Search

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In patients with recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT), STereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation (STAR) shows promising results. The STOPSTORM consortium was established to investigate and harmonise STAR treatment in Europe. The primary goals of this benchmark study were to standardise contouring of organs at risk (OAR) for STAR, including detailed substructures of the heart, and accredit each participating centre. MATERIALS AND METHODS Centres within the STOPSTORM consortium were asked to delineate 31 OAR in three STAR cases. Delineation was reviewed by the consortium expert panel and after a dedicated workshop feedback and accreditation was provided to all participants. Further quantitative analysis was performed by calculating DICE similarity coefficients (DSC), median distance to agreement (MDA), and 95th percentile distance to agreement (HD95). RESULTS Twenty centres participated in this study. Based on DSC, MDA and HD95, the delineations of well-known OAR in radiotherapy were similar, such as lungs (median DSC=0.96, median MDA=0.1mm and median HD95=1.1mm) and aorta (median DSC=0.90, median MDA=0.1mm and median HD95=1.5mm). Some centres did not include the gastro-oesophageal junction, leading to differences in stomach and oesophagus delineations. For cardiac substructures, such as chambers (median DSC=0.83, median MDA=0.2mm and median HD95=0.5mm), valves (median DSC=0.16, median MDA=4.6mm and median HD95=16.0mm), coronary arteries (median DSC=0.4, median MDA=0.7mm and median HD95=8.3mm) and the sinoatrial and atrioventricular nodes (median DSC=0.29, median MDA=4.4mm and median HD95=11.4mm), deviations between centres occurred more frequently. After the dedicated workshop all centres were accredited and contouring consensus guidelines for STAR were established. CONCLUSION This STOPSTORM multi-centre critical structure contouring benchmark study showed high agreement for standard radiotherapy OAR. However, for cardiac substructures larger dis

BACKGROUND Many automatic approaches to brain tumor segmentation employ multiple magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences. The goal of this project was to compare different combinations of input sequences to determine which MRI sequences are needed for effective automated brain metastasis (BM) segmentation. METHODS We analyzed preoperative imaging (T1-weighted sequence ± contrast-enhancement (T1/T1-CE), T2-weighted sequence (T2), and T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (T2-FLAIR) sequence) from 339 patients with BMs from seven centers. A baseline 3D U-Net with all four sequences and six U-Nets with plausible sequence combinations (T1-CE, T1, T2-FLAIR, T1-CE + T2-FLAIR, T1-CE + T1 + T2-FLAIR, T1-CE + T1) were trained on 239 patients from two centers and subsequently tested on an external cohort of 100 patients from five centers. RESULTS The model based on T1-CE alone achieved the best segmentation performance for BM segmentation with a median Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of 0.96. Models trained without T1-CE performed worse (T1-only: DSC = 0.70 and T2-FLAIR-only: DSC = 0.73). For edema segmentation, models that included both T1-CE and T2-FLAIR performed best (DSC = 0.93), while the remaining four models without simultaneous inclusion of these both sequences reached a median DSC of 0.81-0.89. CONCLUSIONS A T1-CE-only protocol suffices for the segmentation of BMs. The combination of T1-CE and T2-FLAIR is important for edema segmentation. Missing either T1-CE or T2-FLAIR decreases performance. These findings may improve imaging routines by omitting unnecessary sequences, thus allowing for faster procedures in daily clinical practice while enabling optimal neural network-based target definitions.

A novel quality assurance process for electroanatomical mapping (EAM)-to-radiotherapy planning imaging (RTPI) target transport was assessed within the multi-center multi-platform framework of the RAdiosurgery for VENtricular TAchycardia (RAVENTA) trial. A stand-alone software (CARDIO-RT) was developed to enable platform independent registration of EAM and RTPI of the left ventricle (LV), based on pre-generated radiotherapy contours (RTC). LV-RTC were automatically segmented into the American-Heart-Association 17-segment-model and a manual 3D-3D method based on EAM 3D-geometry data and a semi-automated 2D-3D method based on EAM screenshot projections were developed. The quality of substrate transfer was evaluated in five clinical cases and the structural analyses showed substantial differences between manual target transfer and target transport using CARDIO-RT.

Purpose: Our purpose was to investigate whether liver stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment planning can be harmonized across different treatment planning systems, delivery techniques, and institutions by using a specific prescription method and to minimize the knowledge gap concerning intersystem and interuser differences. We provide best practice guidelines for all used techniques. Methods and Materials: A multiparametric specification of target dose (gross target volume [GTV](D50%), GTV(D0.1cc), GTV(V90%), planning target volume [PTV](V70%)) with a prescription dose of GTV(D50% )= 3 x 20 Gy and organ-at-risk (OAR) limits were distributed with computed tomography and structure sets from 3 patients with liver metastases. Thirty-five institutions provided 132 treatment plans using different irradiation techniques. These plans were first analyzed for target and OAR doses. Four different renormalization methods were performed (PTVDmin, PTVD98%, PTVD2% , PTVDmax). The resulting 660 treatments plans were evaluated regarding target doses to study the effect of dose renormalization to different prescription methods. A relative scoring system was used for comparisons. Results: GTV(D50%) prescription can be performed in all systems. Treatment plan harmonization was overall successful, with standard deviations for Dmax, PTVD98%, GTV(D98%), and PTVDmean of 1.6, 3.3, 1.9, and 1.5 Gy, respectively. Primary analysis showed 55 major deviations from clinical goals in 132 plans, whereas in only <20% of deviations GTV/PTV dose was traded for meeting OAR limits. GTV(D50%) prescription produced the smallest deviation from target planning objectives and between techniques, followed by the PTVDmax, PTVD98%, PTVD2%, and PTV(Dmin )prescription. Deviations were significant for all combinations but for the PTVDmax prescription compared with GTV(D50%) and PTVD98%. Based on the various dose prescription methods, all systems significantly differed from each other, whereas GTV(D50%) and

Purpose: Cardiac radioablation is a novel treatment option for patients with refractory ventricular tachycardia unsuitable for catheter ablation. The quality of treatment planning depends on dose specifications, platform capabilities, and experience of the treating staff. To harmonize the treatment planning, benchmarking of this process is necessary for multicenter clinical studies such as the RAdiosurgery for VENtricular TAchycardia trial. Methods and Materials: Planning computed tomography data and consensus structures from 3 patients were sent to 5 academic centers for independent plan development using a variety of platforms and techniques with the RAdiosurgery for VENtricular TAchycardia study protocol serving as guideline. Three-dimensional dose distributions and treatment plan details were collected and analyzed. In addition, an objective relative plan quality ranking system for ventricular tachycardia treatments was established. Results: For each case, 3 coplanar volumetric modulated arc (VMAT) plans for C-arm linear accelerators (LINAC) and 3 non-coplanar treatment plans for robotic arm LINAC were generated. All plans were suitable for clinical applications with minor deviations from study guidelines in most centers. Eleven of 18 treatment plans showed maximal one minor deviation each for target and cardiac substructures. However, dose-volume histograms showed substantial differences: in one case, the planning target volume >= 30 Gy ranged from 0.0% to 79.9% and the ramus interventricularis anterior V-14Gy ranged from 4.0% to 45.4%. Overall, the VMAT plans had steeper dose gradients in the high-dose region, while the plans for the robotic arm LINAC had smaller low-dose regions. Thereby, VMAT plans required only about half as many monitor units, resulting in shorter delivery times, possibly an important factor in treatment outcome. Conclusions: Cardiac radioablation is feasible with robotic arm and C-arm LINAC systems with comparable plan quality. Although c

Purpose: Cardiac radioablation is a novel treatment option for therapy-refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) ineligible for catheter ablation. Three-dimensional clinical target volume (CTV) definition is a key step, and this complex interdisciplinary procedure includes VT-substrate identification based on electroanatomical mapping (EAM) and its transfer to the planning computed tomography (PCT). Benchmarking of this process is necessary for multicenter clinical studies such as the RAVENTA trial. Methods and Materials: For benchmarking of the RAVENTA trial, patient data (epicrisis, electrocardiogram, high-resolution EAM, contrast-enhanced cardiac computed tomography, PCT) of 3 cases were sent to 5 university centers for independent CTV generation, subsequent structure analysis, and consensus finding. VT substrates were first defined on multiple EAM screenshots/videos and manually transferred to the PCT. The generated structure characteristics were then independently analyzed (volume, localization, surface distance and conformity). After subsequent discussion, consensus structures were defined. Results: VT substrate on the EAM showed visible variability in extent and localization for cases 1 and 2 and only minor variability for case 3. CTVs ranged from 6.7 to 22.9 cm(3), 5.9 to 79.9 cm(3), and 9.4 to 34.3 cm(3); surface area varied from 1087 to 3285 mm(2), 1077 to 9500 mm(2), and 1620 to 4179 mm(2), with a Hausdorff-distance of 15.7 to 39.5 mm, 23.1 to 43.5 mm, and 15.9 to 43.9 mm for cases 1 to 3, respectively. The absolute 3-dimensional center-of-mass difference was 5.8 to 28.0 mm, 8.4 to 26 mm, and 3.8 to 35.1 mm for cases 1 to 3, respectively. The entire process resulted in CTV structures with a conformity index of 0.2 to 0.83, 0.02 to 0.85, and 0.02 to 0.88 (ideal 1) with the consensus CTV as reference. Conclusions: Multicenter efficacy endpoint assessment of cardiac radioablation for therapy-refractory VT requires consistent CTV transfer methods from the EAM t

The increasing use of targeted therapy (TT) has resulted in prolonged disease control and survival in many metastatic cancers. In parallel, stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) is increasingly performed in patients receiving TT to obtain a durable control of resistant metastases, and thereby to prolong the time to disseminated disease progression and switch of systemic therapy. The aims of this study were to analyze the safety and efficacy of SRT combined with TT in metastatic cancer patients and to assess the influence of continuous vs. interrupted TT during metastasis-directed SRT. The data of 454 SRTs in 158 patients from the international multicenter database (TOaSTT) on metastatic cancer patients treated with SRT and concurrent TT (within 30 days) were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier and log rank testing. Toxicity was defined by the CTCAE v4.03 criteria. The median FU was 19.9 mo (range 1–102 mo); 1y OS, PFS and LC were 59%, 24% and 84%, respectively. Median TTS was 25.5 mo (95% CI 11–40). TT was started before SRT in 77% of patients. TT was interrupted during SRT in 44% of patients, with a median interruption of 7 (range 1–42) days. There was no significant difference in OS or PFS whether TT was temporarily interrupted during SRT or not. Any-grade acute and late SRT-related toxicity occurred in 63 (40%) and 52 (33%) patients, respectively. The highest toxicity rates were observed for the combination of SRT and EGFRi or BRAF/MEKi, and any-grade toxicity was significantly increased when EGFRi (p = 0.016) or BRAF/MEKi (p = 0.009) were continued during SRT. Severe (≥grade 3) acute and late SRT-related toxicity were observed in 5 (3%) and 7 (4%) patients, respectively, most frequently in patients treated with EGFRi or BRAF/MEKi and in the intracranial cohort. There was no significant difference in severe toxicity whether TT was interrupted before and after SRT or not. In conclusion, SRT and continuous vs. interrupted TT in metastatic cancer patients did not influence OS or

Introduction: Combination therapy for melanoma brain metastases (MM) using stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and immune checkpoint-inhibition (ICI) or targeted therapy (TT) is currently of high interest. In this collective, time evolution and incidence of imaging findings indicative of pseudoprogression is sparsely researched. We therefore investigated time-course of MRI characteristics in these patients. Methods: Data were obtained retrospectively from 27 patients (12 female, 15 male; mean 61 years, total of 169 MMs). Single lesion volumes, total MM burden and edema volumes were analyzed at baseline and follow-up MRIs in 2 months intervals after SRS up to 24 months. The occurrence of intralesional hemorrhages was recorded. Results: 17 patients (80 MM) received ICI, 8 (62 MM) TT and 2 (27 MM) ICI + TT concomitantly to SRS. MM-localization was frontal (n = 89), temporal (n = 23), parietal (n = 20), occipital (n = 10), basal ganglia/thalamus/insula (n = 10) and cerebellar (n = 10). A volumetric progression of MM 2–4 months after SRS was observed in combined treatment with ICI (p = 0.028) and ICI + TT (p = 0.043), whereas MMs treated with TT showed an early volumetric regression (p = 0.004). Edema volumes moderately correlated with total MM volumes (r = 0.57; p < 0.0001). Volumetric behavior did not differ significantly over time regarding lesions’ initial sizes or localizations. No significant differences between groups were observed regarding rates of post-SRS intralesional hemorrhages. Conclusion: Reversible volumetric increases in terms of pseudoprogression are observed 2–4 months after SRS in patients with MM concomitantly treated with ICI and ICI + TT, rarely after TT. Edema volumes mirror total MM volumes. Medical treatment type does not significantly affect rates of intralesional hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND Ventricular tachycardia (VT) is a potentially lethal complication of structural heart disease. Despite optimal management, a subgroup of patients continue to suffer from recurrent VT. Recently, cardiac stereotactic body radiotherapy (CSBRT) has been introduced as a treatment option in patients with VT refractory to antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to establish an expert consensus regarding the conduct and use of CSBRT for refractory VT. METHODS We conducted a modified Delphi process. Thirteen experts from institutions from Germany and Switzerland participated in the modified Delphi process. Statements regarding the following topics were generated: treatment setting, institutional expertise and technical requirements, patient selection, target volume definition, and monitoring during and after CSBRT. Agreement was rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The strength of agreement was classified as strong agreement (≥80%), moderate agreement (≥66%) or no agreement (<66%). RESULTS There was strong agreement regarding the experimental status of the procedure and the preference for treatment in clinical trials. CSBRT should be conducted at specialized centers with a strong expertise in the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and in stereotactic body radiotherapy for moving targets. CSBRT should be restricted to patients with refractory VT with optimal antiarrhythmic medication who underwent prior catheter ablation or have contraindications. Target volume delineation for CSBRT is complex. Therefore, interdisciplinary processes that should include cardiology/electrophysiology and radiation oncology as well as medical physics, radiology, and nuclear medicine are needed. Optimal follow-up is required. CONCLUSION Prospective trials and pooled registries are needed to gain further insight into this promising treatment option for patients with refractory VT.

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the safety and efficacy of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) concurrently receiving targeted therapy (TT) or immunotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data on patients with mRCC were extracted from a retrospective international multicentre register study (TOaSTT), investigating SRT concurrent (≤30 days) with TT/immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), local metastasis control (LC) and time to systemic therapy switch were analysed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank testing. Clinical and treatment factors influencing survival were analysed using multivariate Cox regression. Acute and late SRT-induced toxicity were defined according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4.03. RESULTS Fifty-three patients who underwent 128 sessions of SRT were included, of whom 58% presented with oligometastatic disease (OMD). ICIs and TT were received by 32% and 68% of patients, respectively. Twenty patients (37%) paused TT for a median (range) of 14 (2-21) days. ICI therapy was not paused in any patient. A median (range) of 1 (1-5) metastatic tumour was treated per patient, with a median (range) SRT dose of 65 (40-129.4) Gy (biologically effective dose). The OS, LC and PFS rates at 1 year were 71%, 75% and 25%, respectively. The median OS and PFS were not significantly different among patients receiving TT vs those receiving ICIs (P = 0.329). New lesions were treated with a repeat radiotherapy course in 46% of patients. After 1 year, 62% of patients remained on the same systemic therapy as at the time of SRT; this was more frequent for ICI therapy compared to TT (83% vs 36%; P = 0.035). OMD was an independent prognostic factor for OS (P = 0.004, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.035-0.528) and PFS (P = 0.004; 95% CI 0.165-0.717) in multivariate analysis. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) was the other independ

The increasing use of targeted therapy (TT) has resulted in prolonged disease control and survival in many metastatic cancers. In parallel, stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) is increasingly performed in patients receiving TT to obtain a durable control of resistant metastases, and thereby to prolong the time to disseminated disease progression and switch of systemic therapy. The aims of this study were to analyze the safety and efficacy of SRT combined with TT in metastatic cancer patients and to assess the influence of continuous vs. interrupted TT during metastasis-directed SRT. The data of 454 SRTs in 158 patients from the international multicenter database (TOaSTT) on metastatic cancer patients treated with SRT and concurrent TT (within 30 days) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and log rank testing. Toxicity was defined by the CTCAE v4.03 criteria. The median FU was 19.9 mo (range 1-102 mo); 1y OS, PFS and LC were 59%, 24% and 84%, respectively. Median TTS was 25.5 mo (95% CI 11-40). TT was started before SRT in 77% of patients. TT was interrupted during SRT in 44% of patients, with a median interruption of 7 (range 1-42) days. There was no significant difference in OS or PFS whether TT was temporarily interrupted during SRT or not. Any-grade acute and late SRT-related toxicity occurred in 63 (40%) and 52 (33%) patients, respectively. The highest toxicity rates were observed for the combination of SRT and EGFRi or BRAF/MEKi, and any-grade toxicity was significantly increased when EGFRi (p = 0.016) or BRAF/MEKi (p = 0.009) were continued during SRT. Severe (≥grade 3) acute and late SRT-related toxicity were observed in 5 (3%) and 7 (4%) patients, respectively, most frequently in patients treated with EGFRi or BRAF/MEKi and in the intracranial cohort. There was no significant difference in severe toxicity whether TT was interrupted before and after SRT or not. In conclusion, SRT and continuous vs. interrupted TT in metastatic cancer patients did not influence OS or