clinical outcome in locally advanced or recurrent pancreatic tumors, with or without prior irradiation, treated with SMART. Methods: Patients were treated for pancreatic cancer (PC) using SMART technology to a prescribed dose of 50 Gy (BED10, 100 Gy) in five fractions, with daily on-table adaptation of treatment plan. Endpoints were acute and late toxicities, local control, local disease-free period, and overall survival. Results: A total of 54 PC patients were treated between August 2019 and September 2022, with a median follow-up of 8.9 months from SMART. The median age was 70.4 (45.2-86.9) years. A total of 40 patients had upfront inoperable PC (55% were locally advanced and 45% metastatic), and 14 had local recurrence following prior pancreatectomy (six patients also had prior adjuvant RT). Of the patients, 87% received at least one chemotherapy regimen (Oxaliplatin based, 72.2%), and 25.9% received ≥2 regimens. Except from lower CA 19-9 serum level at the time of diagnosis and 6 weeks prior to SMART in previously operated patients, there were no significant differences in baseline parameters between prior pancreatectomy and the inoperable group. On-table adaptive replanning was performed for 100% of the fractions. No patient reported grade ≥2 acute GI toxicity. All previously irradiated patients reported only low-grade toxicities during RT. A total of 48 patients (88.9%) were available for evaluation. Complete local control was achieved in 21.7% (10 patients) for a median of 9 months (2.8-28.8); three had later local progression. Eight patients had regional or marginal recurrence. Six- and 12-month OS were 75.0% and 52.1%, respectively. Apart from mild diarrhea 1-3 months after SMART and general fatigue, there were no significant differences in toxicity and outcomes between post-pancreatectomy and inoperable groups. Conclusion: SMART allows safe delivery of an ablative dose of radiotherapy, with minimal treatment-related toxicity, even in previously resected or irradiated patients. In this real-world cohort, local control with complete response was achieved by 20% of the patients. Further studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcome and late toxicity.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: In our department, for high dose-per-fraction treatments such as stereotactic body radiation therapy, we require a physician to perform the pretreatment on-board imaging match. The purpose of this study was to determine whether patient-matching positioning performed by radiation therapists (RTTs) is as accurate as that performed by physicians. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixteen RTTs and 5 physicians participated in this study. Data were collected from 113 patients, totaling 324 measurements. A total of 60 patients were treated for bone lesions and 53 for soft-tissue lesions, such as lung and liver. Matching was performed using kV-kV imaging for bones and cone beam computed tomography for soft tissue. All treatments were delivered on Varian linear accelerators. The initial match was performed by the RTTs, and the shifts were noted. Subsequently, the match was reset, and the physician performed an independent match blinded to the RTT match. Physician shifts were applied for treatment. We used the Wilcoxon rank sum test to determine the statistical significance between RTT and physician shifts. RESULTS: The differences in patient shifts between physicians and RTTs were calculated in 3 translational 1 one rotational axis. The average vector shift was 0.88 ± 0.57 cm versus 0.91 ± 0.57 cm for RTTs versus physicians, respectively. Neither the average vector nor the individual axis shifts were statistically significantly different (P > .2). There was no significant difference when testing for bony or soft lesion matches separately. CONCLUSIONS: RTT on-board imaging matching is as accurate as physician matching for both bone and soft tissue lesions. On the basis of these results, RTTs are as qualified as physicians to perform a pretreatment match. Thus, it may be feasible for the RTTs to perform the match and the physician to review it offline after treatment without being present at the machine during treatment. Our results show that this approach does not compromise patient safety.
