Estimating PTV Margins in Head and Neck Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy (SABR) Through Target Site Analysis of Positioning and Intrafractional Accuracy

A prospective cohort study on stereotactic radiotherapy in the management of dural recurrence of olfactory neuroblastoma

BACKGROUND

Treatment for dural recurrence of olfactory neuroblastoma (ONB) is not standardized. We assess the outcomes of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in this population.

METHODS

ONB patients with dural recurrences treated between 2013 and 2022 on a prospective registry were included. Tumor control, survival, and patient-reported quality of life were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients with 32 dural lesions were evaluated. Time to dural recurrence was 58.3 months. Thirty lesions (94%) were treated with SBRT to a median dose of 27 Gy in three fractions. Two patients (3 of 32 lesions; 9%) developed in-field radiographic progression, five patients (38%) experienced progression in non-contiguous dura. Two-year local control was 85% (95% CI: 51-96%). There were no >grade 3 acute toxicities and 1 case of late grade 3 brain radionecrosis.

CONCLUSION

In this largest study of SBRT reirradiation for ONB dural recurrence to date, high local control rates with minimal toxicity were attainable.

MV CBCT based assessment of setup uncertainties and planning target volume margin in head and neck cancer

Background

Set-up errors are an undesirable part of the radiation treatment process. The goal of online imaging is to increase treatment accuracy by reducing the set-up errors. This study aimed to determine the daily variation of patient set-up uncertainties and planning target volume (PTV) margins for head and neck cancer patients using pre-treatment verification by mega voltage cone-beam computed tomography (MV-CBCT).

Materials and methods

This retrospective study was internal record base of head and neck (H&N) cancer patients treated with definitive radiotherapy, adjuvant radiotherapy, and hypo-fractionated radiotherapy at our institution since the implementation of HalcyonTM 2.0 machine (Varian, US). Errors collected from each patient setup were recorded and evaluated for each direction [medio-lateral (ML), supero-inferior (SI), antero-posterior (AP)] discretely. For each patient, the systematic error (∑) and random error (σ) were collected. Clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume (PTV) margin was calculated using International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) 62 (PTV margin = ( Σ 2 + σ 2 ) ), Stroom's (PTV margin = 2∑ + 0.7σ), and Van Herk's (PTV margin = 2.5∑ + 0.7σ) formula.

Results

A total of 7900 pre-treatment CBCT scans of 301 patients were analyzed and a total of 23,000 error measurements in the ML, SI, and AP directions were recorded. For all of our H&N cancer patients, the CTV to PTV margin, calculated from the van Herk formula for the head and neck patients was 0.49 mm in the anteroposterior axis.

Conclusions

An isometric PTV margin of 5 mm may be considered safe if daily imaging is not being done. In case daily online pretreatment imaging is being utilized, further reduction of PTV margin is possible.

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Recurrent and Oligometastatic Head and Neck Tumours

The treatment of head and neck cancers (HNCs) encompasses a complex paradigm involving a combination of surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment. Locoregional recurrence is a common cause of treatment failure, and few patients are suitable for salvage surgery. Reirradiation with conventional radiation techniques is challenging due to normal tissue tolerance limits and the risk of significant toxicities. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has emerged as a highly conformal modality that offers the potential for cure while limiting the dose to surrounding tissue. There is also growing research that shows that those with oligometastatic disease can benefit from curative intent local ablative therapies such as SBRT. This review will look at published evidence regarding the use of SBRT in locoregional recurrent and oligometastatic HNCs.

Target movement according to cervical lymph node level in head and neck cancer and its clinical significance

PURPOSE

To evaluate set-up error for head and neck cancer (HNC) patients according to each neck lymph node (LN) level. And clinical factors affecting set-up error were analyzed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Reference points (RP1, RP2, RP3, and RP4) representing neck LN levels I to IV were designated. These RP were contoured on simulation computed tomography (CT) and cone-beam CT of 89 HNC patients with the same standard. After image registration was performed, movement of each RP was measured. Univariable logistic regression analyses were performed to analyze clinical factors related to measured movements.

RESULTS

The mean value of deviation of all axes was 1.6 mm, 1.3 mm, 1.8 mm, and 1.5 mm for RP1, RP2, RP3, and RP4, respectively. Deviation was over 3 mm in 24 patients. Movement of more than 3 mm was observed only in RP1 and RP3. In RP1, it was related to bite block use. Movement exceeding 3 mm was most frequently observed in RP3. Primary tumor and metastatic LN volume change were clinical factors related to the RP3 movement.

CONCLUSION

Planning target volume margin of 4 mm for neck LN level I, 3 mm for neck LN level II, 5 mm for neck LN level III, and 3 mm for neck LN level IV was required to include all movements of each LN level. In patients using bite block, changes in primary tumor volume, and metastatic LN volume were related to significant movement.

Reirradiation of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: a pragmatic approach, part II: radiation technique and fractionations

INTRODUCTION

Reirradiation (reRT) of local recurrent/second primary tumors of the head and neck represents a potential curative treatment for patients not candidate to a salvage surgery. Aim of the present study is to summarize literature data on modern radiation techniques and fractionations used in this setting of patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A narrative review of the literature was conducted on three topics: (1) target volume delineation (2) reRT dose and techniques and (3) ongoing studies. Patients treated with postoperative reRT and palliative intent were not considered for the current analysis.

RESULTS

Recommendations on the target volume contouring have been reported. 3D-Conformal Radiotherapy, Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy, Stereotactic body Radiotherapy Intraoperative Radiotherapy, Brachytherapy and Charged Particles have been analyzed in terms of indication and fractionation in the field of reRT. Ongoing studies on the topic have been reported for IMRT and Charged Particles. Moreover, according to literature data a stepwise approach has been proposed aiming to provide a useful tool to select patients candidate to a curative reRT in daily clinical practice. Two clinical cases were also provided for its application.

CONCLUSION

Different radiation techniques and fractionations can be used for a second course of radiotherapy in patients with recurrent/second primary tumor of head and neck region. Tumor characteristics as well as radiobiological considerations should be take into account to define the best reRT approach.

Dose-Escalated Magnetic Resonance Image–Guided Abdominopelvic Reirradiation With Continuous Intrafraction Visualization, Soft Tissue Tracking, and Automatic Beam Gating

Purpose

Methods and Materials

Results

Conclusions

Brain stereotactic radiosurgery using MR-guided online adaptive planning for daily setup variation: An end-to-end test

Online magnetic resonance (MR)‐guided radiotherapy is expected to benefit brain stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) due to superior soft tissue contrast and capability of daily adaptive planning. The purpose of this study was to investigate daily adaptive plan quality with setup variations and to perform an end‐to‐end test for brain SRS with multiple metastases treated with a 1.5‐Tesla MR‐Linac (MRL). The RTsafe PseudoPatient Prime brain phantom was used with a delineation insert that includes two predefined structures mimicking gadolinium contrast‐enhanced brain lesions. Daily adaptive plans were generated using six preset and six random setup variations. Two adaptive plans per daily MR image were generated using the adapt‐to‐position (ATP) and adapt‐to‐shape (ATS) workflows. An adaptive patient plan was generated on a diagnostic MR image with simulated translational and rotational daily setup variation and was compared with the reference plan. All adaptive plans were compared with the reference plan using the target coverage, Paddick conformity index, gradient index (GI), Brain V12 or V20, optimization time and total monitor units. Target doses were measured as an end‐to‐end test with two ionization chambers inserted into the phantom. With preset translational variations, V12 from the ATS plan was 17% lower than that of the ATP plan. With a larger daily setup variation, GI and V12 of the ATS plan were 10% and 16% lower than those of the ATP plan, respectively. Compared to the ATP plans, the plan quality index of the ATS plans was more consistent with the reference plan, and within 5% in both phantom and patient plans. The differences between the measured and planned target doses were within 1% for both treatment workflows. Treating brain SRS using an MRL is feasible and could achieve satisfactory dosimetric goals. Setup uncertainties could be accounted for using online plan adaptation. The ATS workflow achieved better dosimetric results than the ATP workflow at the cost of longer optimization time.

Demonstration of quasi-real-time intrafractional motion in esophageal cancer radiotherapy provided by ExacTrac X-ray snap verification

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the following hypotheses: (1) ExacTrac X-ray Snap Verification (ET-SV) is an alternative to CBCT for positioning patients with esophageal carcinoma (EC), (2) ET-SV can detect displacement in EC patients during radiotherapy (RT) and (3) EC patients can be feasibly monitored in quasi-real-time with ET-SV during RT.

METHODS

Anthropomorphic phantoms and 13 patients were included in this study. CBCT and ET-SV were both implemented before treatment delivery to detect displacement, and their correction results were compared. For the patient tests, positional correction in 3 translational directions and the yaw direction were applied using the ET-SV correction results. The residual error was detected immediately using ET-SV. Finally, to acquire the intrafractional motion, ET-SV was implemented when the gantry was at 0°, 90°, 180° and 270°, respectively.

RESULTS

In phantom tests, the maximum value of the difference in displacement between the CBCT and ET systems was 1.16 mm for translation and 0.31° for yaw. According to Bland-Altman analysis of the patient test results, 5% (5/98), 5% (5/98), 5% (5/98), and 4% (4/98) of points were beyond the upper and lower limits of agreement in the AP, SI, LR and yaw directions, respectively. The mean residual error was -0.482 mm, 1.215 mm, 1.0 mm, -0.487°, 0.105°, and 0.003° in the AP, SI, LR, pitch, roll and yaw directions, respectively. The intrafractional displacement ranged from -0.21 mm to 0 mm for translation and from -0.63° to 0.21° for rotation. The mean total translational error for intrafractional motion increased from 0.47 mm to 1.14 mm during the treatment.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of ET-SV for EC RT positional correction is comparable to that of CBCT. Thus, Quasi-real-time intrafractional monitoring can be used to detect EC patient displacement during radiotherapy.

Comparison of Intrafractional Motion in Head and Neck Cancer Between Two Immobilization Methods During Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy by CyberKnife

Purpose

Maintaining immobilization to minimize spine motion is very important during salvage stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) for recurrent head and neck cancer. This study aimed to compare the intrafractional motion between two immobilization methods.

Patients and Methods

With a spine tracking system for image guiding, 9094 records from 41 patients receiving SABR by CyberKnife were obtained for retrospective comparison. Twenty-one patients were immobilized with a thermoplastic mask and headrest (Group A), and another 20 patients used a thermoplastic mask and headrest together with a vacuum bag to support the head and neck area (Group B). The intrafractional motion in the X (superior-inferior), Y (right-left), Z (anterior-posterior) axes, 3D (three-dimensional) vector, Roll, Pitch and Yaw in the two groups was compared. The margins of the planning target volume (PTV) to cover 95% intrafractional motion were evaluated.

Results

The translational movements in the X-axis, Y-axis, and 3D vector in Group A were significantly smaller than in Group B. The rotational errors in the Roll and Yaw in Group A were also significantly smaller than those in Group B; conversely, those in the Pitch in Group A were larger. To cover 95% intrafractional motion, margins of 0.96, 1.55, and 1.51 mm in the X, Y and Z axes, respectively were needed in Group A, and 1.06, 2.86, and 1.34 mm, respectively were required in Group B.

Conclusion

The immobilization method of thermoplastic mask and head rest with vacuum bag did not provide better immobilization than that without vacuum bag in most axes. The clinical use of 2 mm as a margin of PTV to cover 95% intrafractional motion was adequate in Group A but not in Group B.

A systematic review and practical considerations of stereotactic body radiotherapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer

OBJECTIVES

Stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) is gaining popularity although its use in head and neck cancer (HNC) is not well defined. The primary objective was to review the published evidence regarding the use of stereotactic radiotherapy in HNC.

METHODS

A literature search was performed by using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for eligible studies from 2000 to 2019 and 26 relevant studies were identified.

RESULTS

Literature demonstrates a heterogeneous use of this technique with regards to patient population, primary or salvage treatment, dose fractionation regimens, outcomes and follow-up protocols. Carotid blow out syndrome is a risk as with other forms of reirradiation but alternative treatment regimens may reduce this risk.

CONCLUSION

At present there is a lack of evidence regarding SBRT as a primary treatment option for HNC and definitive answers regarding efficacy and tolerability cannot be provided but there is growing evidence that SBRT reirradiation regimens are safe and effective. In lieu of evidence from large Phase III trials, we define appropriate organ at risk constraints and prescription doses, with accurate plan summation approaches. Prospective randomised trials are warranted to validate improved treatment outcomes and acceptable treatment morbidity.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This article provides a comprehensive review of evidence of use of stereotactic radiotherapy in HNC site (either as a primary treatment or as reirradiation). We also provide an evidence-based approach to the implementation and practical consideration of stereotactic radiotherapy in HNC.

Highly conformal reirradiation in patients with prior oropharyngeal radiation: Clinical efficacy and toxicity outcomes

BACKGROUND

Reirradiation of head and neck cancer is associated with high rates of locoregional failure and potentially severe treatment-related toxicity. We report our institutional experience of reirradiation using modern highly conformal radiotherapy approaches in patients with prior oropharyngeal radiation.

METHODS

We reviewed patients receiving curative-intent reirradiation with intensity-modulated radiation therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and proton beam radiotherapy at our institution from 1999 to 2019. Disease control, survival, and toxicity rates following reirradiation were determined.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients were evaluated. Local control (LC), progression-free survival, and overall survival at 2 years following reirradiation were 77%, 35%, and 51%, respectively. Grade 3 or greater (G3+) late toxicities occurred in 46% of patients and 41% required feeding tube placement during or after reirradiation.

CONCLUSIONS

In select patients with prior oropharyngeal radiation, highly conformal reirradiation offers acceptable LC, but G3+ toxicity and out-of-field failure rates remain high. These findings warrant continued evaluation of new multimodality approaches to improve oncologic outcomes.

Conventionally fractionated large volume head and neck re-irradiation using multileaf collimator-based robotic technique: A feasibility study

Purpose

To report on the feasibility and performance of conventionally fractionated multileaf collimator (MLC)-based robotic stereotactic body re-irradiation of the head and neck region using MLC-based Cyberknife (CK) technology.

Methods

Patients treated for recurrent or second primary head and neck cancer (HNC) with curative proton therapy to a target volume > 30 cm³ between 2011 and 2015 were included. MLC-based CK plans were generated using the CK M6 InCise2 MLC system. Dose statistics from MLC-based CK plans were compared to proton beam therapy (PBT) plans according to the following metrics: target coverage, target homogeneity index, gradient index, Paddick conformity index (CI), prescription isodose volume (PIV), treatment time (tTime) for one fraction as well as doses to organs at risk (OAR). Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare dose metrics.

Results

Eight patients were included; the tumor sites included: salivary glands, pharynx (oropharynx, hypopharynx and retropharynx) and sinonasal cavities. Five of 8 patients were treated with multifield optimisation intensity modulated proton therapy, 3 were treated with passive scattering proton therapy. Median dose was 67 Gy (range 60-70) in 32 fractions (range 30-35). The median high-dose planning target volume (PTV) was 45.4 cm³ (range 2.4 - 130.2 cm³) and the median elective PTV was 91.9 cm³ (range 61.2 - 269.7 cm³). Overall, the mean target coverage (mean 98.3% vs. 96.2% for CK vs. PBT, respectively), maximum dose to PTV (mean 111% vs. 111%, p = 0.2) and mean dose to PTV (mean 104% vs. 104%) were similar across modalities. Highly conformal plans were achieved with both modalities, but mean CI was better with PBT (0.5 vs. 0.6 for CK vs. PBT, p = 0.04). Homogeneity and gradient indexes were similar between the 2 modalities; mean tTime with PBT and CK was 17 vs. 18 min, respectively (p = 0.7). Case-based study revealed that CK and PBT plans allowed for excellent sparing of OAR, with some clinical scenarios associated with better performance of CK while others with better performance of PBT.

Conclusion

Our study has demonstrated the dosimetric performance of large volume head and neck re-irradiation using MLC-based CK in various clinical scenarios. While conformity was generally better achieved with PBT, MLC-based CK allowed for high dose gradient leading to rapid dose drop-off and sparing of OAR. Conventionally fractionated MLC-based CK could be a competitive alternative in large volume head and neck re-irradiation that deserves further investigation in the clinical setting.