Search

Additional file 1: Table S1. Detailed patient characteristics.

Additional file 3: Figure S2. Overall survival shown by Kaplan-Meier curves for Musashi (A), Nanog (B), Oct4 (C) and Osteopontin (D) expressed in primary and recurrent tumor. Curves are divided by the median expression rate of the corresponding marker. None of the markers was significantly associated with overall survival.

Additional file 4: Figure S3. Overall survival shown by Kaplan-Meier curves for standard molecular markers. Survival was dichotomized by IDH-1/2 mutational status (A), MGMT promotor methylation status (B) and nuclear ATRX expression (C).

Purpose To compare radiotherapy plans between an O-ring and a conventional C-arm linac for hypofractionated high-dose prostate radiotherapy in terms of plan quality, dose distribution, and quality assurance in a multi-vendor environment. Methods Twenty prostate cancer treatment plans were irradiated on the O-ring Varian Halcyon linac and were re-optimized for the C-arm Elekta Synergy Agility linac. Dose-volume histogram metrics for target coverage and organ at risk dose, quality assurance, and monitor units were retrospectively compared. Patient-specific quality assurance with ion chamber measurements, gamma index analysis, and portal dosimetry was performed using the Varian Portal Dosimetry system and the ArcCHECK® phantom (Sun Nuclear Corporation). Prostate-only radiotherapy was delivered with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in 20 fractions of 2.5/3.0 Gy each. Results For both linacs, target coverage was excellent and plan quality comparable. Homogeneity in PTVBoost was high for Synergy as well as Halcyon with a mean homogeneity index of 0.07 ± 0.01 and 0.05 ± 0.01, respectively. Mean dose for the organs at risk rectum and bladder differed not significantly between the linacs but were higher for the femoral heads and penile bulb for Halcyon. Quality assurance showed no significant differences in terms of ArcCHECK gamma pass rates. Median pass rate for 3%/2 mm was 99.3% (96.7 to 99.8%) for Synergy and 99.8% (95.6 to 100%) for Halcyon. Agreement between calculated and measured dose was high with a median deviation of −0.6% (−1.7 to 0.8%) for Synergy and 0.2% (−0.6 to 2.3%) for Halcyon. Monitor units were higher for the Halcyon by approximately 20% (p < 0.001). Conclusion Hypofractionated high-dose prostate cancer SIB VMAT on the Halcyon system is feasible with comparable plan quality in reference to a standard C-arm Elekta Synergy linac.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is traditionally considered to be radioresistant. Radiotherapy response rates are believed to improve with hypofractionated, high dose stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). However, limited data exist regarding the role of SBRT in the treatment of pulmonary metastases.The working group "Stereotactic Radiotherapy" of the German Society of Radiation Oncology analyzed its multi-institutional database of more than 700 patients who received SBRT for pulmonary metastases. Treatment was performed at 10 centers between 2001 and 2016. Patients with metastatic RCC were included in the study. Tumor characteristics, treatment details, and follow-up data including survival, local control (LC), distant metastases, and toxicity were evaluated.A total of 46 RCC patients treated with SBRT for 67 lung metastases were identified, who received a median total biologically effective dose (BEDSBRT for pulmonary metastases from RCC was associated with low treatment-associated toxicity, promising survival, and excellent LC, especially in those patients receiving a BED

Purpose To evaluate patient selection criteria, methodology, safety and clinical outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for treatment of vertebral metastases. Materials and methods Eight centers from the United States (n = 5), Canada (n = 2) and Germany (n = 1) participated in the retrospective study and analyzed 301 patients with 387 vertebral metastases. No patient had been exposed to prior radiation at the treatment site. All patients were treated with linac-based SBRT using cone-beam CT image-guidance and online correction of set-up errors in six degrees of freedom. Results 387 spinal metastases were treated and the median follow-up was 11.8 months. The median number of consecutive vertebrae treated in a single volume was one (range, 1-6), and the median total dose was 24 Gy (range 8-60 Gy) in 3 fractions (range 1-20). The median EQD210 was 38 Gy (range 12-81 Gy). Median overall survival (OS) was 19.5 months and local tumor control (LC) at two years was 83.9%. On multivariate analysis for OS, male sex (p 1 vertebra treated with SBRT (p = 0.04; HR = 0.62) were correlated with worse outcomes. For LC, an interval between primary diagnosis of cancer and SBRT of ≤30 months (p = 0.01; HR = 0.27) and histology of primary disease (NSCLC, renal cell cancer, melanoma, other) (p = 0.01; HR = 0.21) were correlated with worse LC. Vertebral compression fractures progressed and developed de novo in 4.1% and 3.6%, respectively. Other adverse events were rare and no radiation induced myelopathy reported. Conclusions This multi-institutional cohort study reports high rates of efficacy with spine SBRT. At this time the optimal fractionation within high dose practice is unknown.

Although locoregional relapse is frequent after definitive radiotherapy (RT) or multimodal treatments, re-irradiation is only performed in few patients even in palliative settings like e.g. vertebral metastasis. This is most due to concern about potentially severe complications, especially when large volumes are exposed to re-irradiation. With technological advancements in treatment planning the interest in re-irradiation as a local treatment approach has been reinforced. Recently, several studies reported re-irradiation for spinal metastases using SBRT with promising local and symptom control rates and simultaneously low rates of toxicity. These early data consistently indicate that SBRT is a safe and effective treatment modality in this clinical situation, where other treatment alternatives are rare. Similarly, good results have been shown for SBRT in the re-irradiation of head and neck tumors. Despite severe late adverse effects were reported in several studies, especially after single fraction doses >10 Gy, they appear less frequently compared to conventional radiotherapy. Few studies with small patient numbers have been published on SBRT re-irradiation for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Overall survival (OS) is limited by systemic progression and seems to depend particularly on patient selection. SBRT re-irradiation after primary SBRT should not be practiced in centrally located tumors due to high risk of severe toxicity. Only limited data is available for SBRT re-irradiation of pelvic tumors: feasibility and acceptable toxicity has been described, suggesting SBRT as a complementary treatment modality for local symptom control.