Multicentre treatment planning inter-comparison in a national context: The liver stereotactic ablative radiotherapy case.

PURPOSE: To compare five liver metastasis stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) plans optimised in fourteen centres with 3D-Conformal-RT, IMRT, VMAT, CyberKnife and Tomotherapy and identify possible dosimetric differences. METHODS: Dose prescription was 75 Gy in 3 fractions, normalised at 67%-95% isodose. RESULTS: Excluding few cases, all institutions achieved the planning objectives. Differences up to 40% and 25% in mean dose to liver and PTV were found. No significant correlations between technological factors and DVH for target and OARs were observed; the optimisation strategies selected by the planners played a key role in the planning procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The human factor and the constraints imposed to the target volume have a greater dosimetric impact than treatment planning and radiation delivery technology in stereotactic treatment of liver metastases. Significant differences found both in terms of dosimetric target coverage and OAR sparing should be taken into consideration before starting a multi-institutional SARB clinical trial.

Lung stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy: A large scale multi-institutional planning comparison for interpreting results of multi-institutional studies.

PURPOSE: A large-scale multi-institutional planning comparison on lung cancer SABR is presented with the aim of investigating possible criticism in carrying out retrospective multicentre data analysis from a dosimetric perspective. METHODS: Five CT series were sent to the participants. The dose prescription to PTV was 54Gy in 3 fractions of 18Gy. The plans were compared in terms of PTV-gEUD2 (generalized Equivalent Uniform Dose equivalent to 2Gy), mean dose to PTV, Homogeneity Index (PTV-HI), Conformity Index (PTV-CI) and Gradient Index (PTV-GI). We calculated the maximum dose for each OAR (organ at risk) considered as well as the MLD2 (mean lung dose equivalent to 2Gy). The data were stratified according to expertise and technology. RESULTS: Twenty-six centers equipped with Linacs, 3DCRT (4% - 1 center), static IMRT (8% - 2 centers), VMAT (76% - 20 centers), CyberKnife (4% - 1 center), and Tomotherapy (8% - 2 centers) collaborated. Significant PTV-gEUD2 differences were observed (range: 105-161Gy); mean-PTV dose, PTV-HI, PTV-CI, and PTV-GI were, respectively, 56.8±3.4Gy, 14.2±10.1%, 0.70±0.15, and 4.9±1.9. Significant correlations for PTV-gEUD2 versus PTV-HI, and MLD2 versus PTV-GI, were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in terms of PTV-gEUD2 may suggest the inclusion of PTV-gEUD2 calculation for retrospective data inter-comparison.

Role of the technical aspects of hypofractionated radiation therapy treatment of prostate cancer: a review.

The increasing use of moderate (<35 fractions) and extreme (<5 fractions) hypofractionated radiation therapy in prostate cancer is yielding favorable results, both in terms of maintained biochemical response and toxicity. Several hypofractionation (HF) schemes for the treatment of prostate cancer are available, although there is considerable variability in the techniques used to manage intra-/interfraction motion and deliver radiation doses. We performed a review of the published studies on HF regimens as a topic of interest for the Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy working group, which is part of the Italian Association of Medical Physics. Aspects of organ motion management (imaging for contouring, target volume definition, and rectum/bladder preparation) and treatment delivery (prostate localization, image guided radiation therapy strategy and frequency) were evaluated and categorized to assess outcome relative to disease control and toxicity. Despite the heterogeneity of the data, some interesting trends that emerged from the review might be useful in identifying an optimum HF strategy.