Search

INTRODUCTION: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) total body irradiation (TBI) allows for greater organ sparing with improved target coverage compared to 2D-TBI. However, there is limited evidence of whether improved organ sparing translates to decreases in toxicities and how its toxicities compare to those of the 2D technique. We aimed to compare differences in toxicities among patients treated with TBI utilizing VMAT and 2D techniques. METHODS/MATERIALS: A matched-pair single-institution retrospective analysis of 200 patients treated with TBI from 2014 to 2023 was performed. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Differences in characteristics and toxicities between the VMAT and 2D cohorts were compared using Fishers exact test. RESULTS: Of the 200 patients analyzed, 100 underwent VMAT-TBI, and 100 underwent 2D-TBI. The median age for VMAT-TBI and 2D-TBI patients was 13.7 years and 16.2 years, respectively (p = 0.25). In each cohort, 53 patients were treated with myeloablative regimens (8-13.76 Gy), and 47 were treated with non-myeloablative regimens (2-4 Gy). For the entire VMAT-TBI cohort, lung Dmean, kidney Dmean, and lens Dmax were spared to 60.6% ± 5.0%, 71.0% ± 8.5%, and 90.1% ± 3.5% of prescription, respectively. For the non-myeloablative VMAT-TBI cohort, testis/ovary Dmax, brain, and thyroid Dmean were spared to 33.4% ± 7.3%, 75.4% ± 7.0%, and 76.1% ± 10.5%, respectively. For 2D-TBI, lungs were spared using partial-transmission lung blocks for myeloablative regimens. The VMAT-TBI cohort experienced significantly lower rates of any grade of pneumonitis (2% vs. 12%), nephrotoxicity (7% vs. 34%), nausea (68% vs. 81%), skin (16% vs. 35%), and graft versus host disease (GVHD) (42% vs. 62%) compared to 2D-TBI patients. For myeloablative regimen patients, rates of pneumonitis (0% vs. 17%) and nephrotoxicity (9% vs. 36%) were significantly lower with VMAT-TBI versus 2D-TBI (p < 0.01). Median follow-up was 14.3 months, and neither median OS nor PFS for the entire cohort was reached. In the VMAT versus 2D-TBI cohort, the 1-year OS was 86.0% versus 83.0% (p = 0.26), and the 1-year PFS was 86.6% and 80.0% (p = 0.36), respectively. CONCLUSION: Normal tissue sparing with VMAT-TBI compared to the 2D-TBI translated to significantly lower rates of pneumonitis, renal toxicity, nausea, skin toxicity, and GVHD in patients, while maintaining excellent disease control.

PurposeThe RefleXion X1 is a novel radiotherapy machine designed for image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT). Its treatment planning system (TPS) generates IMRT and SBRT plans for a 6MV-FFF beam delivered axially via 50 firing positions with the couch advancing every 2.1 mm. The purpose of this work is to report the TPS commissioning results for the first clinical installation of RefleXion™ X1.MethodsCT images of multiple phantoms were imported into the RefleXion TPS to evaluate the accuracy of data transfer, anatomical modeling, plan evaluation, and dose calculation. Comparisons were made between the X1, Eclipse™, and MIM™. Dosimetric parameters for open static fields were evaluated in water and heterogeneous slab phantoms. Representative clinical IMRT and SBRT cases were planned and verified with ion chamber, film, and ArcCHECK@ measurements. The agreement between TPS and measurements for various clinical plans was evaluated using Gamma analysis with a criterion of 3%/2 mm for ArcCHECK@ and film. End-to-end (E2E) testing was performed using anthropomorphic head and lung phantoms.ResultsThe average difference between the TPS-reported and known HU values was -1.4 ± 6.0 HU. For static fields, the agreements between the TPS-calculated and measured PDD10 , crossline profiles, and inline profiles (FWHM) were within 1.5%, 1.3%, and 0.5 mm, respectively. Measured output factors agreed with the TPS within 1.3%. Measured and calculated dose for static fields in heterogeneous phantoms agreed within 2.5%. The ArcCHECK@ mean absolute Gamma passing rate was 96.4% ± 3.4% for TG 119 and TG 244 plans and 97.8% ± 3.6% for the 21 clinical plans. E2E film analysis showed 0.8 mm total targeting error for isocentric and 1.1 mm for off-axis treatments.ConclusionsThe TPS commissioning results of the RefleXion X1 TPS were within the tolerances specified by AAPM TG 53, MPPG 5.a, TG 119, and TG 148. A subset of the commissioning tests has been identified as baseline data for an ongoing QA program.

This study reports the beam commissioning results for the first clinical RefleXion Linac.MethodsThe X1 produces a 6 MV photon beam and the maximum clinical field size is 40 × 2 cm2 at source-to-axis distance of 85 cm. Treatment fields are collimated by a binary multileaf collimator (MLC) system with 64 leaves with width of 0.625 cm and y-jaw pairs to provide either a 1 or 2 cm opening. The mechanical alignment of the radiation source, the y-jaw, and MLC were checked with film and ion chambers. The beam parameters were characterized using a diode detector in a compact water tank. In-air lateral profiles and in-water percentage depth dose (PDD) were measured for beam modeling of the treatment planning system (TPS). The lateral profiles, PDDs, and output factors were acquired for field sizes from 1.25 × 1 to 40 × 2 cm2 field to verify the beam modeling. The rotational output variation and synchronicity were tested to check the gantry angle, couch motion, and gantry rotation.ResultsThe source misalignments were 0.049 mm in y-direction, 0.66% out-of-focus in x-direction. The divergence of the beam axis was 0.36 mm with a y-jaw twist of 0.03°. Clinical off-axis treatment fields shared a common center in y-direction were within 0.03 mm. The MLC misalignment and twist were 0.57 mm and 0.15°. For all measured fields ranging from the size from 1.25 × 1 to 40 × 2 cm2 , the mean difference between measured and TPS modeled PDD at 10 cm depth was -0.3%. The mean transverse profile difference in the field core was -0.3% ± 1.1%. The full-width half maximum (FWHM) modeling was within 0.5 mm. The measured output factors agreed with TPS within 0.8%.ConclusionsThis study summarizes our specific experience commissioning the first novel RefleXion linac, which may assist future users of this technology when implementing it into their own clinics.

Purpose: The first clinical biology-guided radiation therapy (BgRT) system-RefleXionTM X1-was installed and commissioned for clinical use at our institution. This study aimed at evaluating the treatment plan quality and delivery efficiency for IMRT/SBRT cases without PET guidance. Methods: A total of 42 patient plans across 6 cancer sites (conventionally fractionated lung, head, and neck, anus, prostate, brain, and lung SBRT) planned with the EclipseTM treatment planning system (TPS) and treated with either a TrueBeam® or Trilogy® were selected for this retrospective study. For each Eclipse VMAT plan, 2 corresponding plans were generated on the X1 TPS with 10 mm jaws (X1-10mm) and 20 mm jaws (X1-20mm) using our institutional planning constraints. All clinically relevant metrics in this study, including PTV D95%, PTV D2%, Conformity Index (CI), R50, organs-at-risk (OAR) constraints, and beam-on time were analyzed and compared between 126 VMAT and RefleXion plans using paired t-tests. Results: All but 3 planning metrics were either equivalent or superior for the X1-10mm plans as compared to the Eclipse VMAT plans across all planning sites investigated. The Eclipse VMAT and X1-10mm plans generally achieved superior plan quality and sharper dose fall-off superior/inferior to targets as compared to the X1-20mm plans, however, the X1-20mm plans were still considered acceptable for treatment. On average, the required beam-on time increased by a factor of 1.6 across all sites for X1-10mm compared to X1-20mm plans. Conclusions: Clinically acceptable IMRT/SBRT treatment plans were generated with the X1 TPS for both the 10 mm and 20 mm jaw settings.

Purpose: To develop an independent log file–based intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) tool for the 0.35 T magnetic resonance‐linac (MR‐linac) and investigate the ability of various IMRT plan complexity metrics to predict the QA results. Complexity metrics related to tissue heterogeneity were also introduced. Methods: The tool for particle simulation (TOPAS) Monte Carlo code was utilized with a previously validated linac head model. A cohort of 29 treatment plans was selected for IMRT QA using the developed QA tool and the vendor‐supplied adaptive QA (AQA) tool. For 27 independent patient cases, various IMRT plan complexity metrics were calculated to assess the deliverability of these plans. A correlation between the gamma pass rates (GPRs) from the AQA results and calculated IMRT complexity metrics was determined using the Pearson correlation coefficients. Tissue heterogeneity complexity metrics were calculated based on the gradient of the Hounsfield units. Results: The median and interquartile range for the TOPAS GPRs (3%/3 mm criteria) were 97.24% and 3.75%, respectively, and were 99.54% and 0.36% for the AQA tool, respectively. The computational time for TOPAS ranged from 4 to 8 h to achieve a statistical uncertainty of <1.5%, whereas the AQA tool had an average calculation time of a few minutes. Of the 23 calculated IMRT plan complexity metrics, the AQA GPRs had correlations with 7 out of 23 of the calculated metrics. Strong correlations (|r| > 0.7) were found between the GPRs and the heterogeneity complexity metrics introduced in this work. Conclusions: An independent MC and log file–based IMRT QA tool was successfully developed and can be clinically deployed for offline QA. The complexity metrics will supplement QA reports and provide information regarding plan complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The dosimetric properties of inverse Compton (IC) x‐ray sources were investigated to determine their utility for stereotactic radiation therapy. Methods: Monte Carlo simulations were performed using the egs brachy user code of EGSnrc. Nominal IC source x‐ray energies of 80 and 150 keV were considered in this work. Depth‐dose and lateral dose profiles in water were calculated, as was dose enhancement in the bone. Further simulations were performed for brain and spine treatment sites. The impact of gold nanoparticle doping was also investigated for the brain treatment site. Analogous dose calculations were performed in a clinical treatment planning system using a clinical 6 MV photon beam model and were compared to the Monte Carlo simulations. Results: Both 80 and 150 keV IC beams were observed to have sharp 80–20 penumbra (i.e., < 0.1 mm) with broad low‐dose tails in water. For reference, the calculated penumbra for the 6 MV clinical beam was 3 mm. Maximum dose enhancement factors in bone of 3.1, 1.4, and 1.1 were observed for the 80, 150 keV, and clinical 6 MV beams, respectively. The plan quality for the single brain metastasis case was similar between the IC beams and the 6 MV beam without gold nanoparticles. As the concentration of gold within the target increased, the V12 Gy to the normal brain tissue and Dmax within the target volume significantly decreased and the conformity significantly improved, which resulted in superior plan quality over the clinical 6 MV beam plan. In the spine cases, the sharp penumbra and enhanced dose to bone of the IC beams produced superior plan quality (i.e., better conformity, normal tissue sparing, and spinal cord sparing) as compared to the clinical 6 MV beam plans. Conclusions: The findings from this work indicate that inverse Compton x‐ray sources are well suited for stereotactic radiotherapy treatments due to their sharp penumbra and dose enhancement around high atomic number materials. Future work includes investigating the properties of intensity‐modulated inverse Compton x‐ray sources to improve the homogeneity within the target tissue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: The ESTRO 2023 Physics Workshop hosted the Fully-Automated Radiotherapy Treatment Planning (Auto-RTP) Challenge, where participants were provided with CT images from 16 prostate cancer patients (6 prostate only, 6 prostate + nodes, and 4 prostate bed + nodes) across 3 challenge phases with the goal of automatically generating treatment plans with minimal user intervention. Here, we present our team's winning approach developed to swiftly adapt to both different contouring guidelines and treatment prescriptions than those used in our clinic., Materials and Methods: Our planning pipeline comprises two main components: 1) auto-contouring and 2) auto-planning engines, both internally developed and activated via DICOM operations. The auto-contouring engine employs 3D U-Net models trained on a dataset of 600 prostate cancer patients for normal tissues, 253 cases for pelvic lymph node, and 32 cases for prostate bed. The auto-planning engine, utilizing the Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface, automates target volume definition, field geometry, planning parameters, optimization, and dose calculation. RapidPlan models, combined with multicriteria optimization and scorecards defined on challenge scoring criteria, were employed to ensure plans met challenge objectives. We report leaderboard scores (0-100, where 100 is a perfect score) which combine organ-at-risk and target dose-metrics on the provided cases., Results: Our team secured 1st place across all three challenge phases, achieving leaderboard scores of 79.9, 77.3, and 78.5 outperforming 2nd place scores by margins of 6.4, 0.4, and 2.9 points for each phase, respectively. Highest plan scores were for prostate only cases, with an average score exceeding 90. Upon challenge completion, a "Plan Only" phase was opened where organizers provided contours for planning. Our current score of 90.0 places us at the top of the "Plan Only" leaderboard., Conclusions: Our automated pipeline demonstrates adaptability to diverse guidelines, indicating progress towards fully automated radiotherapy planning. Future studies are needed to assess the clinical acceptability and integration of automatically generated plans., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest 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., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) total body irradiation (TBI) allows for greater organ sparing with improved target coverage compared to 2D-TBI. However, there is limited evidence of whether improved organ sparing translates to decreases in toxicities and how its toxicities compare to those of the 2D technique. We aimed to compare differences in toxicities among patients treated with TBI utilizing VMAT and 2D techniques., Methods/materials: A matched-pair single-institution retrospective analysis of 200 patients treated with TBI from 2014 to 2023 was performed. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Differences in characteristics and toxicities between the VMAT and 2D cohorts were compared using Fisher's exact test., Results: Of the 200 patients analyzed, 100 underwent VMAT-TBI, and 100 underwent 2D-TBI. The median age for VMAT-TBI and 2D-TBI patients was 13.7 years and 16.2 years, respectively ( p = 0.25). In each cohort, 53 patients were treated with myeloablative regimens (8-13.76 Gy), and 47 were treated with non-myeloablative regimens (2-4 Gy). For the entire VMAT-TBI cohort, lung Dmean, kidney Dmean, and lens Dmax were spared to 60.6% ± 5.0%, 71.0% ± 8.5%, and 90.1% ± 3.5% of prescription, respectively. For the non-myeloablative VMAT-TBI cohort, testis/ovary Dmax, brain, and thyroid Dmean were spared to 33.4% ± 7.3%, 75.4% ± 7.0%, and 76.1% ± 10.5%, respectively. For 2D-TBI, lungs were spared using partial-transmission lung blocks for myeloablative regimens. The VMAT-TBI cohort experienced significantly lower rates of any grade of pneumonitis (2% vs. 12%), nephrotoxicity (7% vs. 34%), nausea (68% vs. 81%), skin (16% vs. 35%), and graft versus host disease (GVHD) (42% vs. 62%) compared to 2D-TBI patients. For myeloablative regimen patients, rates of pneumonitis (0% vs. 17%) and nephrotoxicity (9% vs. 36%) were significantly lower with VMAT-TBI versus 2D-TBI ( p < 0.01). Median follow-up was 14.3 months, and neither median OS nor PFS for the entire cohort was reached. In the VMAT versus 2D-TBI cohort, the 1-year OS was 86.0% versus 83.0% ( p = 0.26), and the 1-year PFS was 86.6% and 80.0% ( p = 0.36), respectively., Conclusion: Normal tissue sparing with VMAT-TBI compared to the 2D-TBI translated to significantly lower rates of pneumonitis, renal toxicity, nausea, skin toxicity, and GVHD in patients, while maintaining excellent disease control., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Hui, Simiele, Lozko, Romero, Skinner, Binkley, Hoppe, Kovalchuk and Hiniker.)