Search

Purpose: Local recurrence remains the main cause of death in stage III-IV nonmetastatic head and neck cancer (HNC), with relapse-prone regions within high 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ( 18 F-FDG-PET)-signal gross tumor volume. We investigated if dose escalation within this subvolume combined with a 3-phase treatment adaptation could increase local (LC) and regional (RC) control at equal or minimized radiation-induced toxicity, by comparing adaptive 18 F-FDG-PET voxel intensity-based dose painting by numbers (A-DPBN) with nonadaptive standard intensity modulated radiation therapy (S-IMRT)., Methods and Materials: This 2-center randomized controlled phase 2 trial assigned (1:1) patients to receive A-DPBN or S-IMRT (+/-chemotherapy). Eligibility: nonmetastatic HNC of oral cavity, oro-/hypopharynx, or larynx, needing radio(chemo)therapy; T1-4N0-3 (exception: T1-2N0 glottic); KPS ≥ 70; ≥18 years; and informed consent., Primary Outcomes: 1-year LC and RC. The dose prescription for A-DPBN was intercurrently adapted in 2 steps to an absolute dose-volume limit (≤1.75 cm 3 can receive >84 Gy and normalized isoeffective dose >96 Gy) as a safety measure during the study course after 4/7 A-DPBN patients developed ≥G3 mucosal ulcers., Results: Ninety-five patients were randomized (A-DPBN, 47; S-IMRT, 48). Median follow-up was 31 months (IQR, 14-48 months); 29 patients died (17 of cancer progression). A-DPBN resulted in superior LC compared with S-IMRT, with 1- and 2-year LC of 91% and 88% versus 78% and 75%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.13-8.71; P = .021). RC and overall survival were comparable between arms, as was overall grade (G) ≥3 late toxicity (36% vs 20%; P = .1). More ≥G3 late mucosal ulcers were observed in active smokers (29% vs 3%; P = .005) and alcohol users (33% vs 13%; P = .02), independent of treatment arm. Similarly, in the A-DPBN arm, significantly more patients who smoked at diagnosis developed ≥G3 (46% vs 12%; P = .005) and ≥G4 (29% vs 8%; P = .048) mucosal ulcers. One arterial blowout occurred after a G5 mucosal toxicity., Conclusions: A-DPBN resulted in superior 1- and 2-year LC for HNC compared with S-IMRT. This supports further exploration in multicenter phase 3 trials. It will, however, be challenging to recruit a substantial patient sample for such trials, as concerns have arisen regarding the association of late mucosal ulcers when escalating the dose in continuing smokers., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: Chemoradiotherapy followed by brachytherapy is the standard of care for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC). In this study, we postulate that omitting an iconographical unaffected uterus (+12 mm distance from the tumour) from the treatment volume is safe and that no tumour will be found in the non-targeted uterus (NTU) leading to reduction of high-dose volumes of surrounding organs at risk (OARs)., Material and Methods: In this single-arm phase 2 study, two sets of target volumes were delineated: one standard-volume (whole uterus) and an EXIT-volume (exclusion of non-tumour-bearing parts of the uterus with a minimum 12 mm margin from the tumour). All patients underwent chemoradiotherapy targeting the EXIT-volume, followed by completion hysterectomy. In 15 patients, a plan comparison between two treatment plans (PTV vs PTV_EXIT) was performed. The primary endpoint was the pathological absence of tumour involvement in the non-targeted uterus (NTU). Secondary endpoints included dosimetric impact of target volume reduction on OARs, acute and chronic toxicity, overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: In all 21 (FIGO stage I: 2; II: 14;III: 3; IV: 2) patients the NTU was pathologically negative. Ssignificant reductions in Dmean in bladder, sigmoid and rectum; V15Gy in sigmoid and rectum, V30Gy in bladder, sigmoid and rectum; V40Gy and V45Gy in bladder, bowel bag, sigmoid and rectum; V50Gy in rectum were achieved. Median follow-up was 54 months (range 7-79 months). Acute toxicity was mainly grade 2 and 5 % grade 3 urinary. The 3y- OS, PFS and LRFS were respectively 76,2%, 64,9% and 81 %., Conclusion: MRI-based exclusion of the non-tumour-bearing parts of the uterus at a minimum distance of 12 mm from the tumour out of the target volume in LACC can be done without risk of residual disease in the NTU, leading to a significant reduction of the volume of surrounding OARS treated to high doses., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Purpose: We report on a dosimetrical study of three patient positions (supine, prone dive, and prone crawl) and four irradiation techniques for whole-breast irradiation (WBI): wedged-tangential fields (W-TF), tangential-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (TF-IMRT), multi-beam IMRT (MB-IMRT), and intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT). This is the first study to evaluate prone crawl positioning in WBI and the first study to quantify dosimetrical and anatomical differences with prone dive positioning., Methods: We analyzed five datasets with left- and right-sided patients (n = 51). One dataset also included deep-inspiration breath hold (DIBH) data. A total of 252 new treatment plans were composed. Dose-volume parameters and indices of conformity were calculated for the planning target volume (PTV) and organs-at-risk (OARs). Furthermore, anatomical differences among patient positions were quantified to explain dosimetrical differences., Results: Target coverage was inferior for W-TF and supine position. W-TF proved overall inferior, and IMAT proved foremost effective in supine position. TF-IMRT proved competitive to the more demanding MB-IMRT and IMAT in prone dive, but not in prone crawl position. The lung-sparing effect was overall confirmed for both prone dive and prone crawl positioning and was largest for prone crawl. For the heart, no differences were found between prone dive and supine positioning, whereas prone crawl showed cardiac advantages, although minor compared to the established heart-sparing effect of DIBH. Dose differences for contralateral breast were minor among the patient positions. In prone crawl position, the ipsilateral breast sags deeper and the PTV is further away from the OARs than in prone dive position., Conclusions: The prone dive and prone crawl position are valid alternatives to the supine position in WBI, with largest advantages for lung structures. For the heart, differences are small, which establishes the role of DIBH in different patient positions. These results may be of particular interest to radiotherapy centers with limited technical resources., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

Purpose: Prone whole breast irradiation results in lower dose to organs at risk compared with supine position, especially lung dose. However, the adoption of prone position for whole breast irradiation + lymph node irradiation remains limited and data on lymph node irradiation in 5 fractions are lacking. Although the study was ended prematurely for the primary endpoint (breast retraction at 2 years), we decided to report acute toxicity for prone and supine positions and 5 and 15 fractions. Additionally, dosimetry and set-up accuracy between prone and supine positions were evaluated., Methods and Materials: A randomized open-label factorial 2 × 2 design was used for an acute toxicity comparison between prone and supine positions and 5 and 15 fractions. The primary endpoint of the trial was breast retraction 2 years after treatment. In total, 57 patients were evaluated. Dosimetry and set-up errors were compared between prone and supine positions. All patients were positioned on either our in -house developed prone crawl breast couch or a Posirest-2 (Civco)., Results: No difference in acute toxicity between prone and supine positions was found, but 5 fractions did result in a lower risk of desquamation (15% vs 41%; P = .04). Prone positioning resulted in lower mean ipsilateral lung dose (2.89 vs 4.89 Gy; P < .001), mean thyroid dose (3.42 vs 6.61 Gy; P = .004), and mean contralateral breast dose (0.41 vs 0.54 Gy; P = .007). No significant difference in mean heart dose (0.90 vs 1.07 Gy; P = .22) was found. Set-up accuracy was similar between both positions., Conclusions: Unfortunately, the primary endpoint of the trial was not met due to premature closure of the trial. Acceleration in 5 fractions resulted in a lower risk of desquamation. Prone positioning did not influence acute toxicity or set-up accuracy, but did result in lower ipsilateral mean lung dose, thyroid dose, and contralateral breast dose., (Copyright © 2022 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In this paper we focus on medical device development (MDD) in Industrial Design Engineering (IDE) academia. We want to find which methods our MDD-students currently use, where our guidance has shortcomings and where it brings added value., Methods: We have analysed 19 master and 3 doctoral MDD-theses in our IDE curriculum. The evaluation focusses around four main themes: 1) regulatory 2) testing 3) patient-centricity and 4) systemic design., Results: Regulatory aspects and medical testing procedures seem to be disregarded frequently. We assume this is because of a lack of MDD experience and the small thesis timeframe. Furthermore, many students applied medical-oriented systemic tools, which enhances multiperspectivism. However, we found an important lack in the translation to the List of Specifications and to business models of these medical devices. Finally, students introduced various participatory techniques, but seem to struggle with implementing this in the setting of evidence-based medicine., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)., (© 2022 The Operational Research Society.)