Roll and pitch set-up errors during volumetric modulated arc delivery: Can adapting gantry and collimator angles compensate?

Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Without Immobilization: Detailed Analysis of Intrafraction Motion Using High-Frequency kV Imaging During Irradiation

PURPOSE

Spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) requires high positioning accuracy and a stable patient to maximize target coverage and reduce excessive irradiation to organs at risk. Positional verification during spine SBRT delivery helps to ensure accurate positioning for all patients. We report our experience with noninvasive 3-dimensional target position monitoring during volumetric modulated arc therapy of spine metastases in nonimmobilized patients positioned using only a thin mattress and simple arm and knee supports.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fluoroscopic planar kV images were acquired at 7 frames/s using the on-board imaging system during volumetric modulated arc therapy spine SBRT. Template matching and triangulation were used to track the target in vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions. If the tracking trace deviated >1 mm from the planned position in ≥1 direction, treatment was manually interrupted and 6-dimensional cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based couch correction was performed. Tracking data were used to retrospectively analyze the target position. Positional data, agreement with CBCT, correlation between position of the couch and direction of any positional correction, and treatment times were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 175 fractions were analyzed. Delivery was interrupted 83 times in 66 fractions for a deviation >1 mm. In 97% of cases the difference between tracking data and subsequent clinical shift performed after the CBCT match was ≤0.5 mm. Lateral/longitudinal shift performed after intervention correlated with the couch roll/pitch at the start of treatment (correlation coefficient, -0.63/0.53). Mean (SD; range) time between start of first imaging and end of the last arc was 15.2 minutes (5.1; 7.6-36.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Spine tracking during irradiation can be used to prompt an intervention CBCT scan and repositioning so that a spine SBRT target deviates by ≤1 mm from the planned position, even in nonimmobilized patients. kV tracking and CBCT are in good agreement. The data support verification CBCT after all 6 degrees-of-freedom positional corrections in nonimmobilized spine SBRT patients.

Hypo-fractionated SBRT for localized prostate cancer: a German bi-center single treatment group feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

For prostate cancer treatment, treatment options with minimal side effects are desired. External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is non-invasive, standard of care and delivered in either conventional fractionation over 8 weeks or with moderate hypo-fractionation over about 5 weeks. Recent advances in radiotherapy technology have made extreme hypo-fractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of prostate cancer feasible, which has not yet been introduced as a standard treatment method in Germany. Initial results from other countries are promising, but long-term results are not yet available. The aim of this study is to investigate feasibility and effectiveness of SBRT for prostate cancer in Germany.

METHODS/DESIGN

This German bi-center single group trial (HYPOSTAT) is designed to evaluate feasibility and effectiveness, as measured by toxicity and PSA-response, respectively, of an extreme hypo-fractionated SBRT regimen with five fractions of 7 Gy in treatment of localized low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. The target volume includes the prostate with or without the base of seminal vesicles depending on risk stratification and uncertainty margins that are kept at 3-5 mm. SBRT treatment is delivered with the robotic CyberKnife system, which was recently introduced in Germany. Acute and late toxicity after one year will be evaluated according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v. 4.0), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) Scores. The quality of life will be assessed before and after treatment with the EORTC QLQ C30 questionnaire. Hypothesizing that the proportion of patients with grade 2 side effects or higher is less or equal than 2.8%, thus markedly lower than the standard EBRT percentage (17.5%), the recruitment target is 85 patients.

DISCUSSION

The HYPOSTAT trial aims at demonstrating short term feasibility of extreme hypo-fractioned SBRT for the treatment of prostate cancer and might be used as the pilot study for a multi-center multi-platform or for randomized-controlled trials comparing conventional radiotherapy with SBRT for localized prostate cancer in the future. The study concept of patient enrollment, follow up and evaluation by multiple public university clinics and actual patient treatment in dedicated private radiosurgery practices with high-tech radiation equipment is unique for clinical trials.

STUDY STATUS

The study is ongoing and currently recruiting patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration number: NCT02635256 ( clinicaltrials.gov ). Registered 8 December 2015.

Comparison of two different rectal spacers in prostate cancer external beam radiotherapy in terms of rectal sparing and volume consistency

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In external beam radiation (EBRT) of the prostate, the rectum is the dose-limiting organ at risk, and sparing of the anterior rectal wall is a prerequisite for safe delivery of doses beyond 70 Gy. Spatial sparing of the rectum can be achieved by introducing a spacer material into the retroprostatic space, thus separating the anterior rectal wall from the PTV.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two spacer technologies, Spacer OAR, a polyethylene glycol gel and ProSpace, a saline inflated balloon, were compared in terms of spacer volume, stability, and dose reduction to the anterior rectum wall in 78 patients.

RESULTS

Both spacer systems significantly reduced the rectum surface encompassed by the 95% isodose (gel: -35%, p<0.01; balloon -63.4%, p<0.001) compared to a control group. The balloon spacer was superior in reducing rectum dose (-27.7%, p=0.034), but exhibited an average volume loss of >50% during the full course of treatment of 37-40 fractions, while the volume of gel spacers remained fairly constant.

CONCLUSIONS

In choosing between the two spacer technologies, the advantageous dose reduction of the balloon needs to be weighed up against the better volume consistency of the gel spacer with respect to the duration of hypofractionated vs normofractionated regimens.