Dosimetric Validation for Prospective Clinical Trial of GRID Collimator-Based Spatially Fractionated Radiation Therapy: Dose Metrics Consistency and Heterogeneous Pattern Reproducibility

Rotationally Intensified Proton Lattice: A Novel Lattice Technique Using Spot-Scanning Proton Arc Therapy

Purpose

The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility and dosimetric advantage of using spot-scanning proton arc (SPArc) for lattice radiation therapy in comparison with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) lattice techniques.

Methods

Lattice plans were retrospectively generated for 14 large tumors across the abdomen, pelvis, lung, and head-and-neck sites using VMAT, IMPT, and SPArc techniques. Lattice geometries comprised vertices 1.5 cm in diameter that were arrayed in a body-centered cubic lattice with a 6-cm lattice constant. The prescription dose was 20 Gy (relative biological effectiveness [RBE]) in 5 fractions to the periphery of the tumor, with a simultaneous integrated boost of 66.7 Gy (RBE) as a minimum dose to the vertices. Organ-at-risk constraints per American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 101were prioritized. Dose-volume histograms were extracted and used to identify maximum, minimum, and mean doses; equivalent uniform dose; D95%, D50%, D10%, D5%; V19Gy; peak-to-valley dose ratio (PVDR); and gradient index (GI). The treatment delivery time of IMPT and SPArc were simulated based on the published proton delivery sequence model.

Results

Median tumor volume was 577 cc with a median of 4.5 high-dose vertices per plan. Low-dose coverage was maintained in all plans (median V19Gy: SPArc 96%, IMPT 96%, VMAT 92%). SPArc generated significantly greater dose gradients as measured by PVDR (SPArc 4.0, IMPT 3.6, VMAT 3.2; SPArc-IMPT P = .0001, SPArc-VMAT P < .001) and high-dose GI (SPArc 5.9, IMPT 11.7, VMAT 17.1; SPArc-IMPT P = .001, SPArc-VMAT P < .01). Organ-at-risk constraints were met in all plans. Simulated delivery time was significantly improved with SPArc compared with IMPT (510 seconds vs 637 seconds, P < .001).

Conclusions

SPArc therapy was able to achieve high-quality lattice plans for various sites with superior gradient metrics (PVDR and GI) when compared with VMAT and IMPT. Clinical implementation is warranted.

Dosimetric characterization for GRID collimator-based spatially fractionated radiation therapy: Dosimetric parameter acquisition and machine interchangeability investigation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to characterize the dosimetric properties of a commercial brass GRID collimator for high energy photon beams including 15 and 10 MV. Then, the difference in dosimetric parameters of GRID beams among different energies and linacs was evaluated.

METHOD

A water tank scanning system was used to acquire the dosimetric parameters, including the percentage depth dose (PDD), beam profiles, peak to valley dose ratios (PVDRs), and output factors (OFs). The profiles at various depths were measured at 100 cm source to surface distance (SSD), and field sizes of 10 × 10 cm2 and 20 × 20 cm2 on three linacs. The PVDRs and OFs were measured and compared with the treatment planning system (TPS) calculations.

RESULTS

Compared with the open beam data, there were noticeable changes in PDDs of GRID fields across all the energies. The GRID fields demonstrated a maximal of 3 mm shift in dmax (Truebeam STX, 15MV, 10 × 10 cm2). The PVDR decreased as beam energy increases. The difference in PVDRs between Trilogy and Truebeam STx using 6MV and 15MV was 1.5% ± 4.0% and 2.1% ± 4.3%, respectively. However, two Truebeam linacs demonstrated less than 2% difference in PVDRs. The OF of the GRID field was dependent on the energy and field size. The measured PDDs, PVDRs, and OFs agreed with the TPS calculations within 3% difference. The TPS calculations agreed with the measurements when using 1 mm calculation resolution.

CONCLUSION

The dosimetric characteristics of high-energy GRID fields, especially PVDR, significantly differ from those of low-energy GRID fields. Two Truebeam machines are interchangeable for GRID therapy, while a pronounced difference was observed between Truebeam and Trilogy. A series of empirical equations and reference look-up tables for GRID therapy can be generated to facilitate clinical applications.

Overview and Recommendations for Prospective Multi-institutional Spatially Fractionated Radiation Therapy Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

The highly heterogeneous dose delivery of spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT) is a profound departure from standard radiation planning and reporting approaches. Early SFRT studies have shown excellent clinical outcomes. However, prospective multi-institutional clinical trials of SFRT are still lacking. This NRG Oncology/American Association of Physicists in Medicine working group consensus aimed to develop recommendations on dosimetric planning, delivery, and SFRT dose reporting to address this current obstacle toward the design of SFRT clinical trials.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Working groups consisting of radiation oncologists, radiobiologists, and medical physicists with expertise in SFRT were formed in NRG Oncology and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine to investigate the needs and barriers in SFRT clinical trials.

RESULTS

Upon reviewing the SFRT technologies and methods, this group identified challenges in several areas, including the availability of SFRT, the lack of treatment planning system support for SFRT, the lack of guidance in the physics and dosimetry of SFRT, the approximated radiobiological modeling of SFRT, and the prescription and combination of SFRT with conventional radiation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing these challenges, the group further recommended several areas of improvement for the application of SFRT in cancer treatment, including the creation of clinical practice guidance documents, the improvement of treatment planning system support, the generation of treatment planning and dosimetric index reporting templates, and the development of better radiobiological models through preclinical studies and through conducting multi-institution clinical trials.

Optimizing GRID and Lattice Spatially Fractionated Radiation Therapy: Innovative Strategies for Radioresistant and Bulky Tumor Management

Treating radioresistant and bulky tumors is challenging due to their inherent resistance to standard therapies and their large size. GRID and lattice spatially fractionated radiation therapy (simply referred to GRID RT and LRT) offer promising techniques to tackle these issues. Both approaches deliver radiation in a grid-like or lattice pattern, creating high-dose peaks surrounded by low-dose valleys. This pattern enables the destruction of significant portions of the tumor while sparing healthy tissue. GRID RT uses a 2-dimensional pattern of high-dose peaks (15-20 Gy), while LRT delivers a three-dimensional array of high-dose vertices (10-20 Gy) spaced 2-5 cm apart. These techniques are beneficial for treating a variety of cancers, including soft tissue sarcomas, osteosarcomas, renal cell carcinoma, melanoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), pancreatic cancer, glioblastoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The specific grid and lattice patterns must be carefully tailored for each cancer type to maximize the peak-to-valley dose ratio while protecting critical organs and minimizing collateral damage. For gynecologic cancers, the treatment plan should align with the international consensus guidelines, incorporating concurrent chemotherapy for optimal outcomes. Despite the challenges of precise dosimetry and patient selection, GRID RT and LRT can be cost-effective using existing radiation equipment, including particle therapy systems, to deliver targeted high-dose radiation peaks. This phased approach of partial high-dose induction radiation therapy with standard fractionated radiation therapy maximizes immune modulation and tumor control while reducing toxicity. Comprehensive treatment plans using these advanced techniques offer a valuable framework for radiation oncologists, ensuring safe and effective delivery of therapy for radioresistant and bulky tumors. Further clinical trials data and standardized guidelines will refine these strategies, helping expand access to innovative cancer treatments.

Which Modality of SFRT Should be Considered First for Bulky Tumor Radiation Therapy, GRID or LATTICE?

Spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT), also known as the GRID and LATTICE radiotherapy (GRT, LRT), the concept of treating tumors by delivering a spatially modulated dose with highly non-uniform dose distributions, is a treatment modality of growing interest in radiation oncology, physics, and radiation biology. Clinical experience in SFRT has suggested that GRID and LATTICE therapy can achieve a high response and low toxicity in the treatment of refractory and bulky tumors. Limited initially to GRID therapy using block collimators, advanced, and versatile multi-leaf collimators, volumetric modulated arc technologies and particle therapy have since increased the capabilities and individualization of SFRT and expanded the clinical investigation of SFRT to various dosing regimens, multiple malignancies, tumor types and sites. As a 3D modulation approach outgrown from traditional 2D GRID, LATTICE therapy aims to reconfigure the traditional SFRT as spatial modulation of the radiation is confined solely to the tumor volume. The distinctively different beam geometries used in LATTICE therapy have led to appreciable variations in dose-volume distributions, compared to GRID therapy. The clinical relevance of the variations in dose-volume distribution between LATTICE and traditional GRID therapies is a crucial factor in determining their adoption in clinical practice. In this Point-Counterpoint contribution, the authors debate the pros and cons of GRID and LATTICE therapy. Both modalities have been used in clinics and their applicability and optimal use have been discussed in this article.

Automated target placement for VMAT lattice radiation therapy: enhancing efficiency and consistency

Objective. An algorithm was developed for automated positioning of lattice points within volumetric modulated arc lattice radiation therapy (VMAT LRT) planning. These points are strategically placed within the gross tumor volume (GTV) to receive high doses, adhering to specific separation rules from adjacent organs at risk (OARs). The study goals included enhancing planning safety, consistency, and efficiency while emulating human performance.Approach. A Monte Carlo-based algorithm was designed to optimize the number and arrangement of lattice points within the GTV while considering placement constraints and objectives. These constraints encompassed minimum spacing between points, distance from OARs, and longitudinal separation along thez-axis. Additionally, the algorithm included an objective to permit, at the user's discretion, solutions with more centrally placed lattice points within the GTV. To validate its effectiveness, the automated approach was compared with manually planned treatments for 24 previous patients. Prior to clinical implementation, a failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) was conducted to identify potential shortcomings.Main results.The automated program successfully met all placement constraints with an average execution time (over 24 plans) of 0.29 ±0.07 min per lattice point. The average lattice point density (# points per 100 c.c. of GTV) was similar for automated (0.725) compared to manual placement (0.704). The dosimetric differences between the automated and manual plans were minimal, with statistically significant differences in certain metrics like minimum dose (1.9% versus 1.4%), D5% (52.8% versus 49.4%), D95% (7.1% versus 6.2%), and Body-GTV V30% (20.7 c.c. versus 19.7 c.c.).Significance.This study underscores the feasibility of employing a straightforward Monte Carlo-based algorithm to automate the creation of spherical target structures for VMAT LRT planning. The automated method yields similar dose metrics, enhances inter-planner consistency for larger targets, and requires fewer resources and less time compared to manual placement. This approach holds promise for standardizing treatment planning in prospective patient trials and facilitating its adoption across centers seeking to implement VMAT LRT techniques.

Beam quality and the mystery behind the lower percentage depth dose in grid radiation therapy

Grid therapy recently has been picking momentum due to favorable outcomes in bulky tumors. This is being termed as Spatially Fractionated Radiation Therapy (SFRT) and lattice therapy. SFRT can be performed with specially designed blocks made with brass or cerrobend with repeated holes or using multi-leaf collimators where dosimetry is uncertain. The dosimetric challenge in grid therapy is the mystery behind the lower percentage depth dose (PDD) in grid fields. The knowledge about the beam quality, indexed by TPR20/10 (Tissue Phantom Ratio), is also necessary for absolute dosimetry of grid fields. Since the grid may change the quality of the primary photons, a new [Formula: see text] should be evaluated for absolute dosimetry of grid fields. A Monte Carlo (MC) approach is provided to resolving the dosimetric issues. Using 6 MV beam from a linear accelerator, MC simulation was performed using MCNPX code. Additionally, a commercial grid therapy device was used to simulate the grid fields. Beam parameters were validated with MC model for output factor, depth of maximum dose, PDDs, dose profiles, and TPR20/10. The electron and photon spectra were also compared between open and grid fields. The dmax is the same for open and grid fields. The PDD with grid is lower (~ 10%) than the open field. The difference in TPR20/10 of open and grid fields is observable (~ 5%). Accordingly, TPR20/10 is still a good index for the beam quality in grid fields and consequently choose the correct [Formula: see text] in measurements. The output factors for grid fields are 0.2 lower compared to open fields. The lower depth dose with grid therapy is due to lower depth fluence with scatter radiation but it does not impact the dosimetry as the calibration parameters are insensitive to the effective beam energies. Thus, standard dosimetry in open beam based on international protocol could be used.