Stereotactic MR-Guided Radiotherapy for Pancreatic Tumors: Dosimetric Benefit of Adaptation and First Clinical Results in a Prospective Registry Study.

Introduction: Stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy (SMART) is an attractive modality of radiotherapy for pancreatic tumors. The objectives of this prospective registry study were to report the dosimetric benefits of daily adaptation of SMART and the first clinical results in pancreatic tumors. Materials and Methods: All patients treated in our center with SMART for a pancreatic tumor were included. Patients were planned for five daily-adapted fractions on consecutive days. Endpoints were acute toxicities, late toxicities, impact of adaptive treatment on target volume coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing, local control (LC) rate, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Thirty consecutive patients were included between October 2019 and April 2021. The median dose prescription was 50 Gy. No patient presented grade > 2 acute toxicities. The most frequent grade 1-2 toxicities were asthenia (40%), abdominal pain (40%), and nausea (43%). Daily adaptation significantly improved planning target volume (PTV) and gross tumor volume (GTV) coverage and OAR sparing. With a median follow-up of 9.7 months, the median OS, 6-month OS, and 1-year OS were 14.1 months, 89% (95% CI: 70%-96%), and 75% (95% CI: 51%-88%), respectively, from SMART completion. LC at 6 months and 1 year was respectively 97% (95% CI: 79-99.5%) and 86% (95% CI: 61%-95%). There were no grade > 2 late toxicities. With a median follow-up of 10.64 months, locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) patients (22 patients) had a median OS, 6-month OS, and 1-year OS from SMART completion of 14.1 months, 76% (95% CI: 51%-89%), and 70% (95% CI: 45%-85%), respectively. Nine patients underwent surgical resection (42.1% of patients with initial LAPC and 33.3% of patients with BRPC), with negative margins (R0). Resected patients had a significantly better OS as compared to unresected patients (p = 0.0219, hazard ratio (HR) = 5.78 (95% CI: 1.29-25.9)). Conclusion: SMART for pancreatic tumors is feasible without limiting toxicities. Daily adaptation demonstrated a benefit for tumor coverage and OAR sparing. The severity of observed acute and late toxicities was low. OS and LC rates were promising. SMART achieved a high secondary resection rate in LAPC patients. Surgery after SMART seemed to be feasible and might increase OS in these patients.

Tracking, gating, free-breathing, which technique to use for lung stereotactic treatments? A dosimetric comparison.

BACKGROUND: The management of breath-induced tumor motion is a major challenge for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Three techniques are currently available for these treatments: tracking (T), gating (G) and free-breathing (FB). AIM: To evaluate the dosimetric differences between these three treatment techniques for lung SBRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pretreatment 4DCT data were acquired for 10 patients and sorted into 10 phases of a breathing cycle, such as 0% and 50% phases defined respectively as the inhalation and exhalation maximum. GTVph, PTVph (=GTVph + 3 mm) and the ipsilateral lung were contoured on each phase.For the tracking technique, 9 fixed fields were adjusted to each PTVph for the 10 phases. The gating technique was studied with 3 exhalation phases (40%, 50% and 60%). For the free-breathing technique, ITVFB was created from a sum of all GTVph and a 3 mm margin was added to define a PTVFB. Fields were adjusted to PTVFB and dose distributions were calculated on the average intensity projection (AIP) CT. Then, the beam arrangement with the same monitor units was planned on each CT phase.The 3 modalities were evaluated using DVHs of each GTVph, the homogeneity index and the volume of the ipsilateral lung receiving 20 Gy (V 20Gy). RESULTS: The FB system improved the target coverage by increasing D mean (75.87(T)-76.08(G)-77.49(FB)Gy). Target coverage was slightly more homogeneous, too (HI: 0.17(T and G)-0.15(FB)). But the lung was better protected with the tracking system (V 20Gy: 3.82(T)-4.96(G)-6.34(FB)%). CONCLUSIONS: Every technique provides plans with a good target coverage and lung protection. While irradiation with free-breathing increases doses to GTV, irradiation with the tracking technique spares better the lung but can dramatically increase the treatment complexity.

Comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and dynamic conformal arc treatment planning for cranial stereotactic radiosurgery.

The aim was to analyze arc therapy techniques according to the number and position of the brain lesions reported by comparing dynamic noncoplanar conformal arcs (DCA), two coplanar full arcs (RAC) with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), multiple noncoplanar partial arcs with VMAT (RANC), and two full arcs with VMAT and 10° table rotation (RAT). Patients with a single lesion (n= 10), multiple lesions (n = 10) or a single lesion close to organs at risk (n = 5) and previously treated with DCA were selected. For each patient, the DCA treatment was replanned with all VMAT techniques. All DCA plans were compared with VMAT plans and evaluated in regard to the different quality indices and dosimetric parameters. For single lesion, homogeneity index (HI) better results were found for the RANC technique (0.17 ± 0.05) compared with DCA procedure (0.27± 0.05). Concerning conformity index (CI), the RAT technique gave higher and better values (0.85 ± 0.04) compared with those obtained with the DCA technique (0.77 ± 0.05). DCA improved healthy brain protection (8.35 ± 5.61 cc vs. 10.52 ± 6.40 cc for RANC) and reduced monitor unit numbers (3046 ± 374 MU vs. 4651 ± 736 for RANC), even if global room occupation was higher. For multiple lesions, VMAT techniques provided better HI (0.16) than DCA (0.24 ± 0.07). The CI was improved with RAT (0.8 ± 0.08 for RAT vs. 0.71 ± 0.08 for DCA). The V10Gy healthy brain was better protected with DCA (9.27 ± 4.57 cc). Regarding the MU numbers: RANC < RAT< RAC < DCA. For a single lesion close to OAR, RAT achieved high degrees of homogeneity (0.27 ± 0.03 vs. 0.53 ± 0.2 for DCA) and conformity (0.72± 0.06vs. 0.56 ± 0.13 for DCA) while sparing organs at risk (Dmax = 12.36 ± 1.05Gyvs. 14.12 ± 0.59 Gy for DCA, and Dmean = 3.96 ± 3.57Gyvs. 4.72 ± 3.28Gy for DCA). On the other hand, MU numbers were lower with DCA (2254 ± 190 MUvs. 3438 ± 457 MU for RANC) even if overall time was inferior with RAC. For a single lesion, DCA provide better plan considering low doses to healthy brain even if quality indexes are better for the others techniques. For multiple lesions, RANC seems to be the best compromise, due to the ability to deliver a good conformity and homogeneity plan while sparing healthy brain tissue. For a single lesion close to organs at risk, RAT is the most appropriate technique.