RapidPlan head and neck model: the objectives and possible clinical benefit

Background

To evaluate a knowledge based planning model for RapidPlan (RP) generated for advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) patient treatments, as well its ability to possibly improve the clinical plan quality. The stability of the model was assessed also for a different beam geometry, different dose fractionation and different management of bilateral structures (parotids).

Methods

Dosimetric and geometric data from plans of 83 patients presenting HNC were selected for the model training. All the plans used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT, RapidArc) to treat two targets at dose levels of 69.96 and 54.45 Gy in 33 fractions with simultaneous integrated boost. Two models were generated, the first separating the ipsi- and contra-lateral parotids, while the second associating the two parotids to a single structure for training. The optimization objectives were adjusted to the final model to better translate the institutional planning and dosimetric strategies and trade-offs. The models were validated on 20 HNC patients, comparing the RP generated plans and the clinical plans. RP generated plans were also compared between the clinical beam arrangement and a simpler geometry, as well as for a different fractionation scheme.

Results

RP improved significantly the clinical plan quality, with a reduction of 2 Gy, 5 Gy, and 10 Gy of the mean parotid, oral cavity and laryngeal doses, respectively. A simpler beam geometry was deteriorating the plan quality, but in a small amount, keeping a significant improvement relative to the clinical plan. The two models, with one or two parotid structures, showed very similar results. NTCP evaluations indicated the possibility of improving (NTCP decreasing of about 7%) the toxicity profile when using the RP solution.

Conclusions

The HNC RP model showed improved plan quality and planning stability for beam geometry and fractionation. An adequate choice of the objectives in the model is necessary for the trade-offs strategies.

Radiotherapy and immunotherapy: Can this combination change the prognosis of patients with melanoma brain metastases?

Brain metastases are a common occurrence in patients with melanoma. Prognosis is poor. Radiotherapy is the main local treatment for brain metastases. Recently, immunotherapy (i.e. immune checkpoints inhibitors) showed a significant impact on the prognosis of patients with metastatic melanoma, also in the setting of patients with brain metastases. Despite various possible treatments, survival of patients with melanoma brain metastases is still unsatisfactory; new treatment modalities or combination of therapies need to be explored. Being immunotherapy and radiotherapy alone both efficient in the treatment of melanoma brain metastases, the combination of these two therapies seems logical. Moreover radiotherapy can improve the efficacy of immunotherapy and the immune system plays a relevant role in the action of radiotherapy. Preclinical data support this combination. Clinical data are more contradictory. In this review, we will discuss available therapies for melanoma brain metastases, focusing on the preclinical and clinical available data supporting the possible synergism between radiotherapy and immunotherapy.

High-quality Linac-based Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy with Flattening Filter Free Beams and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Low-Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer. A Mono-institutional Experience with 90 Patients

AIMS

The aim of this phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of stereotactic body radiotherapy in patients with low or intermediate risk prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer patients were enrolled, provided that they had the following characteristics: initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 20 ng/ml, Gleason Score < 7, International Prostate Symptom Score < 7. The treatment schedule was 35 Gy in five fractions, delivered with volumetric modulated arcs with flattening filter free beams. Toxicity was recorded according to CTCAE criteria v4.0. Biochemical failure was calculated according to the Phoenix definition. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire was used to record health-related quality of life.

RESULTS

Between December 2011 and March 2015, 90 patients were enrolled (53 low risk, 37 intermediate risk). The median age was 71 years (range 48-82). In total, 58 (64.5%) of the patients had Gleason Score=6, the remaining had Gleason Score=7.The median initial PSA was 6.9 ng/ml (range 2.7-17.0). Acute toxicity was mild, with 32.2 patients presenting grade 1 urinary toxicity and 32.2% of patients presenting grade 2 urinary toxicity, mainly represented by urgency, dysuria and stranguria. Rectal grade 1 toxicity was found in 15.5% of patients, whereas grade 2 toxicity was recorded in 6.6% of patients. Regarding late toxicity, grade 1 proctitis was recorded in 11.1% of patients and grade 1 urinary in 38.8%; only two events of grade 2 urinary toxicity were observed (transient urethral stenosis, resolved by a 24 h catheterisation). At a median follow-up of 27 months (6-62 months) only two intermediate risk patients experienced a biochemical failure. Health-related quality of life revealed a slight worsening in all the domains during treatment, with a return to baseline 3 months after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Stereotactic body radiotherapy delivered using linac-based flattening filter free volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy in low and intermediate risk prostate cancer patients is associated with mild toxicity profiles and good patient-reported quality of life.