Evaluation of reproducibility of tumor repositioning during multiple breathing cycles for liver stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment.

AIM: To evaluate the tumor repositioning during gated volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for liver stereotactic body radiotherapy(SBRT) treatment using implanted fiducial markers and intrafraction kilovoltage (kV) images acquired during dose delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Since 2012, 47 liver cancer patients with implanted fiducial markers were treated using the gated VMAT technique with a Varian Truebeam STx linear accelerator. The fiducial markers were implanted inside or close to the tumor target before treatment simulation. They were defined at the maximum inhalation and exhalation phases on a 4-dimensionnal computed tomography (4DCT) acquisition. During the treatment, kV images were acquired just before the beam-on at each breathing cycle at maximum exhalation and inhalation phases to verify the fiducial markers positions. For the five first fractions of treatment in the first ten consecutive patients, a total of 2705 intrafraction kV images were retrospectively analyzed to assess the differences between expected and actual positions of the fiducial markers along the cranio-caudal (CC) direction during the exhalation phase. RESULTS: The mean absolute intrafractional fiducial marker deviation along the CC direction was 1.0 mm at the maximum exhalation phase. In 99%, 95% and 90% cases, the fiducial marker deviations were ≤4.5 mm, 2.8 mm and 2.2 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: Intrafraction kV images allowed us to ensure the consistency of tumor repositioning during treatment. In 99% cases, the fiducial marker deviations were ≤4.5 mm corresponding to our 5 mm treatment margin. This margin seems to be well-adapted to the gated VMAT SBRT treatment in liver disease.

[Endometrial stromal sarcoma: French Guidelines from the French Sarcoma Group and the Rare Malignant Gynecologic Tumors Group]. / Sarcomes du stroma endométrial de bas grade : référentiels de prise en charge du GSF-GETO/NETSARC+ et du groupe TMRG.

Low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma (LG-ESS) accounts for approximately 15% of all uterine sarcomas. Median age of patients is around 50 years and half of the patients are premenopausal. In all, 60% of cases present with FIGO stage I disease. Preoperatively radiologic findings of ESS are not specific. Pathological diagnosis remains essential. This review aimed to present the French guidelines for low grade ESS treatment within the Groupe sarcome français - Groupe d'étude des tumeurs osseuse (GSF-GETO)/NETSARC+ and tumeur maligne rare gynécologique (TMRG) networks. Treatments should be validated in multidisciplinary team involved in sarcomas or rare gynecologic tumors. Hysterectomy is the cornerstone of treatment for localized ESS, and morcellation should be avoided. Systematic lymphadenectomy in ESS does not improve the outcome and is not recommended. Leaving the ovaries in situ in stage I tumors could be discussed for young women. Adjuvant hormonal treatment could be considered, for two years for stage I with morcellation or stage II and livelong for stages III or IV. Nevertheless, several questions remain, such as optimal doses, regimens (progestins or aromatase inhibitors) and duration of therapy. Tamoxifen is contraindicated. Secondary cytoreductive surgery if feasible for recurrent disease, appears to be an acceptable approach. Systemic treatment for recurrent or metastatic disease is mainly hormonal, with or without surgery.

Concurrent or sequential adjuvant letrozole and radiotherapy after conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer (CO-HO-RT): a phase 2 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Letrozole radiosensitises breast cancer cells in vitro. In clinical settings, no data exist for the combination of letrozole and radiotherapy. We assessed concurrent and sequential radiotherapy and letrozole in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: This phase 2 randomised trial was undertaken in two centres in France and one in Switzerland between Jan 12, 2005, and Feb 21, 2007. 150 postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer were randomly assigned after conserving surgery to either concurrent radiotherapy and letrozole (n=75) or sequential radiotherapy and letrozole (n=75). Randomisation was open label with a minimisation technique, stratified by investigational centres, chemotherapy (yes vs no), radiation boost (yes vs no), and value of radiation-induced lymphocyte apoptosis (< or = 16% vs >16%). Whole breast was irradiated to a total dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks. In the case of supraclavicular and internal mammary node irradiation, the dose was 44-50 Gy. Letrozole was administered orally once daily at a dose of 2.5 mg for 5 years (beginning 3 weeks pre-radiotherapy in the concomitant group, and 3 weeks post-radiotherapy in the sequential group). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of acute (during and within 6 weeks of radiotherapy) and late (within 2 years) radiation-induced grade 2 or worse toxic effects of the skin. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00208273. FINDINGS: All patients were analysed apart from one in the concurrent group who withdrew consent before any treatment. During radiotherapy and within the first 12 weeks after radiotherapy, 31 patients in the concurrent group and 31 in the sequential group had any grade 2 or worse skin-related toxicity. The most common skin-related adverse event was dermatitis: four patients in the concurrent group and six in the sequential group had grade 3 acute skin dermatitis during radiotherapy. At a median follow-up of 26 months (range 3-40), two patients in each group had grade 2 or worse late effects (both radiation-induced subcutaneous fibrosis). INTERPRETATION: Letrozole can be safely delivered shortly after surgery and concomitantly with radiotherapy. Long-term follow-up is needed to investigate cardiac side-effects and cancer-specific outcomes. FUNDING: Novartis Oncology France.

Magnetic Resonance-Guided Reirradiation for Local Recurrence Within the Prostate or in the Prostate Bed: Preliminary Results of a Prospective Registry Study.

PURPOSE: This prospective registry study evaluated the feasibility of stereotactic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided radiation therapy for the local treatment of isolated prostate cancer recurrence within the gland or prostate bed after primary radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with isolated recurrence without any regional or distant extension after treatment by external radiation therapy of the prostate gland/bed or by prostate brachytherapy were included. A 173-second Fast Imaging with Steady state Precession (TrueFISP) sequence was used for MRI simulation, and the gross tumor volume was delineated using multimodal images. The initial treatment plan varied from 27.5 Gy in 5 fractions to 38.7 Gy in 9 fractions and was adapted at each session, if necessary. The primary endpoint was acute toxicities (according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0 criteria). Secondary endpoints were the effects of the adaptive treatment on target volume coverage, late toxicities, and oncologic events. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included. After a minimum follow-up of 6 months, grade 2 dysuria (from grade 1 at baseline; n = 1), grade 2 polyuria (n = 1), grade 1 urinary incontinence (n = 1), grade 1 urinary pain (n = 2), and grade 1 diarrhea (n = 1) were reported.All initial treatment plans met the tumor coverage objectives, with a mean 95% planning target volume value of 95.7%. No plan exceeded the bladder and rectum dose constraints, but 8 exceeded the urethra dose constraints because of urethra proximity to the planning target volume. The initial plan was adapted in 7 patients (35%). The tumor coverage improved by 3.7% compared with the predicted plan (P = .0001) without increase in the dose to organs at risk. The biochemical control rate for the whole cohort was 75% (15/20 patients) including the 4 patients who received androgen-deprivation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-guided reirradiation for isolated recurrence within the prostate or in the prostate bed appears to be safe with excellent dosimetric results.

Persistently better treatment planning results of intensity-modulated (IMRT) over conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in prostate cancer patients with significant variation of clinical target volume and/or organs-at-risk.

PURPOSE: To compare the dose coverage of planning and clinical target volume (PTV, CTV), and organs-at-risk (OAR) between intensity-modulated (3D-IMRT) and conventional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) before and after internal organ variation in prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We selected 10 patients with clinically significant interfraction volume changes. Patients were treated with 3D-IMRT to 80 Gy (minimum PTV dose of 76 Gy, excluding rectum). Fictitious, equivalent 3D-CRT plans (80 Gy at isocenter, with 95% isodose (76 Gy) coverage of PTV, with rectal blocking above 76 Gy) were generated using the same planning CT data set ("CT planning"). The plans were then also applied to a verification CT scan ("CT verify") obtained at a different moment. PTV, CTV, and OAR dose coverage were compared using non-parametric tests statistics for V95, V90 (% of the volume receiving 95 or 90% of the dose) and D50 (dose to 50% of the volume). RESULTS: Mean V95 of the PTV for "CT planning" was 94.3% (range, 88-99) vs 89.1% (range, 84-94.5) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.005), respectively. Mean V95 of the CTV for "CT verify" was 97% for both 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT. Mean D50 of the rectum for "CT planning" was 26.8 Gy (range, 22-35) vs 43.5 Gy (range, 33.5-50.5) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.0002), respectively. For "CT verify", this D50 was 31.1 Gy (range, 16.5-44) vs 44.2 Gy (range, 34-55) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.006), respectively. V95 of the rectum was 0% for both plans for "CT planning", and 2.3% (3D-IMRT) vs 2.1% (3D-CRT) for "CT verify" (p=non-sig.). CONCLUSION: Dose coverage of the PTV and OAR was better with 3D-IMRT for each patient and remained so after internal volume changes.

IMRT for locally advanced anal cancer: clinical experience of the Montpellier Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: To assess outcomes of patients with carcinoma of the anal canal (CAC) treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHOD AND MATERIALS: From August 2007 to January 2011, seventy-two patients suffering from CAC were treated with IMRT. Concurrent chemotherapy was added in case of locally advanced tumors. Radiation course consisted in delivering an initial plan to the PTV1 defined as the primary tumor and the risk area including pelvic and inguinal nodes. Forty-five Gy in daily 1.8 Gy-daily fractions were delivered five days a week. A second plan of 14.4-20 Gy to the primary tumor (PTV2) was administered in 1.8-2 Gy-daily fractions, 5 days a week. We present here the results of dosimetry, toxicities, and clinical outcome of the first 39 patients with a median follow-up of 24 months. RESULTS: Thirty-one women and eight men were included in the present analysis. Tumors were classified as stages I, II, III and IV in 2, 7, 27 and 2 patients, respectively. Median age was 59 years (range, 38-85). Radiotherapy alone (RT) or combined with chemotherapy (RCT) were delivered in 6 (15%) and 33 (85%) patients, respectively.Six patients (15%) required a treatment break ≥ 3 days, and median time for treatment break was 8 days (range, 3-14 days). Acute grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were seen in 10 and 5% of patients, respectively. Grade 4 toxicity was only hematologic and occurred in 12% patients receiving RCT. With a median follow-up of 24 months, no patient experienced any late grade 4 toxicity. The 2-year overall survival rate was 89%, the 2-year local relapse free survival was 77% and the 2-year colostomy-free survival rate was 85%. CONCLUSION: IMRT is well tolerated with acceptable treatment interruption allowing dose escalation.

Bilateral kidney preservation by volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) compared to conventional radiation therapy (3D-CRT) in pancreatic and bile duct malignancies.

BACKGROUND: To compare volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans with conventional radiation therapy (3D-CRT) plans in pancreatic and bile duct cancers, especially for bilateral kidney preservation. METHODS: A dosimetric analysis was performed in 21 patients who had undergone radiotherapy for pancreatic or bile duct carcinoma at our institution. We compared 4-field 3D-CRT and 2 arcs RapidArc (RA) plans. The treatment plan was designed to deliver a dose of 50.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) based on the gross disease in a 1.8 Gy daily fraction, 5 days a week. Planning objectives were 95% of the PTV receiving 95% of the prescribed dose and no more than 2% of the PTV receiving more than 107%. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for the target volume and the organs at risk (right and left kidneys, bowel tract, liver and healthy tissue) were compared. Monitor units and delivery treatment time were also reported. RESULTS: All plans achieved objectives, with 95% of the PTV receiving ≥ 95% of the dose (D95% for 3D-CRT = 48.9 Gy and for RA = 48.6 Gy). RapidArc was shown to be superior to 3D-CRT in terms of organ at risk sparing except for contralateral kidney: for bowel tract, the mean dose was reduced by RA compared to 3D-CRT (16.7 vs 20.8 Gy, p = 0.0001). Similar result was observed for homolateral kidney (mean dose of 4.7 Gy for RA vs 12.6 Gy for 3D-CRT, p < 0.0001), but 3D-CRT significantly reduced controlateral kidney dose with a mean dose of 1.8 Gy vs 3.9 Gy, p < 0.0007. Compared to 3D-CRT, mean MUs for each fraction was significantly increased with RapidArc: 207 vs 589, (p < 0.0001) but the treatment time was not significantly different (2 and 2.66 minutes, p = ns). CONCLUSION: RapidArc allows significant dose reduction, in particular for homolateral kidney and bowel, while maintaining target coverage. This would have a promising impact on reducing toxicities.

Plan comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) and conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in anal canal cancer.

BACKGROUND: To compare volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) plans with conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans in anal canal cancers. METHODS: Ten patients with anal canal carcinoma previously treated with IMRT in our institution were selected for this study. For each patient, three plans were generated with the planning CT scan: one using a fixed beam IMRT, and two plans using the RapidArc technique: a single (RA1) and a double (RA2) modulated arc therapy. The treatment plan was designed to deliver in one process with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) a dose of 59.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV2) based on the gross disease in a 1.8 Gy-daily fraction, 5 days a week. At the same time, the subclinical disease (PTV1) was planned to receive 49.5 Gy in a 1.5 Gy-daily fraction. Plans were normalized to 99% of the PTV2 that received 95% of the prescribed dose. Planning objectives were 95% of the PTV1 will receive 95% of the prescribed dose and no more than 2% of the PTV will receive more than 107%. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for the target volume and the organs at risk (bowel tract, bladder, iliac crests, femoral heads, genitalia/perineum, and healthy tissue) were compared for these different techniques. Monitor units (MU) and delivery treatment time were also reported. RESULTS: All plans achieved fulfilled objectives. Both IMRT and RA2 resulted in superior coverage of PTV than RA1 that was slightly inferior for conformity and homogeneity (p < 0.05).Conformity index (CI95%) for the PTV2 was 1.15 ± 0.15 (RA2), 1.28 ± 0.22 (IMRT), and 1.79 ± 0.5 (RA1). Homogeneity (D5% - D95%) for PTV2 was 3.21 ± 1.16 Gy (RA2), 2.98 ± 0.7 Gy (IMRT), and 4.3 ± 1.3 Gy (RA1). RapidArc showed to be superior to IMRT in terms of organ at risk sparing. For bowel tract, the mean dose was reduced of 4 Gy by RA2 compared to IMRT. Similar trends were observed for bladder, femoral heads, and genitalia. The DVH of iliac crests and healthy tissue resulted in comparable sparing for the low doses (V10 and V20). Compared to IMRT, mean MUs for each fraction was significantly reduced with RapidArc (p = 0.0002) and the treatment time was reduced by a 6-fold extent. CONCLUSION: For patients suffering from anal canal cancer, RapidArc with 2 arcs was able to deliver equivalent treatment plan to IMRT in terms of PTV coverage. It provided a better organ at risk sparing and significant reductions of MU and treatment time per fraction.

Optimal organ-sparing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) regimen for the treatment of locally advanced anal canal carcinoma: a comparison of conventional and IMRT plans.

BACKGROUND: To compare the dosimetric advantage of three different intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans to a three dimensional (3D) conventional radiation treatment for anal cancer with regards to organs-at-risk (OAR) avoidance, including iliac bone marrow. METHODS: Five patients with T1-3 N0-1 anal cancer and five with T4 and/or N2-3 tumors were selected. Clinical tumor volume (CTV) included tumor, anal canal and inguinal, peri-rectal, and internal/external iliac nodes (plus pre-sacral nodes for T4/N2-3 tumors). Four plans were generated: (A) AP/PA with 3D conformal boost, (B) pelvic IMRT with conformal boost (C) pelvic IMRT with IMRT boost and (D) IMRT with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB). The dose for plans (A) to (C) was 45 Gy/25 followed by a 14.4 Gy/8 boost, and the total dose for plan (D) (SIB) was 59.4 Gy/33. Coverage of both PTV and the volume of OAR (small bowel, genitalia, iliac crest and femoral heads) receiving more than 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy (V10, V20, V30, V40) were compared using non parametric statistics. RESULTS: Compared to plan (A), IMRT plans (B) to (D) significantly reduced the V30 and V40 of small bowel, bladder and genitalia for all patients. The V10 and V20 of iliac crests were similar for the N0-1 group but were significantly reduced with IMRT for the N2-3/T4 group (V20 for A = 50.2% compared to B = 33%, C = 32.8%, D = 34.3%). There was no statistical difference between 2-phase (arm C) and single-phase (SIB, arm D) IMRT plans. CONCLUSION: IMRT is superior to 3D conformal radiation treatment for anal carcinoma with respect to OAR sparing, including bone marrow sparing.