Baseline Karnofsky performance status is independently predictive of death within 30 days of intracranial radiation therapy completion for metastatic disease.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with brain metastases, palliative radiation therapy (RT) has long been a standard of care for improving quality of life and optimizing intracranial disease control. The duration of time between completion of palliative RT and patient death has rarely been evaluated. METHODS: A compilation of two prospective institutional databases encompassing April 2015 through December 2018 was used to identify patients who received palliative intracranial radiation therapy. A multivariate logistic regression model characterized patients adjusting for age, sex, admission status (inpatient versus outpatient), Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), and radiation therapy indication. RESULTS: 136 consecutive patients received intracranial palliative radiation therapy. Patients with baseline KPS <70 (OR = 2.2; 95%CI = 1.6-3.1; p < 0.0001) were significantly more likely to die within 30 days of treatment. Intracranial palliative radiation therapy was most commonly delivered to provide local control (66% of patients) or alleviate neurologic symptoms (32% of patients), and was most commonly delivered via whole brain radiation therapy in 10 fractions to 30 Gy (38% of patients). Of the 42 patients who died within 30 days of RT, 31 (74%) received at least 10 fractions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that baseline KPS <70 is independently predictive of death within 30 days of palliative intracranial RT, and that a large majority of patients who died within 30 days received at least 10 fractions. These results indicate that for poor performance status patients requiring palliative intracranial radiation, hypofractionated RT courses should be strongly considered.

VMAT partial arc technique decreases dose to organs at risk in whole pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer when compared to full arc VMAT and IMRT.

Whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) can sterilize microscopic lymph node metastases in treatment of prostate cancer. WPRT, compared to prostate only radiotherapy (PORT), is associated with increased acute gastrointestinal, and hematological toxicities. To further explore minimizing normal tissue toxicities associated with WPRT in definitive IMRT for prostate cancer, this planning study compared dosimetric differences between static 9-field-IMRT, full arc VMAT, and mixed partial-full arc VMAT techniques. In this retrospective study, 12 prostate cancer patients who met the criteria for WPRT were randomly selected for this study. The initial volume, PTV46, included the prostate, seminal vesicles, and pelvic nodes with margin and was prescribed to 4600 cGy. The cone-down volume, PTV78, included the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles with margin to a total dose of 7800 cGy. For each CT image set, 3 plans were generated for each of the PTVs: an IMRT plan, a full arc (FA) VMAT plan, and a mixed partial-full arc (PFA) VMAT plan, using 6MV photons energy. According to RTOG protocols none of the plans had a major Conformity Index (CI) violation by any of the 3 planning techniques. PFA plan had the best mean CI index of 1.00 and significantly better than IMRT (p = 0.03) and FA (p = 0.007). For equivalent PTV coverage, the average composite gradient index of the PFA plans was better than the IMRT and the FA plans with values 1.92, 2.03, and 2.01 respectively. The defference was statistically significant between PFA/IMRT and PFA/FA, with p- values of < 0.001. The IMRT plans and the PFA plans provided very similar doses to the rectum, bladder, sigmoid colon, and femoral heads, which were lower than the dose in the FA plans. There was a significant decrease in the mean dose to the rectum from 4524 cGy with the FA to 4182 cGy with the PFA and 4091 cGy with IMRT (p < 0.001). The percent of rectum receiving 4000 cGy was also the highest with FA at 66.1% compared to 49.9% (PFA) and 47.5% (IMRT). There was a significant decrease in the mean dose to the bladder from 3922 cGy (FA) to 3551 cGy (PFA) and 3612 cGy (IMRT) (p < 0.001). The percent of bladder receiving 4000 cGy was also the highest with FA at 45.4% compared to 36.6% (PFA) and 37.4% (IMRT). The average mean dose to the sigmoid colon decreased from 4177 cGy (FA) to 3893 cGy (PFA) and 3819 cGy (IMRT). The average mean dose to the femoral heads decreased from 2091 cGy (FA) to 2026 cGy (PFA) and 1987 cGy (IMRT). Considering the improvement in plan quality indices recorded in this study including the dose gradient and the dose to organs at risk, mixed partial-full arc plans may be the preferred VMAT treatment technique over full arc plans for prostate cancer treatments that include nodal volumes.

Analysis of Virtual Versus In-Person Prospective Peer Review Workflow in a Multisite Academic Radiation Oncology Department.

PURPOSE: In radiation oncology, peer review is a process where subjective treatment planning decisions are assessed by those independent of the prescribing physician. Before March 2020, all peer review sessions occurred in person; however due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the peer-review workflow was transitioned from in-person to virtual. We sought to assess any differences between virtual versus in-person prospective peer review. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients scheduled to receive nonemergent nonprocedural radiation therapy (RT) were presented daily at prospective peer-review before the start of RT administration. Planning software was used, with critical evaluation of several variables including treatment intent, contour definition, treatment target coverage, and risk to critical structures. A deviation was defined as any suggested plan revision. RESULTS: In the study, 274 treatment plans evaluated in-person in 2017 to 2018 were compared with 195 plans evaluated virtually in 2021. There were significant differences in palliative intent (36% vs 22%; P = .002), but not in total time between simulation and the start of treatment (9.2 vs 10.0 days; P = .10). Overall deviations (8.0% in-person vs 2.6% virtual; P = .015) were significantly reduced in virtual peer review. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective daily peer review of radiation oncology treatment plans can be performed virtually with similar timeliness of patient care compared with in-person peer review. A decrease in deviation rate in the virtual peer review setting will need to be further investigated to determine whether virtual workflow can be considered a standard of care.

Role of belly board device in the age of intensity modulated radiotherapy for pelvic irradiation.

Small bowel dose often represents a limiting factor for radiation treatment of pelvic malignancies. To reduce small bowel toxicity, a belly board device (BBD) with a prone position is often recommended. Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) could reduce dose to small bowel based on the desired dose-volume constraints. We investigated the efficacy of BBD in conjunction with IMRT. A total of 11 consecutive patients with the diagnosis of rectal cancer, who were candidates for definitive therapy, were selected. Patients were immobilized with BBD in prone position for simulation and treatment. Supine position computed tomography (CT) data were either acquired at the same time or during a diagnostic scan, and if existed was used. Target volumes (TV) as well as organs at risk (OAR) were delineated in both studies. Three-dimensional conformal treatment (3DCRT) and IMRT plans were made for both scans. Thus for each patient, 4 plans were generated. Statistical analysis was conducted for maximum, minimum, and mean dose to each structure. When comparing the normalized mean Gross TV dose for the different plans, there was no statistical difference found between the planning types. There was a significant difference in small bowel sparing when using prone position on BBD comparing 3DCRT and IMRT plans, favoring IMRT with a 29.6% reduction in dose (p = 0.007). There was also a statistically significant difference in small bowel sparing when comparing supine position IMRT to prone-BBD IMRT favoring prone-BBD IMRT with a reduction of 30.3% (p = 0.002). For rectal cancer when small bowel could be a limiting factor, prone position using BBD along with IMRT provides the best sparing. We conclude that whenever a dose escalation in rectal cancer is desired where small bowel could be limiting factor, IMRT in conjunction with BBD should be selected.

Evaluation of superficial dosimetry between treatment planning system and measurement for several breast cancer treatment techniques.

PURPOSE: Dosimetric accuracy in radiation treatment of breast cancer is critical for the evaluation of cosmetic outcomes and survival. It is often considered that treatment planning systems (TPS) may not be able to provide accurate dosimetry in the buildup region. This was investigated in various treatment techniques such as tangential wedges, field-in-field (FF), electronic compensator (eComp), and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS: Under Institutional Review Board (IRB) exemption, radiotherapy treatment plans of 111 cases were retrospectively analyzed. The distance between skin surface and 95% isodose line was measured. For measurements, Gafchromic EBT2 films were used on a humanoid unsliced phantom. Multiple layers of variable thickness of superflab bolus were placed on the breast phantom and CT scanned for planning. Treatment plans were generated using four techniques with two different grid sizes (1 × 1 and 2.5 × 2.5 mm(2)) to provide optimum dose distribution. Films were placed at different depths and exposed with the selected techniques. A calibration curve for dose versus pixel values was also generated on the same day as the phantom measurement was conducted. The DICOM RT image, dose, and plan data were imported to the in-house software. On axial plane of CT slices, curves were drawn at the position where EBT2 films were placed, and the dose profiles on the lines were acquired. The calculated and measured dose profiles were separated by check points which were marked on the films before irradiation. The segments of calculated profiles were stretched to match their resolutions to that of film dosimetry. RESULTS: On review of treatment plans, the distance between skin and 95% prescribed dose was up to 8 mm for plans of 27 patients. The film measurement revealed that the medial region of phantom surface received a mere 45%-50% of prescribed dose. For wedges, FF, and eComp techniques, region around the nipple received approximately 80% of prescribed dose, although only IMRT showed inhomogeneous dose profile. At deeper depths mainly (6-11 mm depths), film dosimetry showed good agreement with the TPS calculation. In contrast, the measured dose at a 3-mm depth was higher than TPS calculation by 15%-30% for all techniques. For the tangential and IMRT techniques, 1 × 1 mm(2) grid size showed a smaller difference than that with a 2.5 × 2.5 mm(2) grid size compared to the measurements. CONCLUSIONS: In general, TPS even with advanced algorithms do not provide accurate dosimetry in the buildup region, as verified by EBT2 film for all treatment techniques. For all cases, TPS and measured doses were in agreement from 6 mm in depth but differed at shallower depths. Grid size plays an important role in dose calculation. For accurate dosimetry small grid size should be used where differences are lower between TPS and measurements.

Conformality study for stereotactic radiosurgery of the lung.

The purpose of this study is to compare two techniques of developing highly conformal plans for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) that target a high ablative dose to the center of the tumor while dropping off rapidly in normal tissues to determine which technique produced a more desirable treatment plan. The techniques used for comparison are "field in field" (FIF) and "non field in field" (NFIF). Twelve case studies were used, all of which had been treated using the FIF technique. Each FIF plan was edited, maintaining the same geometry for each field but reducing the total number of fields to one half by deleting all of the fields that were inside another field; this edited plan was the NFIF plan. Normalization was made to the isodose line (NFIF-I) and to the target volume (NFIF-V) and both plans were compared with the standard FIF plan independently. Dose-ratio comparisons were made of the 80% and 50% isodose volumes, as well as maximum doses outside of the planning target volume, mean dose to the gross tumor volume (GTV), minimum dose coverage on the GTV, maximum dose to the spinal cord, and the dose to the volume of noninvolved lung receiving 2000 cGy (V20). The FIF plans resulted in the best sparing of normal tissue. The NFIF-I had the best target coverage but also resulted in the highest doses to normal tissues. The NFIF-V was not significantly different from the FIF in doses to normal tissue but had the lowest coverage to targets of any of the techniques. Overall, in our department, we have chosen to use the FIF technique for SBRT conformality to obtain optimal coverage while minimizing the dose to normal tissue.