Atypical meningioma: patterns of postradiotherapy recurrences.

PURPOSE: There is no consensus on a target definition and optimal dose in radiotherapy for atypical meningioma (AM). Insight into the postradiotherapy recurrence pattern is needed for optimal target definition and local control. The objective was to describe the patterns of recurrence after postoperative or salvage radiotherapy in patients with AM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients treated for intracranial AM with (fractionated) stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT). The relationships between postradiotherapy recurrences, the dura and irradiated volume were established. Moreover, the dose prescriptions and fractionation schedules were converted to a reference to determine the relationship between dose and local control. RESULTS: The included patients received 57 (F)SRT treatments and 73 surgeries. Recurrent disease was found in 21 of 29 patients (72%) and after 39 of 57 (F)SRTs (68%). The median interval to first recurrence was 39.7 months. Of these recurrences, 25 were in-field, 11 were marginal, and 3 were out of field. In-field recurrence rates after biological equivalent doses < 60 Gy or ≥ 60 Gy were 50% and 21%. All recurrences were connected to the dura. Of the marginal recurrences, 64% were within 2 cm and 91% were within 3 cm of the volume receiving the prescribed dose. CONCLUSIONS: AM frequently recurs after radiotherapy. All postradiotherapy recurrences were connected to the dura. Most marginal recurrences occurred within 3 cm of the irradiated abnormal dura. The lowest rate of in-field recurrences occurred after equivalent doses of least 60 Gy in 2 Gy fractions suggesting a dose-effect relationship.

Lower doses to hippocampi and other brain structures for skull-base meningiomas with intensity modulated proton therapy compared to photon therapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiotherapy of skull-base meningiomas is challenging due to the close proximity of multiple sensitive organs at risk (OARs). This study systematically compared intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) based on automated treatment planning. Differences in OARs sparing, with specific focus on the hippocampi, and low-dose delivery were quantified. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients, target diameter >3 cm, were included. Automated plan generation was used to calculate a VMAT plan with three non-coplanar arcs, an IMRT plan with nine non-coplanar beams with optimized gantry and couch angles, and an IMPT plan with three patient-specific selected non-coplanar beams. A prescription dose of 50.4 GyRBE in 28 fractions was used. The same set of constraints and prioritized objectives was used. All plans were rescaled to the same target coverage. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess the statistical significance of differences in OAR dose parameters between planning techniques. RESULTS: Compared to VMAT and IMRT, IMPT significantly improved dose conformity to the target volume. Consequently, large dose reductions in OARs were observed. With respect to VMAT, the mean dose and D40% in the bilateral hippocampus were on average reduced by 48% and 74%, respectively (p ≤ 0.005). With IMPT, the mean dose in the normal brain and volumes receiving 20-30 Gy were up to 47% lower (p ≤ 0.01). When comparing IMPT and IMRT, even larger dose differences in those OARs were observed. CONCLUSION: For skull-base meningiomas IMPT allows for a considerable dose reduction in the hippocampi, normal brain and other OARs compared to both non-coplanar VMAT and IMRT, which may lead to a clinically relevant reduction of late neurocognitive side effects.

The influence of a six degrees of freedom couch and an individual head support in patient positioning in radiotherapy of head and neck cancer.

Reproducible patient positioning is important in radiotherapy (RT) of head-and-neck cancer. We therefore compared set-up errors in head-and-neck RT resulting from three different patient positioning systems. Patients were either treated with a standard head support (SHS) and conventional treatment couch (SHS-3, n = 10), a SHS and rotational couch (SHS-6, n = 10), or an individual head support (IHS) and rotational couch (IHS-6, n = 10). Interfraction mean translation vector lenghts were significantly lower for IHS-6 compared to SHS-3 (0.8 ±â€¯0.3 mm vs. 1.4 ±â€¯0.7 mm, P = 0.001). Intrafraction displacement was comparable among cohorts. This study showed that the use of a six degrees of freedom couch combined with an IHS in head-and-neck RT resulted in better interfraction reproducibility.

Stereotactic radiotherapy of intracranial tumors: a comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and dynamic conformal arc.

PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and dynamic conformal arc (DCA) are two state-of-the-art techniques for linac-based stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) using the micromultileaf collimator. The purpose of this planning study is to examine the relative merits of these techniques in the treatment of intracranial tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SRT treatment plans were made for 25 patients with a glioma or meningioma. For all patients, we made an IMRT and a DCA plan. Plans were evaluated using: target coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), doses in critical structures, number of monitor units needed, and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) in planning target volume (PTV) and critical structures. RESULTS: In the overall comparison of both techniques, we found adequate target coverage in all cases; a better mean CI with IMRT in concave tumors (p = 0.027); a better mean HI with DCA in meningiomas, complex tumors, and small (< 92 mL) tumors (p = 0.000, p = 0.005, and p = 0.005, respectively); and a higher EUD in the PTV with DCA in convex tumors (gliomas) and large tumors (p = 0.000 and p = 0.003, respectively). In all patients, significantly more monitor units were needed with IMRT. The results of the overall comparison did not enable us to predict the preference for one of the techniques in individual patients. The DCA plan was acceptable in 23 patients and the IMRT plan in 19 patients. DCA was preferred in 18 of 25 patients. CONCLUSIONS: DCA is our preferred SRT technique for most intracranial tumors. Tumor type, size, or shape do not predict a preference for DCA or IMRT.