Search

Purpose/objective: It is unknown whether the historically found dosimetric advantages of treating gynecologic cancer with the patient in a prone position with use of a small-bowel displacement device (belly-board) remain when volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) is used and whether these advantages depend on the necessary margin between clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV). The aim of this study is to determine the best patient position (prone or supine) in terms of sparing organs at risk (OAR) for various CTV-to-PTV margins and VMAT dose delivery., Methods and Materials: In an institutional review board-approved study, 26 patients with gynecologic cancer scheduled for primary (9) or postoperative (17) radiation therapy were scanned in a prone position on a belly-board and in a supine position on the same day. The primary tumor CTV, nodal CTV, bladder, bowel, and rectum were delineated on both scans. The PTVs were created each with a different margin for the primary tumor and nodal CTV. The VMAT plans were generated with our in-house system for automated treatment planning. For all margin combinations, the supine and prone plans were compared with consideration of all OAR dose-volume parameters but with highest priority given to bowel cavity V45Gy (cm(3))., Results: For both groups, the prone position reduced the bowel cavity V45Gy, in particular for nodal margins ≥10 mm (ΔV45Gy = 23.9 ± 10.6 cm(3)). However, for smaller margins, the advantage was much less pronounced (ΔV45Gy = 6.5 ± 3.0 cm(3)) and did not reach statistical significance. The rectum mean dose (Dmean) was significantly lower (ΔDmean = 2.5 ± 0.3 Gy) in the prone position for both patient groups and for all margins, and the bladder Dmean was significantly lower in the supine position (ΔDmean = 2.6 ± 0.4 Gy) only for the postoperative group. The advantage of the prone position was not present if it needed a larger margin than the supine position., Conclusion: For patients with gynecologic cancer, the historically found dosimetric advantages for the prone position remain for modern dose delivery techniques if large margins are needed. However, the advantage is lost for small margins and if the prone position needs a larger margin than the supine position., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the long-term health-related quality of life (HRQL) after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or vaginal brachytherapy (VBT) among PORTEC-2 trial patients, evaluate long-term bowel and bladder symptoms, and assess the impact of cancer on these endometrial cancer (EC) survivors., Patients and Methods: In the PORTEC-2 trial, 427 patients with stage I high-intermediate-risk EC were randomly allocated to EBRT or VBT. The 7- and 10-year HRQL questionnaires consisted of EORTC QLQ-C30; subscales for bowel and bladder symptoms; the Impact of Cancer Questionnaire; and 14 questions on comorbidities, walking aids, and incontinence pads. Analysis was done using linear mixed models for subscales and (ordinal) logistic regression with random effects for single items. A two-sided P value <.01 was considered statistically significant., Results: Longitudinal HRQL analysis showed persisting higher rates of bowel symptoms with EBRT, without significant differences in global health or any of the functioning scales. At 7 years, clinically relevant fecal leakage was reported by 10.6% in the EBRT group, versus 1.8% for VBT (P=.03), diarrhea by 8.4% versus 0.9% (P=.04), limitations due to bowel symptoms by 10.5% versus 1.8% (P=.001), and bowel urgency by 23.3% versus 6.6% (P<.001). Urinary urgency was reported by 39.3% of EBRT patients, 25.5% for VBT, P=.05. No difference in sexual activity was seen between treatment arms. Long-term impact of cancer scores was higher among the patients who had an EC recurrence or second cancer., Conclusions: More than 7 years after treatment, EBRT patients reported more bowel symptoms with impact on daily activities, and a trend for more urinary symptoms, without impact on overall quality of life or difference in cancer survivorship issues., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical implementation of an online adaptive plan-of-the-day protocol for nonrigid target motion management in locally advanced cervical cancer intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)., Methods and Materials: Each of the 64 patients had four markers implanted in the vaginal fornix to verify the position of the cervix during treatment. Full and empty bladder computed tomography (CT) scans were acquired prior to treatment to build a bladder volume-dependent cervix-uterus motion model for establishment of the plan library. In the first phase of clinical implementation, the library consisted of one IMRT plan based on a single model-predicted internal target volume (mpITV), covering the target for the whole pretreatment observed bladder volume range, and a 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) motion-robust backup plan based on the same mpITV. The planning target volume (PTV) combined the ITV and nodal clinical target volume (CTV), expanded with a 1-cm margin. In the second phase, for patients showing >2.5-cm bladder-induced cervix-uterus motion during planning, two IMRT plans were constructed, based on mpITVs for empty-to-half-full and half-full-to-full bladder. In both phases, a daily cone beam CT (CBCT) scan was acquired to first position the patient based on bony anatomy and nodal targets and then select the appropriate plan. Daily post-treatment CBCT was used to verify plan selection., Results: Twenty-four and 40 patients were included in the first and second phase, respectively. In the second phase, 11 patients had two IMRT plans. Overall, an IMRT plan was used in 82.4% of fractions. The main reasons for selecting the motion-robust backup plan were uterus outside the PTV (27.5%) and markers outside their margin (21.3%). In patients with two IMRT plans, the half-full-to-full bladder plan was selected on average in 45% of the first 12 fractions, which was reduced to 35% in the last treatment fractions., Conclusions: The implemented online adaptive plan-of-the-day protocol for locally advanced cervical cancer enables (almost) daily tissue-sparing IMRT., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate the very long-term results of the randomized Post Operative Radiation Therapy in Endometrial Carcinoma (PORTEC)-1 trial for patients with Stage I endometrial carcinoma (EC), focusing on the role of prognostic factors for treatment selection and the long-term risk of second cancers., Patients and Methods: The PORTEC trial (1990-1997) included 714 patients with Stage IC Grade 1-2 or Stage IB Grade 2-3 EC. After surgery, patients were randomly allocated to external-beam pelvic radiotherapy (EBRT) or no additional treatment (NAT). Analysis was by intention to treat., Results: 426 patients were alive at the date of analysis. The median follow-up time was 13.3 years. The 15-year actuarial locoregional recurrence (LRR) rates were 6% for EBRT vs. 15.5% for NAT (p < 0.0001). The 15-year overall survival was 52% vs. 60% (p = 0.14), and the failure-free survival was 50% vs. 54% (p = 0.94). For patients with high-intermediate risk criteria, the 15-year overall survival was 41% vs. 48% (p = 0.51), and the 15-year EC-related death was 14% vs. 13%. Most LRR in the NAT group were vaginal recurrences (11.0% of 15.5%). The 15-year rates of distant metastases were 9% vs. 7% (p = 0.25). Second primary cancers had been diagnosed over 15 years in 19% of all patients, 22% vs. 16% for EBRT vs. NAT (p = 0.10), with observed vs. expected ratios of 1.6 (EBRT) and 1.2 (NAT) compared with a matched population (p = NS). Multivariate analysis confirmed the prognostic significance of Grade 3 for LRR (hazard ratio [HR] 3.4, p = 0.0003) and for EC death (HR 7.3, p < 0.0001), of age >60 (HR 3.9, p = 0.002 for LRR and 2.7, p = 0.01 for EC death) and myometrial invasion >50% (HR 1.9, p = 0.03 and HR 1.9, p = 0.02)., Conclusions: The 15-year outcomes of PORTEC-1 confirm the relevance of HIR criteria for treatment selection, and a trend for long-term risk of second cancers. EBRT should be avoided in patients with low- and intermediate-risk EC., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)