Simultaneous stereotactic radiosurgery of multiple brain metastases using single-isocenter dynamic conformal arc therapy: a prospective monocentric registry trial.

BACKGROUND: Single-isocenter dynamic conformal arc (SIDCA) therapy is a technically efficient way of delivering stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to multiple metastases simultaneously. This study reports on the safety and feasibility of linear accelerator (LINAC) based SRS with SIDCA for patients with multiple brain metastases. METHODS: All patients who received SRS with this technique between November 2017 and June 2019 within a prospective registry trial were included. The patients were irradiated with a dedicated planning tool for multiple brain metastases using a LINAC with a 5 mm multileaf collimator. Follow-up was performed every 3 months, including clinical and radiological examination with cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These early data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients with 254 lesions (range 2-12) were included in this analysis. Median beam-on time was 23 min. The median follow-up at the time of analysis was 13 months (95% CI 11.1-14.9). Median overall survival and median intracranial progression-free survival was 15 months (95% CI 7.7-22.3) and 7 months (95% CI 3.9-10.0), respectively. Intracranial and local control after 1 year was 64.6 and 97.5%, respectively. During follow-up, CTCAE grade I adverse effects (AE) were experienced by 29 patients (44.6%; 18 of them therapy related, 27.7%), CTCAE grade II AEs by four patients (6.2%; one of them therapy related, 1.5%), and CTCAE grade III by three patients (4.6%; none of them therapy related). Two lesions (0.8%) in two patients (3.1%) were histopathologically proven to be radiation necrosis. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous SRS using SIDCA seems to be a feasible and safe treatment for patients with multiple brain metastases.

Re-irradiation treatment regimens for patients with recurrent glioma - Evaluation of the optimal dose and best concurrent therapy.

PURPOSE: Re-irradiation (reRT) is an effective treatment modality for patients with recurrent glioma. Data on dose escalation, the use of simulated integrated boost and concomitant therapy to reRT are still scarce. In this monocentric cohort of n = 223 patients we investigated the influence of reRT dose escalation as well as the concomitant use of bevacizumab (BEV) with regard to post-recurrence survival (PRS) and risk of radionecrosis (RN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with recurrent glioma treated between July 2008 and August 2022 with reRT with BEV, reRT with temozolomide (TMZ) and reRT without concomitant systemic therapy were retrospectively analyzed. PRS and RN-free survival (RNFS) were calculated for all patients using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Univariable and multivariable cox regression was performed for PRS and for RNFS. The reRT Risk Score (RRRS) was calculated for all patients. RESULTS: Good, intermediate and poor risk of the RRRS translated into 11 months, 9 months and 7 months of median PRS (univariable: p = 0.008, multivariable: p = 0.013). ReRT was applied with a dose of ≤36 Gy (n = 140) or >36 Gy (n = 83). Concomitant bevacizumab (BEV) therapy was performed in n = 122 and concomitant temozolomide (TMZ) therapy in n = 32 patients. Median PRS was 10 months in patients treated with >36 Gy and 8 months in patients treated with ≤36 Gy (univariable: p = 0.032, multivariable: p = 0.576). Regarding concomitant TMZ therapy, median PRS was 14 months vs. 9 months for patients treated with or without TMZ (univariable: p = 0.041, multivariable: p = 0.019). No statistically significant influence on PRS was seen for concomitant BEV therapy in this series. RN was less frequent for reRT with concomitant BEV, (17/122; 13.9 %) than for reRT without BEV (30/101; 29.7 %). Regarding RNFS, the hazard ratio for reRT with BEV was 0.436 (univariable; p = 0.006) and 0.479 (multivariable; p = 0.023), respectively. ReRT dose did not show statistical significance in regards to RN (univariable: p = 0.073, multivariable: p = 0.404). RNFS was longer for patients receiving concomitant BEV to reRT than for patients treated with reRT only (mean 31.7 vs. 30.9 months, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: In this cohort, in patients treated with concomitant BEV therapy RN was less frequently detected and in patients treated with concomitant TMZ longer PRS was observed. Based on these results, the best concomitant therapy and the optimal dose should be decided on a patient-by-patient basis.

Timing of stereotactic radiosurgery within the first-line systemic treatment in non-small cell lung cancer brain metastases: a retrospective single-center cohort study.

Background: Stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) and novel systemic treatments, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), have demonstrated to be effective in managing brain metastases in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the optimal treatment sequence of SRS/SRT and TKI/ICI remains uncertain. This retrospective monocentric analysis addresses this question by comparing the outcomes of patients with NSCLC brain metastases who received upfront SRS/SRT versus those who were initially treated with TKI/ICI. Methods: All patients treated with SRS/SRT and TKI/ICI for NSCLC brain metastases were collected from a clinical database. The patients who received first-line TKI or ICI for the treatment of brain metastases were then selected for further analysis. Within this cohort, a comparative analysis between upfront SRS/SRT and patients initially treated with TKI/ICI was conducted, assessing key parameters such as overall survival (OS), intracranial progression-free survival (iPFS) and treatment-related toxicity. Both OS and iPFS were defined as the time from SRS/SRT to either death or disease progression, respectively. Results: The analysis encompassed 54 patients, of which 34 (63.0%) patients received SRS/SRT and TKI/ICI as their first-line therapy. Of the latter, 17 (50.0%) patients received upfront SRS/SRT and 17 (50.0%) were initially treated with TKI/ICI; 24 (70.6%) received SRS/SRT and ICI, and 10 (29.4%) received SRS/SRT and TKI. The cohorts did not significantly differ in the univariable analyses for the following parameters: sex, age, histology, molecular genetics, disease stage at study treatment, performance status, number of brain metastases, treatment technique, tumor volume, target volume, disease progression, radiation necrosis, dosimetry. While no significant differences were found in terms of iPFS and OS between patients treated with upfront SRS/SRT and patients initially treated with TKI, upfront SRS/SRT demonstrated significantly superior OS when compared to patients initially treated with ICI (median OS not reached vs. 17.5 months; mean 37.8 vs. 23.6 months; P=0.03) with no difference in iPFS. No significant differences in treatment-related toxicity were observed among the cohorts. Conclusions: In this retrospective, single-center cohort study, patients treated with upfront SRS/SRT demonstrated significantly longer OS compared to patients initially treated with ICI in the cohort receiving first-line therapy for brain metastases. However, given the retrospective design and the limited cohort size, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn from these findings. Nevertheless, the results suggest that the timing of SRS/SRT may play an important role in treatment outcomes. Further investigation, preferably through prospective randomized trials, is warranted to provide more conclusive answers to this important question.

Dosimetric feasibility analysis and presentation of an isotoxic dose-escalated radiation therapy concept for glioblastoma used in the PRIDE trial (NOA-28; ARO-2022-12).

Background and purpose: The PRIDE trial (NOA-28; ARO-2022-12; NCT05871021) is scheduled to start recruitment in October 2023. Its primary objective is to enhance median overall survival (OS), compared to historical median OS rates, in patients with methylguanine methlyltransferase (MGMT) promotor unmethylated glioblastoma by incorporating isotoxic dose escalation to 75 Gy in 30 fractions. To achieve isotoxicity and counteract the elevated risk of radiation necrosis (RN) associated with dose-escalated regimens, the addition of protective concurrent bevacizumab (BEV) serves as an innovative approach. The current study aims to assess the dosimetric feasibility of the proposed concept. Materials and methods: A total of ten patients diagnosed with glioblastoma were included in this dosimetric analysis. Delineation of target volumes for the reference plans adhered to the ESTRO-EANO 2023 guideline. The experimental plans included an additional volume for the integrated boost. Additionally, the 60 Gy-volume was reduced by using a margin of 1.0 cm instead of 1.5 cm. To assess the risk of symptomatic RN, the Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) was calculated and compared between the reference and experimental plans. Results: Median NTCP of the reference plan (NTCPref) and of the experimental plan (NTCPex) were 0.24 (range 0.11-0.29) and 0.42 (range 0.18-0.54), respectively. NTCPex was a median of 1.77 (range 1.60-1.99) times as high as the NTXPref. In a logarithmic comparison, the risk of RN is enhanced by a factor of median 2.00 (range 1.66-2.35). The defined constraints for the organs at risk were feasible. Conclusion: When considering the potential protective effect of BEV, which we hypothesized might reduce the risk of RN by approximately two-fold, achieving isotoxicity with the proposed dose-escalated experimental plan for the PRIDE trial seems feasible.

Dummy run for planning of isotoxic dose-escalated radiation therapy for glioblastoma used in the PRIDE trial (NOA-28; ARO-2024-01; AG-NRO-06).

Background: The PRIDE trial (NOA-28; ARO-2024-01; AG-NRO-06; NCT05871021) is designed to determine whether a dose escalation with 75.0 Gy in 30 fractions can enhance the median overall survival (OS) in patients with methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) promotor unmethylated glioblastoma compared to historical median OS rates, while being isotoxic to historical cohorts through the addition of concurrent bevacizumab (BEV). To ensure protocol-compliant irradiation planning with all study centers, a dummy run was planned and the plan quality was evaluated. Methods: A suitable patient case was selected and the computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) positron emission tomography (PET) contours were made available. Participants at the various intended study sites performed radiation planning according to the PRIDE clinical trial protocol. The treatment plans and dose grids were uploaded as Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files to a cloud-based platform. Plan quality and protocol adherence were analyzed using a standardized checklist, scorecards and indices such as Dice Score (DSC) and Hausdorff Distance (HD). Results: Median DSC was 0.89, 0.90, 0.88 for PTV60, PTV60ex (planning target volume receiving 60.0 Gy for the standard and the experimental plan, respectively) and PTV75 (PTV receiving 75.0 Gy in the experimental plan), respectively. Median HD values were 17.0 mm, 13.9 mm and 12.1 mm, respectively. These differences were also evident in the volumes: The PTV60 had a volume range of 219.1-391.3 cc (median: 261.9 cc) for the standard plans, while the PTV75 volumes for the experimental plans ranged from 71.5-142.7 cc (median: 92.3 cc). The structures with the largest deviations in Dice score were the pituitary gland (median 0.37, range 0.00-0.69) and the right lacrimal gland (median 0.59, range 0.42-0.78). Conclusions: The deviations revealed the necessity of systematic trainings with appropriate feedback before the start of clinical trials in radiation oncology and the constant monitoring of protocol compliance throw-out the study. Trial registration: NCT05871021.

Stereotactic radiosurgery versus whole-brain radiotherapy in patients with 4-10 brain metastases: A nonrandomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is no randomized evidence comparing whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the treatment of multiple brain metastases. This prospective nonrandomized controlled single arm trial attempts to reduce the gap until prospective randomized controlled trial results are available. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included patients with 4-10 brain metastases and ECOG performance status ≤ 2 from all histologies except small-cell lung cancer, germ cell tumors, and lymphoma. The retrospective WBRT-cohort was selected 2:1 from consecutive patients treated within 2012-2017. Propensity-score matching was performed to adjust for confounding factors such as sex, age, primary tumor histology, dsGPA score, and systemic therapy. SRS was performed using a LINAC-based single-isocenter technique employing prescription doses from 15-20Gyx1 at the 80% isodose line. The historical control consisted of equivalent WBRT dose regimens of either 3Gyx10 or 2.5Gyx14. RESULTS: Patients were recruited from 2017-2020, end of follow-up was July 1st, 2021. 40 patients were recruited to the SRS-cohort and 70 patients were eligible as controls in the WBRT-cohort. Median OS, and iPFS were 10.4 months (95%-CI 9.3-NA) and 7.1 months (95%-CI 3.9-14.2) for the SRS-cohort, and 6.5 months (95%-CI 4.9-10.4), and 5.9 months (95%-CI 4.1-8.8) for the WBRT-cohort, respectively. Differences were non-significant for OS (HR: 0.65; 95%-CI 0.40-1.05; P =.074) and iPFS (P =.28). No grade III toxicities were observed in the SRS-cohort. CONCLUSION: This trial did not meet its primary endpoint as the OS-improvement of SRS compared to WBRT was non-significant and thus superiority could not be proven. Prospective randomized trials in the era of immunotherapy and targeted therapies are warranted.

Single-isocenter stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases: Impact of patient misalignments on target coverage in non-coplanar treatments.

Frameless single-isocenter non-coplanar stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for patients with multiple brain metastases is a treatment at high geometrical complexity. The goal of this study is to analyze the dosimetric impact of non-coplanar image guidance with stereoscopic X-ray imaging. Such an analysis is meant to provide insights on the adequacy of safety margins, and to evaluate the benefit of imaging at non-coplanar configurations. The ExacTrac® (ET) system (Brainlab AG, Munich, Germany) was used for stereoscopic X-ray imaging in frameless single-isocenter non-coplanar SRS for multiple brain metastases. Sub-millimeter precision was found for the ET-based pre-treatment setup, whereas a degradation was noted for non-coplanar treatment angles. Misalignments without intra-fractional positioning corrections were reconstructed in 6 degrees of freedom (DoF) to resemble the situation without non-coplanar image guidance. Dose recalculation in 20 SRS patients with applied positioning corrections did not reveal any significant differences in D98% for 75 planning target volumes (PTVs) and gross tumor volumes (GTVs). For recalculation without applied positioning corrections, significant differences (p<0.05) were reported in D98% for both PTVs and GTVs, with stronger effects for small PTV volumes. A worst-case analysis at increasing translational and rotational misalignment revealed that dosimetric changes are a complex function of the combination thereof. This study highlighted the important role of positioning correction with ET at non-coplanar configurations in frameless single-isocenter non-coplanar SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases. Uncorrected patient misalignments at non-coplanar couch angles were linked to a significant loss of PTV coverage, with effects varying according to the combination of single DoF and PTV geometrical properties.

Single isocenter stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with multiple brain metastases: dosimetric comparison of VMAT and a dedicated DCAT planning tool.

BACKGROUND: In this dosimetric study, a dedicated planning tool for single isocenter stereotactic radiosurgery for multiple brain metastases using dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) was compared to standard volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS: Twenty patients with a total of 66 lesions who were treated with the DCAT tool were included in this study. Single fraction doses of 15-20 Gy were prescribed to each lesion. Patients were re-planned using non-coplanar VMAT. Number of monitor units as well as V4Gy, V5Gy and V8Gy were extracted for every plan. Using a density-based clustering algorithm, V10Gy and V12Gy and the volume receiving half of the prescribed dose were extracted for every lesion. Gradient indices and conformity indices were calculated. The correlation of the target sphericity, a measure of how closely the shape of the target PTV resembles a sphere, to the difference in V10Gy and V12Gy between the two techniques was assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The automated DCAT planning tool performed significantly better in terms of all investigated metrics (p < 0.05), in particular healthy brain sparing (V10Gy: median 3.2 cm3 vs. 4.9 cm3), gradient indices (median 5.99 vs. 7.17) and number of monitor units (median 4569 vs. 5840 MU). Differences in conformity indices were minimal (median 0.75 vs. 0.73) but still significant (p < 0.05). A moderate correlation between PTV sphericity and the difference of V10Gy and V12Gy between the two techniques was found (Spearman's rho = 0.27 and 0.30 for V10Gy and V12Gy, respectively, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The dedicated DCAT planning tool performed better than VMAT in terms of healthy brain sparing and treatment efficiency, in particular for nearly spherical lesions. In contrast, VMAT can be superior in cases with irregularly shaped lesions.

Stereotactic radiotherapy of intrapulmonary lesions: comparison of different dose calculation algorithms for Oncentra MasterPlan®.

BACKGROUND: The use of high accuracy dose calculation algorithms, such as Monte Carlo (MC) and Collapsed Cone (CC) determine dose in inhomogeneous tissue more accurately than pencil beam (PB) algorithms. However, prescription protocols based on clinical experience with PB are often used for treatment plans calculated with CC. This may lead to treatment plans with changes in field size (FS) and changes in dose to organs at risk (OAR), especially for small tumor volumes in lung tissue treated with SABR. METHODS: We re-evaluated 17 3D-conformal treatment plans for small intrapulmonary lesions with a prescription of 60 Gy in fractions of 7.5 Gy to the 80% isodose. All treatment plans were initially calculated in Oncentra MasterPlan® using a PB algorithm and recalculated with CC (CCre-calc). Furthermore, a CC-based plan with coverage similar to the PB plan (CCcov) and a CC plan with relaxed coverage criteria (CCclin), were created. The plans were analyzed in terms of Dmean, Dmin, Dmax and coverage for GTV, PTV and ITV. Changes in mean lung dose (MLD), V10Gy and V20Gy were evaluated for the lungs. The re-planned CC plans were compared to the original PB plans regarding changes in total monitor units (MU) and average FS. RESULTS: When PB plans were recalculated with CC, the average V60Gy of GTV, ITV and PTV decreased by 13.2%, 19.9% and 41.4%, respectively. Average Dmean decreased by 9% (GTV), 11.6% (ITV) and 14.2% (PTV). Dmin decreased by 18.5% (GTV), 21.3% (ITV) and 17.5% (PTV). Dmax declined by 7.5%. PTV coverage correlated with PTV volume (p < 0.001). MLD, V10Gy, and V20Gy were significantly reduced in the CC plans. Both, CCcov and CCclin had significantly increased MUs and FS compared to PB. CONCLUSIONS: Recalculation of PB plans for small lung lesions with CC showed a strong decline in dose and coverage in GTV, ITV and PTV, and declined dose in the lung. Thus, switching from a PB algorithm to CC, while aiming to obtain similar target coverage, can be associated with application of more MU and extension of radiotherapy fields, causing greater OAR exposition.

First steps towards a fast-neutron therapy planning program.

BACKGROUND: The Monte Carlo code GEANT4 was used to implement first steps towards a treatment planning program for fast-neutron therapy at the FRM II research reactor in Garching, Germany. Depth dose curves were calculated inside a water phantom using measured primary neutron and simulated primary photon spectra and compared with depth dose curves measured earlier. The calculations were performed with GEANT4 in two different ways, simulating a simple box geometry and splitting this box into millions of small voxels (this was done to validate the voxelisation procedure that was also used to voxelise the human body). RESULTS: In both cases, the dose distributions were very similar to those measured in the water phantom, up to a depth of 30 cm. In order to model the situation of patients treated at the FRM II MEDAPP therapy beamline for salivary gland tumors, a human voxel phantom was implemented in GEANT4 and irradiated with the implemented MEDAPP neutron and photon spectra. The 3D dose distribution calculated inside the head of the phantom was similar to the depth dose curves in the water phantom, with some differences that are explained by differences in elementary composition. The lateral dose distribution was studied at various depths. The calculated cumulative dose volume histograms for the voxel phantom show the exposure of organs at risk surrounding the tumor. CONCLUSIONS: In order to minimize the dose to healthy tissue, a conformal treatment is necessary. This can only be accomplished with the help of an advanced treatment planning system like the one developed here. Although all calculations were done for absorbed dose only, any biological dose weighting can be implemented easily, to take into account the increased radiobiological effectiveness of neutrons compared to photons.

FET-PET for malignant glioma treatment planning.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare MRI-based morphological gross tumour volumes (GTVs) to biological tumour volumes (BTVs), defined by the pathological radiotracer uptake in positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with (18)F-fluoroethyltyrosine (FET), subsequently clinical target volumes (CTVs) and finally planning target volumes (PTVs) for radiotherapy planning of glioblastoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventeen patients with glioblastoma were included into a retrospective protocol. Treatment-planning was performed using clinical target volume (CTV=BTV+20mm or CTV=GTV+20mm+inclusion of the edema) and planning target volume (PTV=CTV+5mm). Image fusion and target volume delineation were performed with OTP-Masterplan®. Initial gross tumour volume (GTV) definition was based on MRI data only or FET-PET data only (BTV), secondarily both data sets were used to define a common CTV. RESULTS: FET based BTVs (median 43.9 cm(3)) were larger than corresponding GTVs (median 34.1cm(3), p=0.028), in 11 of 17 cases there were major differences between GTV/BTV. To evaluate the conformity of both planning methods, the index (CTV(MRT)∩CTV(FET))/(CTV(MRT)∪CTV(FET)) was quantified which was significantly different from 1 (0.73 ± 0.03, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: With FET-PET-CT planning, the size and geometrical location of GTVs/BTVs differed in a majority of patients. It remains open whether FET-PET-based target definition has a relevant clinical impact for treatment planning.