1
|
Rohrer Bley C, Meier V, Turek M, Besserer J, Unterhirkhers S. Stereotactic Radiation Therapy Planning, Dose Prescription and Delivery in Veterinary Medicine: A Systematic Review on Completeness of Reporting and Proposed Reporting Items. Vet Comp Oncol 2024. [PMID: 39367729 DOI: 10.1111/vco.13011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2024] [Revised: 08/25/2024] [Accepted: 08/26/2024] [Indexed: 10/06/2024]
Abstract
Increasing numbers of dogs and cats with cancer are treated with stereotactic radiosurgery, stereotactic radiation therapy or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SRS, SRT or SBRT). We provide a systematic review of the current data landscape with a focus on technical and dosimetric data of stereotactic radiotherapy in veterinary oncology. Original peer-reviewed articles on dogs and cats with cancer treated with SRT were included. The systematic search included Medline via PubMed and EMBASE. The study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) statement. We assessed the manuscripts regarding outcome reporting, treatment planning, dose prescription, -delivery and -reporting as well as quality assurance. As of February 2024, there are 80 peer-reviewed publications on various disease entities on SRS, SRT and SBRT in veterinary medicine. Overall, we found often insufficient or highly variable technical data, with incomplete information to reproduce these treatments. While in some instances, technical factors may not impact clinical outcome, the variability found in protocols, outcome and toxicity assessments precludes accurate and reliable conclusions for a benefit of stereotactic radiotherapy for many of the treated diseases. In line with the extensive recommendations from human stereotactic radiotherapy practise, we propose a draft of reporting items for future stereotactic radiation treatments in veterinary medicine. SRS, SRT and SBRT have specific clinical and technological requirements that differ from those of standard radiation therapy. Therefore, a deep understanding of the methodologies, as well as the quality and precision of dose delivery, is essential for effective clinical knowledge transfer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carla Rohrer Bley
- Clinic for Radiation Oncology & Medical Oncology, Small Animal Department, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Valeria Meier
- Clinic for Radiation Oncology & Medical Oncology, Small Animal Department, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Michelle Turek
- Department of Surgical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Juergen Besserer
- Clinic for Radiation Oncology & Medical Oncology, Small Animal Department, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Radiation Oncology, Hirslanden Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Sergejs Unterhirkhers
- Clinic for Radiation Oncology & Medical Oncology, Small Animal Department, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Radiation Oncology, Hirslanden Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Brunner TB, Boda-Heggemann J, Bürgy D, Corradini S, Dieckmann UK, Gawish A, Gerum S, Gkika E, Grohmann M, Hörner-Rieber J, Kirste S, Klement RJ, Moustakis C, Nestle U, Niyazi M, Rühle A, Lang ST, Winkler P, Zurl B, Wittig-Sauerwein A, Blanck O. Dose prescription for stereotactic body radiotherapy: general and organ-specific consensus statement from the DEGRO/DGMP Working Group Stereotactic Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery. Strahlenther Onkol 2024; 200:737-750. [PMID: 38997440 PMCID: PMC11343978 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-024-02254-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2024] [Accepted: 06/02/2024] [Indexed: 07/14/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE To develop expert consensus statements on multiparametric dose prescriptions for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) aligning with ICRU report 91. These statements serve as a foundational step towards harmonizing current SBRT practices and refining dose prescription and documentation requirements for clinical trial designs. MATERIALS AND METHODS Based on the results of a literature review by the working group, a two-tier Delphi consensus process was conducted among 24 physicians and physics experts from three European countries. The degree of consensus was predefined for overarching (OA) and organ-specific (OS) statements (≥ 80%, 60-79%, < 60% for high, intermediate, and poor consensus, respectively). Post-first round statements were refined in a live discussion for the second round of the Delphi process. RESULTS Experts consented on a total of 14 OA and 17 OS statements regarding SBRT of primary and secondary lung, liver, pancreatic, adrenal, and kidney tumors regarding dose prescription, target coverage, and organ at risk dose limitations. Degree of consent was ≥ 80% in 79% and 41% of OA and OS statements, respectively, with higher consensus for lung compared to the upper abdomen. In round 2, the degree of consent was ≥ 80 to 100% for OA and 88% in OS statements. No consensus was reached for dose escalation to liver metastases after chemotherapy (47%) or single-fraction SBRT for kidney primaries (13%). In round 2, no statement had 60-79% consensus. CONCLUSION In 29 of 31 statements a high consensus was achieved after a two-tier Delphi process and one statement (kidney) was clearly refused. The Delphi process was able to achieve a high degree of consensus for SBRT dose prescription. In summary, clear recommendations for both OA and OS could be defined. This contributes significantly to harmonization of SBRT practice and facilitates dose prescription and reporting in clinical trials investigating SBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas B Brunner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 32, 8036, Graz, Austria.
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Graz, 8036, Graz, Austria.
| | - Judit Boda-Heggemann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medicine Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Daniel Bürgy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medicine Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Stefanie Corradini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Ute Karin Dieckmann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 32, 8036, Graz, Austria
| | - Ahmed Gawish
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Giessen-Marburg, Marburg, Germany
| | - Sabine Gerum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Paracelsus University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
| | - Eleni Gkika
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Bonn, 53127, Bonn, Germany
| | - Maximilian Grohmann
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Juliane Hörner-Rieber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Simon Kirste
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Rainer J Klement
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Leopoldina Hospital Schweinfurt, Robert-Koch-Straße 10, 97422, Schweinfurt, Germany
| | - Christos Moustakis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Leipzig, Stephanstraße 9a, 04103, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Ursula Nestle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Kliniken Maria Hilf, Moenchengladbach, Germany
| | - Maximilian Niyazi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Alexander Rühle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Leipzig, Stephanstraße 9a, 04103, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Stephanie-Tanadini Lang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Peter Winkler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 32, 8036, Graz, Austria
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Graz, 8036, Graz, Austria
| | - Brigitte Zurl
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Graz, 8036, Graz, Austria
| | | | - Oliver Blanck
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, 24105, Kiel, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Trojani V, Grehn M, Botti A, Balgobind B, Savini A, Boda-Heggemann J, Miszczyk M, Elicin O, Krug D, Andratschke N, Schmidhalter D, van Elmpt W, Bogowicz M, de Areba Iglesias J, Dolla L, Ehrbar S, Fernandez-Velilla E, Fleckenstein J, Granero D, Henzen D, Hurkmans C, Kluge A, Knybel L, Loopeker S, Mirandola A, Richetto V, Sicignano G, Vallet V, van Asselen B, Worm E, Pruvot E, Verhoeff J, Fast M, Iori M, Blanck O. Refining Treatment Planning in STereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation: Benchmark Results and Consensus Statement From the STOPSTORM.eu Consortium. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024:S0360-3016(24)03171-7. [PMID: 39122095 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.07.2331] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2023] [Revised: 07/09/2024] [Accepted: 07/29/2024] [Indexed: 08/12/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE STereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation (STAR) showed promising results in patients with refractory ventricular tachycardia. However, clinical data are scarce and heterogeneous. The STOPSTORM.eu consortium was established to investigate and harmonize STAR in Europe. The primary goal of this benchmark study was to investigate current treatment planning practice within the STOPSTORM project as a baseline for future harmonization. METHODS AND MATERIALS Planning target volumes (PTVs) overlapping extracardiac organs-at-risk and/or cardiac substructures were generated for 3 STAR cases. Participating centers were asked to create single-fraction treatment plans with 25 Gy dose prescriptions based on in-house clinical practice. All treatment plans were reviewed by an expert panel and quantitative crowd knowledge-based analysis was performed with independent software using descriptive statistics for International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements report 91 relevant parameters and crowd dose-volume histograms. Thereafter, treatment planning consensus statements were established using a dual-stage voting process. RESULTS Twenty centers submitted 67 treatment plans for this study. In most plans (75%) intensity modulated arc therapy with 6 MV flattening filter free beams was used. Dose prescription was mainly based on PTV D95% (49%) or D96%-100% (19%). Many participants preferred to spare close extracardiac organs-at-risk (75%) and cardiac substructures (50%) by PTV coverage reduction. PTV D0.035cm3 ranged from 25.5 to 34.6 Gy, demonstrating a large variety of dose inhomogeneity. Estimated treatment times without motion compensation or setup ranged from 2 to 80 minutes. For the consensus statements, a strong agreement was reached for beam technique planning, dose calculation, prescription methods, and trade-offs between target and extracardiac critical structures. No agreement was reached on cardiac substructure dose limitations and on desired dose inhomogeneity in the target. CONCLUSIONS This STOPSTORM multicenter treatment planning benchmark study not only showed strong agreement on several aspects of STAR treatment planning, but also revealed disagreement on others. To standardize and harmonize STAR in the future, consensus statements were established; however, clinical data are urgently needed for actionable guidelines for treatment planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valeria Trojani
- Department of Medical Physics, AUSL-IRCCS Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
| | - Melanie Grehn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center of Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Andrea Botti
- Department of Medical Physics, AUSL-IRCCS Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
| | - Brian Balgobind
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Judit Boda-Heggemann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Marcin Miszczyk
- IIIrd Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland; Collegium Medicum - Faculty of Medicine, WSB University, Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland
| | - Olgun Elicin
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - David Krug
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center of Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Nicolaus Andratschke
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Daniel Schmidhalter
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Wouter van Elmpt
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Marta Bogowicz
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Lukasz Dolla
- Radiotherapy Planning Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland
| | - Stefanie Ehrbar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - Jens Fleckenstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Domingo Granero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital General Valencia, Valencia, Spain
| | - Dominik Henzen
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Coen Hurkmans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands; Department of Electrical Engineering and Department of Applied Physics, Technical University Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Anne Kluge
- Department for Radiation Oncology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Lukas Knybel
- Department of Oncology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Ostrava, Czech Republic
| | - Sandy Loopeker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Alfredo Mirandola
- Radiation Oncology Clinical Department, National Center of Oncological Hadrontherapy (Fondazione CNAO), Pavia, Italy
| | - Veronica Richetto
- Medical Physics Unit, A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Torino, Italy
| | - Gianluisa Sicignano
- Department of Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar, Verona, Italy
| | - Veronique Vallet
- Department of Radiophysics, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Bram van Asselen
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Esben Worm
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Etienne Pruvot
- Heart and Vessel Department, Service of Cardiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Joost Verhoeff
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Martin Fast
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Mauro Iori
- Department of Medical Physics, AUSL-IRCCS Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
| | - Oliver Blanck
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center of Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Carver A, Scaggion A, Jurado-Bruggeman D, Blanck O, Dalqvist E, Romana Giglioli F, Jenko A, Karlsson K, Staykova V, Swinnnen A, Warren S, Mancosu P, Jornet N. Treatment planning and delivery practice of lung SBRT: Results of the 2022 ESTRO physics survey. Radiother Oncol 2024; 196:110318. [PMID: 38702015 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110318] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2023] [Revised: 03/18/2024] [Accepted: 04/25/2024] [Indexed: 05/06/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The use of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) in lung cancer is increasing. However, there is no consensus on the most appropriate treatment planning and delivery practice for lung SBRT. To gauge the range of practice, quantify its variability and identify where consensus might be achieved, ESTRO surveyed the medical physics community. MATERIALS AND METHODS An online survey was distributed to ESTRO's physicist membership in 2022, covering experience, dose and fractionation, target delineation, dose calculation and planning practice, imaging protocols, and quality assurance. RESULTS Two-hundred and forty-four unique answers were collected after data cleaning. Most respondents were from Europe the majority of which had more than 5 years' experience in SBRT. The large majority of respondents deliver lung SBRT with the VMAT technique on C-arm Linear Accelerators (Linacs) employing daily pre-treatment CBCT imaging. A broad spectrum of fractionation schemes were reported, alongside an equally wide range of dose prescription protocols. A clear preference was noted for prescribing to 95% or greater of the PTV. Several issues emerged regarding the dose calculation algorithm: 22% did not state it while 24% neglected to specify the conditions under which the dose was calculated. Contouring was usually performed on Maximum or Average Intensity Projection images while dose was mainly computed on the latter. No clear indications emerged for plan homogeneity, complexity, and conformity assessment. Approximately 40% of the responders participated in inter-centre credentialing of SBRT in the last five years. Substantial differences emerged between high and low experience centres, with the latter employing less accurate algorithms and older equipment. CONCLUSION The survey revealed an evident heterogeneity in numerous aspects of the clinical implementation of lung SBRT treatments. International guidelines and codes of practice might promote harmonisation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antony Carver
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Medical Physics, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Alessandro Scaggion
- Medical Physics Department, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV - IRCCS, Padova, Italy
| | - Diego Jurado-Bruggeman
- Institut Català d'Oncologia, Medical Physics and Radiation Protection Department, Girona, Spain
| | - Oliver Blanck
- University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Department of Radiation Oncology, Kiel, Germany
| | - Emmy Dalqvist
- Karolinska University Hospital, Radiotherapy Physics and Engineering, Medical Radiation Physics and Nuclear Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden; KarolinskaInstitutet, Department of Oncology-Pathology, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - Aljasa Jenko
- Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Department of Radiotherapy, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Kristin Karlsson
- Karolinska University Hospital, Radiotherapy Physics and Engineering, Medical Radiation Physics and Nuclear Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden; KarolinskaInstitutet, Department of Oncology-Pathology, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Vanya Staykova
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Radiotherapy Physics, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ans Swinnnen
- GROW School for Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Samantha Warren
- Northern Centre for Cancer Care, Freeman Hospital, Department of Medical Physics, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Pietro Mancosu
- IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Medical Physics Unit, Department of Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery, Rozzano-Milan, Italy.
| | - Nuria Jornet
- Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Servei de Radiofísica i Radioprotecció, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Brekner MC, Imhoff D, Rödel C, Filmann N, Licher J, Ramm U, Köhn J. Stereotactic body radiotherapy with volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy and flattening filter-free beams: dosimetric considerations. Strahlenther Onkol 2024; 200:346-357. [PMID: 38092967 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-023-02181-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2023] [Accepted: 11/01/2023] [Indexed: 03/27/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE The present study comparatively evaluates the impact of energy-matched flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beams with different energy levels on the physical-dosimetric quality of lung and liver stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment plans. METHODS For this purpose, 54 different lung and liver lesions from 44 patients who had already received SBRT combined with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were included in this retrospective planning study. Planning computed tomography scans already available were used for the renewed planning with 6 MV, 6 MV-FFF, 10 MV, and 10 MV-FFF under constant planning objectives. The treatment delivery data, dosimetric distributions, and dose-volume histograms as well as parameters such as the conformity index and gradient indices were the basis for the evaluation and comparison of treatment plans. RESULTS A significant reduction of beam-on time (BOT) was achieved due to the high dose rates of FFF beams. In addition, we showed that for FFF beams compared to flattened beams of the same energy level, smaller planning target volumes (PTV) require fewer monitor units (MU) than larger PTVs. An equal to slightly superior target volume coverage and sparing of healthy tissue as well as organs at risk in both lung and liver lesions were found. Significant differences were seen mainly in the medium to lower dose range. CONCLUSION We found that FFF beams together with VMAT represent an excellent combination for SBRT of lung or liver lesions with shortest BOT for 10 MV-FFF but significant dose savings for 6 MV-FFF in lung lesions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark Christoph Brekner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
| | - Detlef Imhoff
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Claus Rödel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Natalie Filmann
- Institute for Biostatistics and Mathematical Modeling, University Hospital, Goethe University, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Jörg Licher
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Ulla Ramm
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Janett Köhn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Chan MKH. A sub-analysis of multi-center planning radiosurgery for intracranial metastases through automation (MC-PRIMA) comparing UK and international centers. Med Eng Phys 2023; 117:103996. [PMID: 37331750 DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2023.103996] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2023] [Revised: 04/23/2023] [Accepted: 05/17/2023] [Indexed: 06/20/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES A sub-analysis of the MC-PRIMA study was performed to compare the plan quality of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to multiple brain metastases (MBM) between UK and other international centres. METHODS AND MATERIALS Six centres from the UK and nineteen from other international centres autoplanned using Multiple Brain Mets™ (AutoMBM; Brainlab, Munich, Germany) software for a five MBM study case from a prior planning competition that was originally organized by the Trans-Tasmania Radiation Oncology Group (TROG). Twenty-three dosimetric metrics and the resulting composite plan score per the TROG planning competition were compared between the UK and other international centres. Planning experience and planning time from each planner were recorded and statistically compared. RESULTS Planning experiences between two groups are equal. Except for mean dose to the hippocampus, all other 22 dosimetric metrics were comparable between two groups. The inter-planner variations in these 23 dosimetric metrics and the composite plan score were also statistically equivalent. Planning time is slightly longer in the UK group (mean = 86.8 min) with a mean difference of 50.3 min. CONCLUSIONS AutoMBM effectively achieves standardization of the plan quality of SRS to MBM within UK and further against the other international centres. Significant planning efficiency gain by AutoMBM both among the UK and other international centres may help to increase the capacity of SRS service by alleviating the clinical and technical loadings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark K H Chan
- University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Das IJ, Yadav P, Andersen AD, Chen ZJ, Huang L, Langer MP, Lee C, Li L, Popple RA, Rice RK, Schiff PB, Zhu TC, Abazeed ME. Dose prescription and reporting in stereotactic body radiotherapy: A multi-institutional study. Radiother Oncol 2023; 182:109571. [PMID: 36822361 PMCID: PMC10121952 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109571] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2022] [Revised: 02/07/2023] [Accepted: 02/12/2023] [Indexed: 02/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Radiation dose prescriptions are foundational for optimizing treatment efficacy and limiting treatment-related toxicity. We sought to assess the lack of standardization of SBRT dose prescriptions across institutions. MATERIALS & METHODS Dosimetric data from 1298 patients from 9 academic institutions treated with IMRT and VMAT were collected. Dose parameters D100, D98, D95, D50, and D2 were used to assess dosimetric variability. RESULTS Disease sites included lung (48.3 %) followed by liver (29.7 %), prostate (7.5 %), spine (6.8 %), brain (4.1 %), and pancreas (2.5 %). The PTV volume in lung varied widely with bimodality into two main groups (22.0-28.7 cm3) and (48.0-67.1 cm3). A hot spot ranging from 120-150 % was noted in nearly half of the patients, with significant variation across institutions. A D50 ≥ 110 % was found in nearly half of the institutions. There was significant dosimetric variation across institutions. CONCLUSIONS The SBRT prescriptions in the literature or in treatment guidelines currently lack nuance and hence there is significant variation in dose prescriptions across academic institutions. These findings add greater importance to the identification of dose parameters associated with improved clinical outcome comparisons as we move towards more hypofractionated treatments. There is a need for standardized reporting to help institutions in adapting treatment protocols based on the outcome of clinical trials. Dosimetric parameters are subsequently needed for uniformity and thereby standardizing planning guidelines to maximize efficacy, mitigate toxicity, and reduce treatment disparities are urgently needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Indra J Das
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
| | - Poonam Yadav
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Aaron D Andersen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Renown Medical Center, Reno, NV, USA
| | - Zhe Jay Chen
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University, New haven, CT, USA
| | - Long Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Mark P Langer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Choonik Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Lin Li
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Richard A Popple
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - Roger K Rice
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Science, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Peter B Schiff
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Timothy C Zhu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Mohamed E Abazeed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Shi H, Li X, Chen Z, Jiang W, Dong S, He R, Zhou W. Nomograms for Predicting the Risk and Prognosis of Liver Metastases in Pancreatic Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis. J Pers Med 2023; 13:jpm13030409. [PMID: 36983591 PMCID: PMC10056156 DOI: 10.3390/jpm13030409] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2023] [Revised: 02/11/2023] [Accepted: 02/21/2023] [Indexed: 03/03/2023] Open
Abstract
The liver is the most prevalent location of distant metastasis for pancreatic cancer (PC), which is highly aggressive. Pancreatic cancer with liver metastases (PCLM) patients have a poor prognosis. Furthermore, there is a lack of effective predictive tools for anticipating the diagnostic and prognostic techniques that are needed for the PCLM patients in current clinical work. Therefore, we aimed to construct two nomogram predictive models incorporating common clinical indicators to anticipate the risk factors and prognosis for PCLM patients. Clinicopathological information on pancreatic cancer that referred to patients who had been diagnosed between the years of 2004 and 2015 was extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses and a Cox regression analysis were utilized to recognize the independent risk variables and independent predictive factors for the PCLM patients, respectively. Using the independent risk as well as prognostic factors derived from the multivariate regression analysis, we constructed two novel nomogram models for predicting the risk and prognosis of PCLM patients. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the consistency index (C-index), and the calibration curve were then utilized to establish the accuracy of the nomograms’ predictions and their discriminability between groups. Using a decision curve analysis (DCA), the clinical values of the two predictors were examined. Finally, we utilized Kaplan–Meier curves to examine the effects of different factors on the prognostic overall survival (OS). As many as 1898 PCLM patients were screened. The patient’s sex, primary site, histopathological type, grade, T stage, N stage, bone metastases, lung metastases, tumor size, surgical resection, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy were all found to be independent risks variables for PCLM in a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Using a multivariate Cox regression analysis, we discovered that age, histopathological type, grade, bone metastasis, lung metastasis, tumor size, and surgery were all independent prognostic variables for PCLM. According to these factors, two nomogram models were developed to anticipate the prognostic OS as well as the risk variables for the progression of PCLM in PCLM patients, and a web-based version of the prediction model was constructed. The diagnostic nomogram model had a C-index of 0.884 (95% CI: 0.876–0.892); the prognostic model had a C-index of 0.686 (95% CI: 0.648–0.722) in the training cohort and a C-index of 0.705 (95% CI: 0.647–0.758) in the validation cohort. Subsequent AUC, calibration curve, and DCA analyses revealed that the risk and predictive model of PCLM had high accuracy as well as efficacy for clinical application. The nomograms constructed can effectively predict risk and prognosis factors in PCLM patients, which facilitates personalized clinical decision-making for patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Huaqing Shi
- Second College of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
| | - Xin Li
- The First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730030, China
| | - Zhou Chen
- The First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730030, China
| | - Wenkai Jiang
- Second College of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
| | - Shi Dong
- Second College of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
| | - Ru He
- The First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730030, China
| | - Wence Zhou
- Second College of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
- Department of General Surgery, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou 730030, China
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Tang C, Gong C, Liu B, Guo H, Dai Z, Yuan J, Wang X, Zhang Y. Feasibility and dosimetric evaluation of single- and multi-isocentre stereotactic body radiation therapy for multiple liver metastases. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1144784. [PMID: 37188200 PMCID: PMC10175834 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1144784] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2023] [Accepted: 04/13/2023] [Indexed: 05/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Objectives Single-isocentre volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) improves treatment efficiency and patient compliance for patients with multiple liver metastases (MLM). However, the potential increase in dose spillage to normal liver tissue using a single-isocentre technique has not yet been studied. We comprehensively evaluated the quality of single- and multi-isocentre VMAT-SBRT for MLM and propose a RapidPlan-based automatic planning (AP) approach for MLM SBRT. Methods A total of 30 patients with MLM (two or three lesions) were selected for this retrospective study. We manually replanned all patients treated with MLM SBRT by using the single-isocentre (MUS) and multi-isocentre (MUM) techniques. Then, we randomly selected 20 MUS and MUM plans for training to generate the single-isocentre RapidPlan model (RPS) and the multi-isocentre RapidPlan model (RPM). Finally, we used data from the remaining 10 patients to validate RPS and RPM. Results Compared with MUS, MUM reduced the mean dose delivered to the right kidney by 0.3 Gy. The mean liver dose (MLD) was 2.3 Gy higher for MUS compared with MUM. However, the monitor units, delivery time, and V20Gy of normal liver (liver-gross tumour volume) for MUM were significantly higher than for MUS. Based on validation, RPS and RPM slightly improved the MLD, V20Gy, normal tissue complications, and dose sparing to the right and left kidneys and spinal cord compared with manual plans (MUS vs RPS and MUM vs RPM), but RPS and RPM significantly increased monitor units and delivery time. Conclusions The single-isocentre VMAT-SBRT approach could be used for MLM to reduce treatment time and patient comfort at the cost of a small increase in the MLD. Compared with the manual plans, RapidPlan-based plans, especially RPS, have slightly improved quality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chunbo Tang
- Department of Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, China
| | - Changfei Gong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, Nanchang, China
- *Correspondence: Changfei Gong, ; Yun Zhang,
| | - Biaoshui Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Hailiang Guo
- Department of Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, China
| | - Zhongyang Dai
- Department of Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, China
| | - Jun Yuan
- Department of Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, China
| | - Xiaoping Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, Nanchang, China
| | - Yun Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Jiangxi Cancer Hospital, Nanchang, China
- *Correspondence: Changfei Gong, ; Yun Zhang,
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
In Regard to Moustakis et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 114:373-374. [PMID: 36055319 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.06.062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2022] [Accepted: 06/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
|