Evaluation of knowledge-based planning models for male pelvic CBCT-based online adaptive radiotherapy on conventional linear accelerators.

PURPOSE: To assess the practicality of employing a commercial knowledge-based planning tool (RapidPlan) to generate adapted intact prostate and prostate bed volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans on iterative cone-beam computed tomography (iCBCT) datasets. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Intact prostate and prostate bed RapidPlan models were trained utilizing planning data from 50 and 44 clinical cases, respectively. To ensure that refined models were capable of producing adequate clinical plans with a single optimization, models were tested with 50 clinical planning CT datasets by comparing dose-volume histogram (DVH) and plan quality metric (PQM) values between clinical and RapidPlan-generated plans. The RapidPlan tool was then used to retrospectively generate adapted VMAT plans on daily iCBCT images for 20 intact prostate and 15 prostate bed cases. As before, DVH and PQM metrics were utilized to dosimetrically compare scheduled (iCBCT Verify) and adapted (iCBCT RapidPlan) plans. Timing data was collected to further evaluate the feasibility of integrating this approach within an online adaptive radiotherapy workflow. RESULTS: Model testing results confirmed the models were capable of producing VMAT plans within a single optimization that were overall improved upon or dosimetrically comparable to original clinical plans. Direct application of RapidPlan on iCBCT datasets produced satisfactory intact prostate and prostate bed plans with generally improved target volume coverage/conformality and rectal sparing relative to iCBCT Verify plans as indicated by DVH values, though bladder metrics were marginally increased on average. Average PQM values for iCBCT RapidPlans were significantly improved compared to iCBCT Verify plans. The average time required [in mm:ss] to generate adapted plans was 06:09 ± 02:06 (intact) and 07:12 ± 01:04 (bed). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of leveraging RapidPlan to expeditiously generate adapted VMAT intact prostate and prostate bed plans on iCBCT datasets. In general, adapted plans were dosimetrically improved relative to scheduled plans, emphasizing the practicality of the proposed approach.

The Status and Challenges for Prostate Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Treatments in United States Proton Therapy Centers: An NRG Oncology Practice Survey.

Purpose: To report the current practice pattern of the proton stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate treatments. Materials and Methods: A survey was designed to inquire about the practice of proton SBRT treatment for prostate cancer. The survey was distributed to all 30 proton therapy centers in the United States that participate in the National Clinical Trial Network in February, 2023. The survey focused on usage, patient selection criteria, prescriptions, target contours, dose constraints, treatment plan optimization and evaluation methods, patient-specific QA, and image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) methods. Results: We received responses from 25 centers (83% participation). Only 8 respondent proton centers (32%) reported performing SBRT of the prostate. The remaining 17 centers cited 3 primary reasons for not offering this treatment: no clinical need, lack of volumetric imaging, and/or lack of clinical evidence. Only 1 center cited the reduction in overall reimbursement as a concern for not offering prostate SBRT. Several common practices among the 8 centers offering SBRT for the prostate were noted, such as using Hydrogel spacers, fiducial markers, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for target delineation. Most proton centers (87.5%) utilized pencil beam scanning (PBS) delivery and completed Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) phantom credentialing. Treatment planning typically used parallel opposed lateral beams, and consistent parameters for setup and range uncertainties were used for plan optimization and robustness evaluation. Measurements-based patient-specific QA, beam delivery every other day, fiducial contours for IGRT, and total doses of 35 to 40 GyRBE were consistent across all centers. However, there was no consensus on the risk levels for patient selection. Conclusion: Prostate SBRT is used in about 1/3 of proton centers in the US. There was a significant consistency in practices among proton centers treating with proton SBRT. It is possible that the adoption of proton SBRT may become more common if proton SBRT is more commonly offered in clinical trials.

The status and challenges for prostate SBRT treatments in United States proton therapy centers: An NRG Oncology practice survey.

A survey was designed to inquire about the practice of proton SBRT treatment for prostate cancer. The survey was distributed to all 30 proton therapy centers in the United States that participate in the National Clinical Trial Network in Feb. 2023. The survey focused on usage, patient selection criteria, prescriptions, target contours, dose constraints, treatment plan optimization and evaluation methods, patient-specific QA, and IGRT methods. Results: We received responses from 25 centers (83% participation). Only 8 respondent proton centers (32%) reported performing SBRT of the prostate. The remaining 17 centers cited three primary reasons for not offering this treatment: no clinical need, lack of volumetric imaging, and/or lack of clinical evidence. Only 1 center cited the reduction in overall reimbursement as a concern for not offering prostate SBRT. Several common practices among the 8 centers offering SBRT for the prostate were noted, such as using Hydrogel spacers, fiducial markers, and MRI for target delineation. Most proton centers (87.5%) utilized pencil beam scanning (PBS) delivery and completed Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) phantom credentialing. Treatment planning typically used parallel opposed lateral beams, and consistent parameters for setup and range uncertainties were used for plan optimization and robustness evaluation. Measurements-based patient-specific QA, beam delivery every other day, fiducial contours for IGRT, and total doses of 35-40 GyRBE were consistent across all centers. However, there was no consensus on the risk levels for patient selection. Conclusion: Prostate SBRT is used in about 1/3 of proton centers in the US. There was a significant consistency in practices among proton centers treating with proton SBRT. It is possible that the adoption of proton SBRT may become more common if proton SBRT is more commonly offered in clinical trials.

Stereotactic Body Proton Therapy Versus Conventionally Fractionated Proton Therapy for Early Prostate Cancer: A Randomized, Controlled, Phase 3 Trial.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine if ultra-hypofractionated proton therapy delivered via stereotactic body proton therapy (SBPT) is non-inferior to conventionally fractionated proton therapy (CFPT) in patients with early prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority phase 3 trial that included patients with histologically confirmed low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma defined by Gleason score grouping 1, PSA <10 ng/mL, and clinical stage T1-2a N0 M0 according to AJCC 7th ed. Eligible participants were randomly assigned initially at a 1:1 ratio and later at a 2:1 ratio to SBPT (38 Gy in 5 fractions) or CFPT (79.2 Gy in 44 fractions). The primary endpoint was freedom from failure (FFF) at 2 years from the date of randomization. Non-inferiority for FFF was determined based on one-sided confidence intervals. Toxicities were compared at different time points using Fisher's Exact test. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) was analyzed at different time points using a mixed-effects linear model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01230866, and is closed to accrual. RESULTS: Between December 10, 2010, and September 29, 2020, 144 patients were enrolled and 135 were randomly assigned (90 to the SBPT group and 45 to the CFPT group). The median follow-up was 5 years (IQR 3.9-5.2). The 2-year FFF was 100% for both groups, with the one-sided 5-year risk difference in FFF between groups reported as 2.63% (90% CI: -1.70%-6.96%), favoring the SBRT arm, thus fulfilling the pre-specified criteria for non-inferiority of SBPT compared to CFPT. Rates of gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) G2 and G3 toxicities did not differ significantly between groups but the the study was not powered to detect significant toxicity differences. Also, HRQoL metrics did not differ significantly between groups over the study median follow up. CONCLUSIONS: SBPT is non-inferior to CFPT regarding FFF, with similar long-term GU and GI toxicity rates and minimal impact in patient reported HRQoL over time.