Search

Background: The aim of this study was to describe the clinical implementation of the Calypso system with its potential impact on the treatment delivery. Materials and methods: The influence of the electromagnetic array was investigated on the kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT) image quality using the CATPHAN 504 CBCT images. Then, the QFix kVue Calypso couch top and the array attenuation, and their dosimetric influence on the Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments of prostate was evaluated. Results: Regarding the image quality, a significant increase of noise (p < 0.01) was detected with the array in place, resulting in a significant decrease in signal noise ratio (SNR) (p < 0.01). No difference in absolute contrast was observed. Finally, there was a significant decrease in contrast noise ratio (CNR) (p < 0.01) even if the deviation was only of 2.5%. For the dosimetric evaluation, the maximum attenuation of the couch was 12.02% and 13.19% for X6 and X6 flattening filter free (FFF), respectively (configuration of rails out). Besides, the mean attenuation of the array was 1.15% and 1.67% for X6 and X6 FFF, respectively. For the VMAT treatment plans, the mean dose was reduced by 0.61% for X6 and by 0.31% for X6 FFF beams when using the electromagnetic array. Conclusions: The Calypso system does not affect significantly the kV-CBCT image quality and the VMAT plan dose distribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stereotactic MR-guided Radiotherapy (MRgRT) is an interesting treatment option for adrenal gland metastases (AGM). We reviewed data from 12 consecutive patients treated with MRgRT for an AGM in our center between 14 November 2019 and 17 August 2021. Endpoints were tolerance assessment, the impact of adaptive treatment on target volume coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing, local control (LC), and overall survival (OS). The majority of patients were oligometastatic (58.3%), with 6 right AGM, 5 left AGM and 1 left and right AGM. The prescribed dose was 35 to 50 Gy in 3 to 5 fractions. The median PTV V95% on the initial plan was 95.74%. The median V95% of the PTVoptimized (PTVopt) on the initial plan was 95.26%. Thirty-eight (69%) fractions were adapted. The PTV coverage was significantly improved for adapted plans compared to predicted plans (median PTV V95% increased from 89.85% to 91.17%, p = 0.0478). The plan adaptation also significantly reduced Dmax for the stomach and small intestine. The treatment was well tolerated with no grade > 2 toxicities. With a median follow-up of 15.5 months, the 1–year LC and OS rate were 100% and 91.7%. Six patients (50%) presented a metastatic progression, and one patient (8.3%) died of metastatic evolution during the follow-up. Adaptation of the treatment plan improved the overall dosimetric quality of MRI-guided radiotherapy. A longer follow-up is required to assess late toxicities and clinical results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: While the role of radiation therapy in the management of pancreatic tumors remains controversial, new technological modalities allow for safer and more effective radiotherapy treatments. Stereotactic MR-guided Adaptive RadioTherapy (SMART) is an attractive treatment for pancreatic tumors, taking advantage of this challenging tumor location from the continuous image guidance and target tracking, as well as the daily adaptive process. We report in this prospective registry study the largest series of pancreatic SMART to date. Our study confirms the interest of this technique with a high therapeutic index since it is very well tolerated and gives encouraging results in our selected population. Pancreatic SMART could contribute to the improvement of the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, whose prognosis remains poor. Its exact place remains to be confirmed in further studies. Introduction: Stereotactic MR-guided Adaptive RadioTherapy (SMART) is a novel process to treat pancreatic tumors. We present an update of the data from our prospective registry of SMART for pancreatic tumors. Materials and methods: After the establishment of the SMART indication in a multidisciplinary board, we included all patients treated for pancreatic tumors. Primary endpoints were acute and late toxicities. Secondary endpoints were survival outcomes (local control, overall survival, distant metastasis free survival) and dosimetric advantages of adaptive process on targets volumes and OAR. Results: We included seventy consecutive patients in our cohort between October 2019 and April 2022. The prescribed dose was 50 Gy in 5 consecutive fractions. No severe acute SMART related toxicity was noted. Acute and late Grade ≤ 2 gastro intestinal were low. Daily adaptation significantly improved PTV and GTV coverage as well as OAR sparing. With a median follow-up of 10.8 months since SMART completion, the median OS, 6-months OS, and 1-year OS were 20.9 months, 86.7% (95% CI: (75–93%), and 68.6% (95% CI: (53–80%), respectively, from SMART completion. Local control at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were, respectively, 96.8 % (95% CI: 88–99%), 86.5 (95% CI: 68–95%), and 80.7% (95% CI: 59–92%). There was no grade > 2 late toxicities. Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancers (LAPC) and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancers (BRPC) patients (52 patients) had a median OS, 6-months OS, and 1-year OS from SMART completion of 15.2 months, 84.4% (95% CI: (70–92%)), and 60.5% (95% CI: (42–75%)), respectively. The median OS, 1-year OS, and 2-year OS from initiation of induction chemotherapy were 22.3 months, 91% (95% CI: (78–97%)), and 45.8% (95% CI: (27–63%)), respectively. Twenty patients underwent surgical resection (38.7 % of patients with initially LAPC) with negative margins (R0). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the largest series of SMART for pancreatic tumors. The treatment was well tolerated with only low-grade toxicities. Long-term OS and LC rates were achieved. SMART achieved high secondary resection rates in LAPC patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Purpose To assess outcomes of patients with carcinoma of the anal canal (CAC) treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Method and materials From August 2007 to January 2011, seventy-two patients suffering from CAC were treated with IMRT. Concurrent chemotherapy was added in case of locally advanced tumors. Radiation course consisted in delivering an initial plan to the PTV1 defined as the primary tumor and the risk area including pelvic and inguinal nodes. Forty-five Gy in daily 1.8 Gy-daily fractions were delivered five days a week. A second plan of 14.4-20 Gy to the primary tumor (PTV2) was administered in 1.8-2 Gy-daily fractions, 5 days a week. We present here the results of dosimetry, toxicities, and clinical outcome of the first 39 patients with a median follow-up of 24 months. Results Thirty-one women and eight men were included in the present analysis. Tumors were classified as stages I, II, III and IV in 2, 7, 27 and 2 patients, respectively. Median age was 59 years (range, 38-85). Radiotherapy alone (RT) or combined with chemotherapy (RCT) were delivered in 6 (15%) and 33 (85%) patients, respectively. Six patients (15%) required a treatment break ≥ 3 days, and median time for treatment break was 8 days (range, 3-14 days). Acute grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were seen in 10 and 5% of patients, respectively. Grade 4 toxicity was only hematologic and occurred in 12% patients receiving RCT. With a median follow-up of 24 months, no patient experienced any late grade 4 toxicity. The 2-year overall survival rate was 89%, the 2-year local relapse free survival was 77% and the 2-year colostomy-free survival rate was 85%. Conclusion IMRT is well tolerated with acceptable treatment interruption allowing dose escalation.

Abstract Background To compare volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans with conventional radiation therapy (3D-CRT) plans in pancreatic and bile duct cancers, especially for bilateral kidney preservation. Methods A dosimetric analysis was performed in 21 patients who had undergone radiotherapy for pancreatic or bile duct carcinoma at our institution. We compared 4-field 3D-CRT and 2 arcs RapidArc (RA) plans. The treatment plan was designed to deliver a dose of 50.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) based on the gross disease in a 1.8 Gy daily fraction, 5 days a week. Planning objectives were 95% of the PTV receiving 95% of the prescribed dose and no more than 2% of the PTV receiving more than 107%. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for the target volume and the organs at risk (right and left kidneys, bowel tract, liver and healthy tissue) were compared. Monitor units and delivery treatment time were also reported. Results All plans achieved objectives, with 95% of the PTV receiving ≥ 95% of the dose (D95% for 3D-CRT = 48.9 Gy and for RA = 48.6 Gy). RapidArc was shown to be superior to 3D-CRT in terms of organ at risk sparing except for contralateral kidney: for bowel tract, the mean dose was reduced by RA compared to 3D-CRT (16.7 vs 20.8 Gy, p = 0.0001). Similar result was observed for homolateral kidney (mean dose of 4.7 Gy for RA vs 12.6 Gy for 3D-CRT, p < 0.0001), but 3D-CRT significantly reduced controlateral kidney dose with a mean dose of 1.8 Gy vs 3.9 Gy, p < 0.0007. Compared to 3D-CRT, mean MUs for each fraction was significantly increased with RapidArc: 207 vs 589, (p < 0.0001) but the treatment time was not significantly different (2 and 2.66 minutes, p = ns). Conclusion RapidArc allows significant dose reduction, in particular for homolateral kidney and bowel, while maintaining target coverage. This would have a promising impact on reducing toxicities.

Abstract Background To present the results of quality assurance (QA) in IMRT of film dosimetry and ionization chambers measurements with an eight year follow-up. Methods All treatment plans were validated under the linear accelerator by absolute and relative measures obtained with ionization chambers (IC) and with XomatV and EDR2 films (Kodak). Results The average difference between IC measured and computed dose at isocenter with the gantry angle of 0° was 0.07 ± 1.22% (average ± 1 SD) for 2316 prostate, 1.33 ± 3.22% for 808 head and neck (h&n), and 0.37 ± 0.62% for 108 measurements of prostate bed fields. Pelvic treatment showed differences of 0.49 ± 1.86% in 26 fields for prostate cases and 2.07 ± 2.83% in 109 fields of anal canal. Composite measurement at isocenter for each patient showed an average difference with computed dose of 0.05 ± 0.87% for 386 prostate, 1.49 ± 1.86% for 158 h&n, 0.37 ± 0.34% for 23 prostate bed, 0.80 ± 0.28% for 4 pelvis, and 2.31 ± 0.56% for 17 anal canal cases. On the first 250 h&n analyzed by film in absolute dose, the average of the points crossing a gamma index 3% and 3 mm was 93%. This value reached 99% for the prostate fields. Conclusion More than 3500 beams were found to be within the limits defined as validated for treatment between 2001 and 2008.

Abstract Background To compare volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) plans with conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans in anal canal cancers. Methods Ten patients with anal canal carcinoma previously treated with IMRT in our institution were selected for this study. For each patient, three plans were generated with the planning CT scan: one using a fixed beam IMRT, and two plans using the RapidArc technique: a single (RA1) and a double (RA2) modulated arc therapy. The treatment plan was designed to deliver in one process with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) a dose of 59.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV2) based on the gross disease in a 1.8 Gy-daily fraction, 5 days a week. At the same time, the subclinical disease (PTV1) was planned to receive 49.5 Gy in a 1.5 Gy-daily fraction. Plans were normalized to 99% of the PTV2 that received 95% of the prescribed dose. Planning objectives were 95% of the PTV1 will receive 95% of the prescribed dose and no more than 2% of the PTV will receive more than 107%. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for the target volume and the organs at risk (bowel tract, bladder, iliac crests, femoral heads, genitalia/perineum, and healthy tissue) were compared for these different techniques. Monitor units (MU) and delivery treatment time were also reported. Results All plans achieved fulfilled objectives. Both IMRT and RA2 resulted in superior coverage of PTV than RA1 that was slightly inferior for conformity and homogeneity (p < 0.05). Conformity index (CI95%) for the PTV2 was 1.15 ± 0.15 (RA2), 1.28 ± 0.22 (IMRT), and 1.79 ± 0.5 (RA1). Homogeneity (D5% - D95%) for PTV2 was 3.21 ± 1.16 Gy (RA2), 2.98 ± 0.7 Gy (IMRT), and 4.3 ± 1.3 Gy (RA1). RapidArc showed to be superior to IMRT in terms of organ at risk sparing. For bowel tract, the mean dose was reduced of 4 Gy by RA2 compared to IMRT. Similar trends were observed for bladder, femoral heads, and genitalia. The DVH of iliac crests and healthy tissue resulted in comparable sparing for the low doses (V10 and V20). Compared to IMRT, mean MUs for each fraction was significantly reduced with RapidArc (p = 0.0002) and the treatment time was reduced by a 6-fold extent. Conclusion For patients suffering from anal canal cancer, RapidArc with 2 arcs was able to deliver equivalent treatment plan to IMRT in terms of PTV coverage. It provided a better organ at risk sparing and significant reductions of MU and treatment time per fraction.

Abstract Background To compare the dosimetric advantage of three different intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans to a three dimensional (3D) conventional radiation treatment for anal cancer with regards to organs-at-risk (OAR) avoidance, including iliac bone marrow. Methods Five patients with T1-3 N0-1 anal cancer and five with T4 and/or N2-3 tumors were selected. Clinical tumor volume (CTV) included tumor, anal canal and inguinal, peri-rectal, and internal/external iliac nodes (plus pre-sacral nodes for T4/N2-3 tumors). Four plans were generated: (A) AP/PA with 3D conformal boost, (B) pelvic IMRT with conformal boost (C) pelvic IMRT with IMRT boost and (D) IMRT with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB). The dose for plans (A) to (C) was 45 Gy/25 followed by a 14.4 Gy/8 boost, and the total dose for plan (D) (SIB) was 59.4 Gy/33. Coverage of both PTV and the volume of OAR (small bowel, genitalia, iliac crest and femoral heads) receiving more than 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy (V10, V20, V30, V40) were compared using non parametric statistics. Results Compared to plan (A), IMRT plans (B) to (D) significantly reduced the V30 and V40 of small bowel, bladder and genitalia for all patients. The V10 and V20 of iliac crests were similar for the N0-1 group but were significantly reduced with IMRT for the N2-3/T4 group (V20 for A = 50.2% compared to B = 33%, C = 32.8%, D = 34.3%). There was no statistical difference between 2-phase (arm C) and single-phase (SIB, arm D) IMRT plans. Conclusion IMRT is superior to 3D conformal radiation treatment for anal carcinoma with respect to OAR sparing, including bone marrow sparing.