Search

Background: Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and Proton therapy (PT) are both options in the management of liver lesions. Limited clinical-dosimetric comparison are available. Moreover, dose-constraint routinely used in liver PT and SRT considers only the liver spared, while optimization strategies to limit the liver damaged are poorly reported., Methods: Primary endpoint was to assess and compare liver sparing of four contemporary RT techniques. Secondary endpoints were freedom from local recurrence (FFLR), overall survival (OS), acute and late toxicity. We hypothesize that Focal Liver Reaction (FLR) is determined by a similar biologic dose. FLR was delineated on follow-up MRI. Mean C.I. was computed for all the schedules used. A so-called Fall-off Volume (FOV) was defined as the area of healthy liver (liver-PTV) receiving more than the isotoxic dose. Fall-off Volume Ratio (FOVR) was defined as ratio between FOV and PTV., Results: 213 lesions were identified. Mean best fitting isodose (isotoxic doses) for FLR were 18Gy, 21.5 Gy and 28.5 Gy for 3, 5 and 15 fractions. Among photons, an advantage in terms of healthy liver sparing was found for Vmat FFF with 5mm jaws (p = 0.013) and Cyberknife (p = 0.03). FOV and FOVR resulted lower for PT (p < 0.001). Three years FFLR resulted 83%. Classic Radiation induced liver disease (RILD, any grade) affected 2 patients., Conclusions: Cyberknife and V-MAT FFF with 5mm jaws spare more liver than V-MAT FF with 10 mm jaws. PT spare more liver compared to photons. FOV and FOVR allows a quantitative analysis of healthy tissue sparing performance showing also the quality of plan in terms of dose fall-off., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background/aim: Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) is an effective treatment for localized prostate cancer. However, is it not clear whether the addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to SRT is beneficial. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of a series of patients treated with SRT plus ADT for localized prostate cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients were treated with SRT with 42 Gy in 7 fractions with volumetric-modulated arc therapy plus Image Guided Radiotherapy (V-MAT IGRT) technique. ADT was administered to patients with intermediate unfavorable- and high-risk disease. Study endpoints were biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS), overall survival (OS), acute and late toxicity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using international prostate cancer symptoms scale (IPSS) and international index of erectile function (IIEF)., Results: A total of 170 consecutive patients were identified, of which 49 (28.8%) with low-risk, 15 (8.8%) with favorable intermediate-risk 76 (44.7%) with unfavorable intermediate-risk and 30 (17.6%) with high-risk class. All patients of unfavorable intermediate- and high-risk groups were administered LHRH analogue concurrently to SRT and for at least 6 months. Patients with unfavorable intermediate- and high-risk presented a 5-year bDFS of 81.7% and 76.9%, respectively., Conclusion: SRT consisting of 42 Gy in seven fractions with short-term ADT represents a safe and effective treatment for unfavorable intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. Our results support the need of high quality studies to test the efficacy of ADT combined with SRT for unfavorable intermediate- and high-risk localized prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2022 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: Secondary malignant neoplasms (SMNs) and cardiovascular diseases induced by chemotherapy and radiotherapy represent the main cause of excess mortality for early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma patients, especially when the mediastinum is involved. Conformal radiotherapy techniques such as Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) could allow a reduction of the dose to the organs-at-risk (OARs) and therefore limit long-term toxicity., Methods: We performed a systematic review of the current literature regarding comparisons between IMRT and conventional photon beam radiotherapy, or between different IMRT techniques, for the treatment of mediastinal lymphoma., Results and Conclusions: IMRT allows a substantial reduction of the volumes of OARs exposed to high doses, reducing the risk of long-term toxicity. This benefit is conterbalanced by the increase of volumes receiving low doses, that could potentially increase the risk of SMNs. Treatment planning should be personalized on patient and disease characteristics. Dedicated techniques such as "butterfly" VMAT often provide the best trade-off., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Radiotherapy is one of the standard treatments for cutaneous lymphoma and Total Skin Electrons Beam Irradiation (TSEBI) is generally used to treat diffuse cutaneous lymphoma and some cases of localized disease. Helical IMRT (HI) allows to treat complex target with optimal dose distribution and organ at risk sparing, so helical tomotherapy has been proposed as alternative technique to TSEBI but only one preliminary report has been published., Methods: Three patients treated (from May 2013 to December 2014) with Helical IMRT, with a total dose between 24 and 30 Gy, were retrospectively evaluated. Data about dosimetric features, response and acute toxicity were registered and analyzed. Planned target coverage was compared with daily in vivo measures and dose calculation based on volumetric images used for set up evaluation as well., Results: The patients had a mean measured surface fraction dose ranging from 1.54 Gy up to 2.0 Gy. A planned target dose ranging from 85 to 120% of prescription doses was obtained. All doses to Organs At Risk were within the required constraints. Particular attention was posed on "whole bone marrow" planned V 10Gy , V 12Gy and V 20Gy values, ranging respectively between 23 and 43%, 20.1 and 38% and 9.8 and 24%. A comparison with the theoretical homologous values obtained with TSEBI has shown much lower values with TSEBI. Even if treatment was given in sequence to the skin of the upper and lower hemi-body, all the patients had anaemia, requiring blood transfusions, leukopenia and thrombocytopenia., Conclusion: Based on our limited results TSEBI should still be considered the standard method to treat total skin because of its pattern of acute and late toxicities and the dose distribution. In this particular case the better target coverage obtained with HI can be paid in terms of worse toxicity. Helical IMRT can instead be considered optimal in treating large, convex, cutaneous areas where it is difficult to use multiple electrons fields in relation with the clinical results and the limited and reversible toxicities.

Background: To compare and evaluate the possible advantages related to the use of VMAT and helical IMRT and two different modalities of boost delivering, adjuvant stereotactic boost (SRS) or simultaneous integrated boost (SIB), in the treatment of brain metastasis (BM) in RPA classes I-II patients., Methods: Ten patients were treated with helical IMRT, 5 of them with SRS after whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and 5 with SIB. MRI co-registration with planning CT was mandatory and prescribed doses were 30 Gy in 10 fractions (fr) for WBRT and 15Gy/1fr or 45Gy/10fr in SRS or SIB, respectively. For each patient, 4 "treatment plans" (VMAT SRS and SIB, helical IMRT SRS and SIB) were calculated and accepted if PTV boost was included in 95 % isodose and dose constraints of the main organs at risk were respected without major deviations. Homogeneity Index (HI), Conformal Index (CI) and Conformal Number (CN) were considered to compare the different plans. Moreover, time of treatment delivery was calculated and considered in the analysis., Results: Volume of brain metastasis ranged between 1.43 and 51.01 cc (mean 12.89 ± 6.37 ml) and 3 patients had double lesions. V95% resulted over 95 % in the average for each kind of technique, but the "target coverage" was inadequate for VMAT planning with two sites. The HI resulted close to the ideal value of zero in all cases; VMAT-SIB, VMAT-SRS, Helical IMRT-SIB and Helical IMRT-SRS showed mean CI of 2.15, 2.10, 2.44 and 1.66, respectively (optimal range: 1.5-2.0). Helical IMRT-SRS was related to the best and reliable finding of CN (0.66). The mean of treatment time was 210 s, 467 s, 440 s, 1598 s, respectively, for VMAT-SIB, VMAT-SRS, Helical IMRT-SIB and Helical IMRT-SRS., Conclusions: This dosimetric comparison show that helical IMRT obtain better target coverage and respect of CI and CN; VMAT could be acceptable in solitary metastasis. SIB modality can be considered as a good choice for clinical and logistic compliance; literature's preliminary data are confirming also a radiobiological benefit for SIB. Helical IMRT-SRS seems less effective for the long time of treatment compared to other techniques.

Aims and Background: Radiotherapy is the standard treatment of glioblastoma. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy is the standard technique to treat glioblastoma. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy and helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (tomotherapy) are becoming widely used. The present study compared three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and tomotherapy in terms of target coverage and preservation of organs at risk., Methods: Ten patients treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, with a target volume close to or superimposed to the organs at risk, were retrospectively selected. The plans were re-planned with step-and-shoot 3/5 fields intensity-modulated radiotherapy and tomotherapy. Target coverage and sparing of organs at risk were statistically compared., Results: Mean planning target volume V95% improved with sophisticated techniques (87.2%, 93.2%, 97.6% with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and tomotherapy, respectively). The comparison of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy did not show significant differences, whereas differences were significant when three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and tomotherapy as well as intensity-modulated radiotherapy and tomotherapy were compared. Mean planning target volume/clinical target volume D99-D98-D95 were not different between three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy, but they were different between tomotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy, with better clinical target volume/and planning target volume coverage with the tomotherapy plans. Brain D33/66 were 31.1/11.8 Gy, 37.5/18.3 Gy and 28.5/14.7 Gy with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and tomotherapy, respectively. Mean brainstem, optic nerves and chiasma Dmax were always within the defined constraints. The homogeneity index improved with intensity-modulated radiotherapy/tomotherapy compared to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Tomotherapy was better than intensity-modulated radiotherapy in all patients., Conclusions: In this selected group of patients, a significant dosimetric advantage was evident for tomotherapy compared with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Significant advantages were evident in terms of panning target volume coverage (V95), D99, D98 and D95. The clinical significance of the results should be defined.

Purpose: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is the state-of-the-art treatment for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). The goal of this work was to assess whether intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) could further improve the dosimetric results allowed by IMRT., Patients and Methods: We re-planned 7 MPM cases using both photons and protons, by carrying out IMRT and IMPT plans. For both techniques, conventional dose comparisons and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) analysis were performed. In 3 cases, additional IMPT plans were generated with different beam dimensions., Results: IMPT allowed a slight improvement in target coverage and clear advantages in dose conformity (p < 0.001) and dose homogeneity (p = 0.01). Better organ at risk (OAR) sparing was obtained with IMPT, in particular for the liver (D(mean) reduction of 9.5 Gy, p = 0.001) and ipsilateral kidney (V(20) reduction of 58%, p = 0.001), together with a very large reduction of mean dose for the contralateral lung (0.2 Gy vs 6.1 Gy, p = 0.0001). NTCP values for the liver showed a systematic superiority of IMPT with respect to IMRT for both the esophagus (average NTCP 14% vs. 30.5%) and the ipsilateral kidney (p = 0.001). Concerning plans obtained with different spot dimensions, a slight loss of target coverage was observed along with sigma increase, while maintaining OAR irradiation always under planning constraints., Conclusion: Results suggest that IMPT allows better OAR sparing with respect to IMRT, mainly for the liver, ipsilateral kidney, and contralateral lung. The use of a spot dimension larger than 3 × 3 mm (up to 9 × 9 mm) does not compromise dosimetric results and allows a shorter delivery time.