Very high-energy electron therapy as light-particle alternative to transmission proton FLASH therapy - An evaluation of dosimetric performances.

PURPOSE: Clinical translation of FLASH-radiotherapy (RT) to deep-seated tumours is still a technological challenge. One proposed solution consists of using ultra-high dose rate transmission proton (TP) beams of about 200-250 MeV to irradiate the tumour with the flat entrance of the proton depth-dose profile. This work evaluates the dosimetric performance of very high-energy electron (VHEE)-based RT (50-250 MeV) as a potential alternative to TP-based RT for the clinical transfer of the FLASH effect. METHODS: Basic physics characteristics of VHEE and TP beams were compared utilizing Monte Carlo simulations in water. A VHEE-enabled research treatment planning system was used to evaluate the plan quality achievable with VHEE beams of different energies, compared to 250 MeV TP beams for a glioblastoma, an oesophagus, and a prostate cancer case. RESULTS: Like TP, VHEE above 100 MeV can treat targets with roughly flat (within ± 20 %) depth-dose distributions. The achievable dosimetric target conformity and adjacent organs-at-risk (OAR) sparing is consequently driven for both modalities by their lateral beam penumbrae. Electron beams of 400[500] MeV match the penumbra of 200[250] MeV TP beams and penumbra is increased for lower electron energies. For the investigated patient cases, VHEE plans with energies of 150 MeV and above achieved a dosimetric plan quality comparable to that of 250 MeV TP plans. For the glioblastoma and the oesophagus case, although having a decreased conformity, even 100 MeV VHEE plans provided a similar target coverage and OAR sparing compared to TP. CONCLUSIONS: VHEE-based FLASH-RT using sufficiently high beam energies may provide a lighter-particle alternative to TP-based FLASH-RT with comparable dosimetric plan quality.

3D-conformal very-high energy electron therapy as candidate modality for FLASH-RT: A treatment planning study for glioblastoma and lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pre-clinical ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) electron irradiations on time scales of 100 ms have demonstrated a remarkable sparing of brain and lung tissues while retaining tumor efficacy when compared to conventional dose rate irradiations. While clinically-used gantries and intensity modulation techniques are too slow to match such time scales, novel very-high energy electron (VHEE, 50-250 MeV) radiotherapy (RT) devices using 3D-conformed broad VHEE beams are designed to deliver UHDR treatments that fulfill these timing requirements. PURPOSE: To assess the dosimetric plan quality obtained using VHEE-based 3D-conformal RT (3D-CRT) for treatments of glioblastoma and lung cancer patients and compare the resulting treatment plans to those delivered by standard-of-care intensity modulated photon RT (IMRT) techniques. METHODS: Seven glioblastoma patients and seven lung cancer patients were planned with VHEE-based 3D-CRT using 3 to 16 coplanar beams with equidistant angular spacing and energies of 100 and 200 MeV using a forward planning approach. Dose distributions, dose-volume histograms, coverage (V95% ) and homogeneity (HI98% ) for the planning target volume (PTV), as well as near-maximum doses (D2% ) and mean doses (Dmean ) for organs-at-risk (OAR) were evaluated and compared to clinical IMRT plans. RESULTS: Mean differences of V95% and HI98% of all VHEE plans were within 2% or better of the IMRT reference plans. Glioblastoma plan dose metrics obtained with VHEE configurations of 200 MeV and 3-16 beams were either not significantly different or were significantly improved compared to the clinical IMRT reference plans. All OAR plan dose metrics evaluated for VHEE plans created using 5 beams of 100 MeV were either not significantly different or within 3% on average, except for Dmean for the body, Dmean for the brain, D2% for the brain stem, and D2% for the chiasm, which were significantly increased by 1, 2, 6, and 8 Gy, respectively (however below clinical constraints). Similarly, the dose metrics for lung cancer patients were also either not significantly different or were significantly improved compared to the reference plans for VHEE configurations with 200 MeV and 5 to 16 beams with the exception of D2% and Dmean to the spinal canal (however below clinical constraints). For the lung cancer cases, the VHEE configurations using 100 MeV or only 3 beams resulted in significantly worse dose metrics for some OAR. Differences in dose metrics were, however, strongly patient-specific and similar for some patient cases. CONCLUSIONS: VHEE-based 3D-CRT may deliver conformal treatments to simple, mostly convex target shapes in the brain and the thorax with a limited number of critical adjacent OAR using a limited number of beams (as low as 3 to 7). Using such treatment techniques, a dosimetric plan quality comparable to that of standard-of-care IMRT can be achieved. Hence, from a treatment planning perspective, 3D-conformal UHDR VHEE treatments delivered on time scales of 100 ms represent a promising candidate technique for the clinical transfer of the FLASH effect.

Effect of Conventional and Ultrahigh Dose Rate FLASH Irradiations on Preclinical Tumor Models: A Systematic Analysis.

PURPOSE: Compared with conventional dose rate irradiation (CONV), ultrahigh dose rate irradiation (UHDR) has shown superior normal tissue sparing. However, a clinically relevant widening of the therapeutic window by UHDR, termed "FLASH effect," also depends on the tumor toxicity obtained by UHDR. Based on a combined analysis of published literature, the current study examined the hypothesis of tumor isoefficacy for UHDR versus CONV and aimed to identify potential knowledge gaps to inspire future in vivo studies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic literature search identified publications assessing in vivo tumor responses comparing UHDR and CONV. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed, including combined analyses of tumor growth and survival data. RESULTS: We identified 66 data sets from 15 publications that compared UHDR and CONV for tumor efficacy. The median number of animals per group was 9 (range 3-15) and the median follow-up period was 30.5 days (range 11-230) after the first irradiation. Tumor growth assays were the predominant model used. Combined statistical analyses of tumor growth and survival data are consistent with UHDR isoefficacy compared with CONV. Only 1 study determined tumor-controlling dose (TCD50) and reported statistically nonsignificant differences. CONCLUSIONS: The combined quantitative analyses of tumor responses support the assumption of UHDR isoefficacy compared with CONV. However, the comparisons are primarily based on heterogeneous tumor growth assays with limited numbers of animals and short follow-up, and most studies do not assess long-term tumor control probability. Therefore, the assays may be insensitive in resolving smaller response differences, such as responses of radioresistant tumor subclones. Hence, tumor cure experiments, including additional TCD50 experiments, are needed to confirm the assumption of isoeffectiveness in curative settings.

FLASHlab@PITZ: New R&D platform with unique capabilities for electron FLASH and VHEE radiation therapy and radiation biology under preparation at PITZ.

At the Photo Injector Test facility at DESY in Zeuthen (PITZ), an R&D platform for electron FLASH and very high energy electron radiation therapy and radiation biology is being prepared (FLASHlab@PITZ). The beam parameters available at PITZ are worldwide unique. They are based on experiences from 20 + years of developing high brightness beam sources and an ultra-intensive THz light source demonstrator for ps scale electron bunches with up to 5 nC bunch charge at MHz repetition rate in bunch trains of up to 1 ms length, currently 22 MeV (upgrade to 250 MeV planned). Individual bunches can provide peak dose rates up to 1014 Gy/s, and 10 Gy can be delivered within picoseconds. Upon demand, each bunch of the bunch train can be guided to a different transverse location, so that either a "painting" with micro beams (comparable to pencil beam scanning in proton therapy) or a cumulative increase of absorbed dose, using a wide beam distribution, can be realized at the tumor. Full tumor treatment can hence be completed within 1 ms, mitigating organ movement issues. With extremely flexible beam manipulation capabilities, FLASHlab@PITZ will cover the current parameter range of successfully demonstrated FLASH effects and extend the parameter range towards yet unexploited short treatment times and high dose rates. A summary of the plans for FLASHlab@PITZ and the status of its realization will be presented.

Design and validation of a dosimetric comparison scheme tailored for ultra-high dose-rate electron beams to support multicenter FLASH preclinical studies.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We describe a multicenter cross validation of ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) (>= 40 Gy/s) irradiation in order to bring a dosimetric consensus in absorbed dose to water. UHDR refers to dose rates over 100-1000 times those of conventional clinical beams. UHDR irradiations have been a topic of intense investigation as they have been reported to induce the FLASH effect in which normal tissues exhibit reduced toxicity relative to conventional dose rates. The need to establish optimal beam parameters capable of achieving the in vivo FLASH effect has become paramount. It is therefore necessary to validate and replicate dosimetry across multiple sites conducting UHDR studies with distinct beam configurations and experimental set-ups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a custom cuboid phantom with a cylindrical cavity (5 mm diameter by 10.4 mm length) designed to contain three type of dosimeters (thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), alanine pellets, and Gafchromic films), irradiations were conducted at expected doses of 7.5 to 16 Gy delivered at UHDR or conventional dose rates using various electron beams at the Radiation Oncology Departments of the CHUV in Lausanne, Switzerland and Stanford University, CA. RESULTS: Data obtained between replicate experiments for all dosimeters were in excellent agreement (±3%). In general, films and TLDs were in closer agreement with each other, while alanine provided the closest match between the expected and measured dose, with certain caveats related to absolute reference dose. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, successful cross-validation of different electron beams operating under different energies and configurations lays the foundation for establishing dosimetric consensus for UHDR irradiation studies, and, if widely implemented, decrease uncertainty between different sites investigating the mechanistic basis of the FLASH effect.

The minimal FLASH sparing effect needed to compensate the increase of radiobiological damage due to hypofractionation for late-reacting tissues.

PURPOSE: Normal tissue (NT) sparing by ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) irradiations compared to conventional dose rate (CONV) irradiations while being isotoxic to the tumor has been termed "FLASH effect" and has been observed when large doses per fraction (d ≳ 5 Gy) have been delivered. Since hypofractionated treatment schedules are known to increase toxicities of late-reacting tissues compared to normofractionated schedules for many clinical scenarios at CONV dose rates, we developed a formalism based on the biologically effective dose (BED) to assess the minimum magnitude of the FLASH effect needed to compensate the loss of late-reacting NT sparing when reducing the number of fractions compared to a normofractionated CONV treatment schedule while remaining isoeffective to the tumor. METHODS: By requiring the same BED for the tumor, we derived the "break-even NT sparing weighting factor" WBE for the linear-quadratic (LQ) and LQ-linear (LQ-L) models for an NT region irradiated at a relative dose r (relative to the prescribed dose per fraction d to the tumor). WBE was evaluated numerically for multiple values of d and r, and for different tumor and NT α/ß-ratios. WBE was compared against currently available experimental data on the magnitude of the NT sparing provided by the FLASH effect for single fraction doses. RESULTS: For many clinically relevant scenarios, WBE decreases steeply initially for d > 2 Gy for late-reacting tissues with (α/ß)NT ≈ 3 Gy, implying that a significant NT sparing by the FLASH effect (between 15% and 30%) is required to counteract the increased radiobiological damage experienced by late-reacting NT for hypofractionated treatments with d < 10 Gy compared to normofractionated treatments that are equieffective to the tumor. When using the LQ model with generic α/ß-ratios for tumor and late-reacting NT of (α/ß)T  = 10 Gy and (α/ß)NT  = 3 Gy, respectively, most currently available experimental evidence about the magnitude of NT sparing by the FLASH effect suggests no net NT sparing benefit for hypofractionated FLASH radiotherapy (RT) in the high-dose region when compared with WBE . Instead, clinical indications with more similar α/ß-ratios of the tumor and dose-limiting NT toxicities [i.e., (α/ß)T  ≈ (α/ß)NT ], such as prostate treatments, are generally less penalized by hypofractionated treatments and need consequently smaller magnitudes of NT sparing by the FLASH effect to achieve a net benefit. For strongly hypofractionated treatments (>10-15 Gy/fraction), the LQ-L model predicts, unlike the LQ model, a larger WBE suggesting a possible benefit of strongly hypofractionated FLASH RT, even for generic α/ß-ratios of (α/ß)T  = 10 Gy and (α/ß)NT  = 3 Gy. However, knowledge on the isoeffect scaling for high doses per fraction (≳10 Gy/fraction) and its modeling is currently limited and impedes accurate and reliable predictions for such strongly hypofractionated treatments. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a formalism that quantifies the minimal NT sparing by the FLASH effect needed to compensate for hypofractionation, based on the LQ and LQ-L models. For a given hypofractionated UHDR treatment scenario and magnitude of the FLASH effect, the formalism predicts if a net NT sparing benefit is expected compared to a respective normofractionated CONV treatment.

Normal Tissue Sparing by FLASH as a Function of Single-Fraction Dose: A Quantitative Analysis.

PURPOSE: The FLASH effect designates normal tissue sparing by ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) compared with conventional dose rate irradiation without compromising tumor control. Understanding the magnitude of this effect and its dependency on dose are essential requirements for an optimized clinical translation of FLASH radiation therapy. In this context, we evaluated available experimental data on the magnitudes of normal tissue sparing provided by the FLASH effect as a function of dose, and followed a phenomenological data-driven approach for its parameterization. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We gathered available in vivo data of normal tissue sparing of conventional (CONV) versus UHDR single-fraction doses and converted these to a common scale using isoeffect dose ratios, hereafter referred to as FLASH-modifying factors (FMF= (DCONV/DUHDR)|isoeffect). We then evaluated the suitability of a piecewise linear function with 2 pieces to parametrize FMF × DUHDR as a function of dose DUHDR. RESULTS: We found that the magnitude of FMF generally decreases (ie, sparing increases) as a function of single-fraction dose, and that individual data series can be described by the piecewise linear function. The sparing magnitude appears organ-specific, and pooled skin-reaction data followed a consistent trend as a function of dose. Average FMF values and their standard deviations were 0.95 ± 0.11 for all data <10 Gy, 0.92 ± 0.06 for mouse gut data between 10 and 25 Gy, and 0.96 ± 0.07 and 0.71 ± 0.06 for mammalian skin-reaction data between 10 and 25 Gy and >25 Gy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of normal tissue sparing by FLASH increases with dose and is dependent on the irradiated tissue. A piecewise linear function can parameterize currently available individual data series.

Technical note: Validation of an ultrahigh dose rate pulsed electron beam monitoring system using a current transformer for FLASH preclinical studies.

PURPOSE: The Oriatron eRT6 is a linear accelerator (linac) used in FLASH preclinical studies able to reach dose rates ranging from conventional (CONV) up to ultrahigh (UHDR). This work describes the implementation of commercially available beam current transformers (BCTs) as online monitoring tools compatible with CONV and UHDR irradiations for preclinical FLASH studies. METHODS: Two BCTs were used to measure the output of the Oriatron eRT6 linac. First, the correspondence between the set nominal beam parameters and those measured by the BCTs was checked. Then, we established the relationship between the total exit charge (measured by BCTs) and the absorbed dose to water. The influence of the pulse width (PW) and the pulse repetition frequency (PRF) at UHDR was characterized, as well as the short- and long-term stabilities of the relationship between the exit charge and the dose at CONV and UHDR. RESULTS: The BCTs were able to determine consistently the number of pulses, PW, and PRF. For fixed PW and pulse height, the exit charge measured from BCTs was correlated with the dose, and linear relationships were found with uncertainties of 0.5 % and 3 % in CONV and UHDR mode, respectively. Short- and long-term stabilities of the dose-to-charge ratio were below 1.6 %. CONCLUSIONS: We implemented commercially available BCTs and demonstrated their ability to act as online beam monitoring systems to support FLASH preclinical studies with CONV and UHDR irradiations. The implemented BCTs support dosimetric measurements, highlight variations among multiple measurements in a row, enable monitoring of the physics parameters used for irradiation, and are an important step for the safety of the clinical translation of FLASH radiation therapy.

Comparison of ultra-high versus conventional dose rate radiotherapy in a patient with cutaneous lymphoma.

A patient with a cutaneous lymphoma was treated on the same day for 2 distinct tumors using a 15 Gy single electron dose given in a dose rate of 0.08 Gy/second versus 166 Gy/second. Comparing the two treatments, there was no difference for acute reactions, late effects at 2 years and tumor control.

Technical Note: Break-even dose level for hypofractionated treatment schedules.

PURPOSE: To derive the isodose line R relative to the prescription dose below which irradiated normal tissue (NT) regions benefit from a hypofractionated schedule with an isoeffective dose to the tumor. To apply the formalism to clinical case examples. METHODS: From the standard biologically effective dose (BED) equation based on the linear-quadratic (LQ) model, the BED of an NT that receives a relative proportion r of the prescribed dose per fraction for a given α/ß-ratio of the tumor, (α/ß)T , and NT, (α/ß)NT , is derived for different treatment schedules while keeping the BED to the tumor constant. Based on this, the "break-even" isodose line R is then derived. The BED of NT regions that receive doses below R decreases for more hypofractionated treatment schedules, and hence a lower risk for NT injury is predicted in these regions. To assess the impact of a linear behavior of BED for high doses per fraction (>6 Gy), we evaluated BED also using the LQ-linear (LQ-L) model. RESULTS: The formalism provides the equations to derive the BED of an NT as function of dose per fraction for an isoeffective dose to the tumor and the corresponding break-even isodose line R. For generic α/ß-ratios of (α/ß)T  = 10 Gy and (α/ß)NT  = 3 Gy and homogeneous dose in the target, R is 30%. R is doubling for stereotactic treatments for which tumor control correlates with the maximum dose of 100% instead of the encompassing isodose line of 50%. When using the LQ-L model, the notion of a break-even dose level R remains valid up to about 20 Gy per fraction for generic α/ß-ratios and D T = 2 ( α / ß ) . CONCLUSIONS: The formalism may be used to estimate below which relative isodose line R there will be a differential sparing of NT when increasing hypofractionation. More generally, it allows to assess changes of the therapeutic index for sets of isoeffective treatment schedules at different relative dose levels compared to a reference schedule in a compact manner.

Implementation and validation of a beam-current transformer on a medical pulsed electron beam LINAC for FLASH-RT beam monitoring.

PURPOSE: To implement and validate a beam current transformer as a passive monitoring device on a pulsed electron beam medical linear accelerator (LINAC) for ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) irradiations in the operational range of at least 3 Gy to improve dosimetric procedures currently in use for FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH-RT) studies. METHODS: Two beam current transformers (BCTs) were placed at the exit of a medical LINAC capable of UHDR irradiations. The BCTs were validated as monitoring devices by verifying beam parameters consistency between nominal values and measured values, determining the relationship between the charge measured and the absorbed dose, and checking the short- and long-term stability of the charge-absorbed dose ratio. RESULTS: The beam parameters measured by the BCTs coincide with the nominal values. The charge-dose relationship was found to be linear and independent of pulse width and frequency. Short- and long-term stabilities were measured to be within acceptable limits. CONCLUSIONS: The BCTs were implemented and validated on a pulsed electron beam medical LINAC, thus improving current dosimetric procedures and allowing for a more complete analysis of beam characteristics. BCTs were shown to be a valid method for beam monitoring for UHDR (and therefore FLASH) experiments.

Commissioning of an ultra-high dose rate pulsed electron beam medical LINAC for FLASH RT preclinical animal experiments and future clinical human protocols.

PURPOSE: To present the acceptance and the commissioning, to define the reference dose, and to prepare the reference data for a quality assessment (QA) program of an ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) electron device in order to validate it for preclinical animal FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH RT) experiments and for FLASH RT clinical human protocols. METHODS: The Mobetron® device was evaluated with electron beams of 9 MeV in conventional (CONV) mode and of 6 and 9 MeV in UHDR mode (nominal energy). The acceptance was performed according to the acceptance protocol of the company. The commissioning consisted of determining the short- and long-term stability of the device, the measurement of percent depth dose curves (PDDs) and profiles at two different positions (with two different dose per pulse regimen) and for different collimator sizes, and the evaluation of the variability of these parameters when changing the pulse width and pulse repetition frequency. Measurements were performed using a redundant and validated dosimetric strategy with alanine and radiochromic films, as well as Advanced Markus ionization chamber for some measurements. RESULTS: The acceptance tests were all within the tolerances of the company's acceptance protocol. The linearity with pulse width was within 1.5% in all cases. The pulse repetition frequency did not affect the delivered dose more than 2% in all cases but 90 Hz, for which the larger difference was 3.8%. The reference dosimetry showed a good agreement within the alanine and films with variations of 2.2% or less. The short-term (resp. long-term) stability was less than 1.0% (resp. 1.8%) and was the same in both CONV and UHDR modes. PDDs, profiles, and reference dosimetry were measured at two positions, providing data for two specific dose rates (about 9 Gy/pulse and 3 Gy/pulse). Maximal beam size was 4 and 6 cm at 90% isodose in the two positions tested. There was no difference between CONV and UHDR mode in the beam characteristics tested. CONCLUSIONS: The device is commissioned for FLASH RT preclinical biological experiments as well as FLASH RT clinical human protocols.

Characteristics of very high-energy electron beams for the irradiation of deep-seated targets.

PURPOSE: Driven by advances in accelerator technology and the potential of exploiting the FLASH effect for the treatment of deep-seated targets (>5 cm), there is an active interest in the construction of devices to deliver very high-energy electron (VHEE) beams for radiation therapy. The application of novel VHEE devices, however, requires an assessment of the tradeoffs between the different beam parameter choices including beam energies, beam divergences, and maximal field sizes. This study systematically examines the dosimetric beam properties of VHEE beams, determining their clinical usefulness while marking their limits of applications for different beam configurations. METHODS: We performed Monte Carlo simulations of the dose distributions of electron beams for different energies (25-250 MeV), source-to-surface distances (SSD) (50 cm, 100 cm, parallel), and field sizes (2 cm2  × 2 cm2 to 15 cm2  × 15 cm2 ) in water using a research version of the RayStation treatment planning system (RaySearch Labs 9A IONPG). The beam was simulated using a monoenergetic point source and perfect collimation. Central axis percentage depth dose (PDD) and transverse dose profiles at multiple depths were evaluated and compared to those of MV photon beams. Profile characteristics including therapeutic range (TR) at 90%, proximal fall-off (PFO) at 90%, lateral penumbra (LP) at 90%-10%, and field width (FW) at 90% were obtained. RESULTS: Very high-energy electrons beams with SSD 100 cm and parallel beams (infinite SSD) exhibit a linear to near-linear increase of TR as a function of energy in the simulated energy range and reach values well beyond the typical depths of lesions encountered in clinics (<20 cm). Their TR show a marked field size dependence only for field sizes <10 cm2  × 10 cm2 . For VHEE beams with SSD 50 cm, TR are largely reduced (4-8 cm). For beam energies >150 MeV with large SSD (>100 cm), for many configurations, there is no substantial difference in PDD when adding an opposed beam. This may potentially reduce the number of VHEE beams needed for treatment by a factor of two compared to a treatment using lower energies and lower SSD. In order to cover deep-seated targets homogeneously, VHEE devices with a parallel beam must provide a maximum field size up to several centimeters larger than the tumor size. For the investigated diverging beams, there is not such a significant field width reduction with depth for larger fields as it is compensated by divergence. Penumbrae of VHEE beams are smaller than those of clinical MV photon beams for lower depths (<5 cm) but increase quickly for larger depths. There is only a relatively small dependence of penumbra on the SSD of the beam. CONCLUSIONS: The findings presented in this study assess the performance of VHEE beams and offer a first estimate of treatment indications and tradeoffs for a given design of a VHEE device. SSD >100 cm results in clinically more favorable PDD. Beam energies of 100 MeV and above are needed to cover common tumors (5-15 cm in-depth) conformally. Higher energies provide an additional benefit specifically for small and deep-seated lesions due to their reduced lateral penumbrae.

Hypofractionated FLASH-RT as an Effective Treatment against Glioblastoma that Reduces Neurocognitive Side Effects in Mice.

PURPOSE: Recent data have shown that single-fraction irradiation delivered to the whole brain in less than tenths of a second using FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH-RT), does not elicit neurocognitive deficits in mice. This observation has important clinical implications for the management of invasive and treatment-resistant brain tumors that involves relatively large irradiation volumes with high cytotoxic doses. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Therefore, we aimed at simultaneously investigating the antitumor efficacy and neuroprotective benefits of FLASH-RT 1-month after exposure, using a well-characterized murine orthotopic glioblastoma model. As fractionated regimens of radiotherapy are the standard of care for glioblastoma treatment, we incorporated dose fractionation to simultaneously validate the neuroprotective effects and optimized tumor treatments with FLASH-RT. RESULTS: The capability of FLASH-RT to minimize the induction of radiation-induced brain toxicities has been attributed to the reduction of reactive oxygen species, casting some concern that this might translate to a possible loss of antitumor efficacy. Our study shows that FLASH and CONV-RT are isoefficient in delaying glioblastoma growth for all tested regimens. Furthermore, only FLASH-RT was found to significantly spare radiation-induced cognitive deficits in learning and memory in tumor-bearing animals after the delivery of large neurotoxic single dose or hypofractionated regimens. CONCLUSIONS: The present results show that FLASH-RT delivered with hypofractionated regimens is able to spare the normal brain from radiation-induced toxicities without compromising tumor cure. This exciting capability provides an initial framework for future clinical applications of FLASH-RT.See related commentary by Huang and Mendonca, p. 662.

Retrospective analysis of the impact of respiratory motion in treatment margins for frameless lung SBRT based on respiratory-correlated CBCT data-sets.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of respiratory motion in the treatment margins for lung SBRT frameless treatments and to validate our treatment margins using 4D CBCT data analysis. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty nine fractions with early stage NSCLC were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were treated in frameless and free breathing conditions. The treatment margins were calculated according to van Herk equation in Mid-Ventilation. For each fraction, three 4D CBCT scans, pre- and postcorrection, and posttreatment, were acquired to assess target baseline shift, target localization accuracy and intra-fraction motion errors. A bootstrap analysis was performed to assess the minimum number of patients required to define treatment margins. RESULTS: The retrospectively calculated target-baseline shift, target localization accuracy and intra-fraction motion errors agreed with the literature. The best tailored margins to our cohort of patients were retrospectively computed and resulted in agreement with already published data. The bootstrap analysis showed that fifteen patients were enough to assess treatment margins. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment margins applied to our patient's cohort resulted in good agreement with the retrospectively calculated margins based on 4D CBCT data. Moreover, the bootstrap analysis revealed to be a promising method to verify the reliability of the applied treatment margins for safe lung SBRT delivery.

Dose indicator for CyberKnife image-guided radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to calculate dose distributions from CyberKnife image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) for brain, H&N, lung, and pelvis treatment regions and use them to extract the corresponding effective dose and estimate-related risk. METHODS: We developed a CyberKnife IGRT kV beam model in a standard treatment planning system and validated it against measurements in heterogeneous phantoms. Five brain, five head and neck, five thorax, and 10 (five male and five female) pelvis patient computed tomographies (CTs) were contoured. The dose distribution resulting from different CyberKnife IGRT protocols was calculated. From them, the effective dose was calculated according to ICRP publication Nr 103, using the average dose to contoured organs. The corresponding risk factors were calculated. Entrance surface dose (ESD) was also calculated and compared with existing data. RESULTS: The maximum effective dose produced by CyberKnife IGRT protocols was 0.8 mSv (brain), 1.9 mSv (H&N), 20.2 (pelvis), and 42.4 mSv (thorax) per fraction for a risk estimate of 0.004% (brain), 0.01% (H&N), 0.1% (pelvis), and 0.2% (thorax). Calculated ESD were compatible with existing data. CONCLUSIONS: Dose calculation models for CyberKnife IGRT kV beams were implemented in a clinical treatment planning system and validated in water and heterogeneous phantoms. We determined the effective dose and the related risk estimate resulting from CyberKnife IGRT protocols for brain, head and neck, thorax, and pelvis cases. The effective doses calculated for CyberKnife IGRT protocols were similar to those obtained for cone beam CT protocols on conventional C-arm linear accelerators, except for extreme irradiation conditions for thorax cases (140 kV X-ray tube tension).

Treatment of a first patient with FLASH-radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: When compared to conventional radiotherapy (RT) in pre-clinical studies, FLASH-RT was shown to reproducibly spare normal tissues, while preserving the anti-tumor activity. This marked increase of the differential effect between normal tissues and tumors prompted its clinical translation. In this context, we present here the treatment of a first patient with FLASH-RT. MATERIAL & METHODS: A 75-year-old patient presented with a multiresistant CD30+ T-cell cutaneous lymphoma disseminated throughout the whole skin surface. Localized skin RT has been previously used over 110 times for various ulcerative and/or painful cutaneous lesions progressing despite systemic treatments. However, the tolerance of these RT was generally poor, and it was hypothesized that FLASH-RT could offer an equivalent tumor control probability, while being less toxic for the skin. This treatment was given to a 3.5-cm diameter skin tumor with a 5.6-MeV linac specifically designed for FLASH-RT. The prescribed dose to the PTV was 15 Gy, in 90 ms. Redundant dosimetric measurements were performed with GafChromic films and alanine, to check the consistency between the prescribed and the delivered doses. RESULTS: At 3 weeks, i.e. at the peak of the reactions, a grade 1 epithelitis (CTCAE v 5.0) along with a transient grade 1 oedema (CTCAE v5.0) in soft tissues surrounding the tumor were observed. Clinical examination was consistent with the optical coherence tomography showing no decrease of the thickness of the epidermis and no disruption at the basal membrane with limited increase of the vascularization. In parallel, the tumor response was rapid, complete, and durable with a short follow-up of 5 months. These observations, both on normal skin and on the tumor, were promising and prompt to further clinical evaluation of FLASH-RT. CONCLUSION: This first FLASH-RT treatment was feasible and safe with a favorable outcome both on normal skin and the tumor.