ROAD: ROtational direct Aperture optimization with a Decoupled ring-collimator for FLASH radiotherapy

Recording and reporting of ultra-high dose rate "FLASH" delivery for preclinical and clinical settings

Treatments at ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) have the potential to improve the therapeutic index of radiation therapy (RT) by sparing normal tissues compared to conventional dose rate irradiations. Insufficient and inconsistent reporting in physics and dosimetry of preclinical and translational studies may have contributed to a reproducibility crisis of radiobiological data in the field. Consequently, the development of a common terminology, as well as common recording, reporting, dosimetry, and metrology standards is required. In the context of UHDR irradiations, the temporal dose delivery parameters are of importance, and under-reporting of these parameters is also a concern.This work proposes a standardization of terminology, recording, and reporting to enhance comparability of both preclinical and clinical UHDR studies and and to allow retrospective analyses to aid the understanding of the conditions which give rise to the FLASH effect.

Hybrid ultra-high and conventional dose rate treatments with electrons and photons for the clinical transfer of FLASH-RT to deep-seated targets: A treatment planning study

PURPOSE

This study explores the dosimetric feasibility and plan quality of hybrid ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) electron and conventional dose rate (CDR) photon (HUC) radiotherapy for treating deep-seated tumours with FLASH-RT.

METHODS

HUC treatment planning was conducted optimizing a broad UHDR electron beam (between 20-250 MeV) combined with a CDR VMAT for a glioblastoma, a pancreatic cancer, and a prostate cancer case. HUC plans were based on clinical prescription and fractionation schemes and compared against clinically delivered plans. Considering a HUC boost treatment for the glioblastoma consisting of a 15-Gy-single-fraction UHDR electron boost supplemented with VMAT, two scenarios for FLASH sparing were assessed using FLASH-modifying-factor-weighted doses.

RESULTS

For all three patient cases, HUC treatment plans demonstrated comparable dosimetric quality to clinical plans, with similar PTV coverage (V95% within 0.5 %), homogeneity, and critical OAR-sparing. At the same time, HUC plans delivered a substantial portion of the dose to the PTV (Dmedian of 50-69 %) and surrounding tissues at UHDR. For the HUC boost treatment of the glioblastoma, the first FLASH sparing scenario showed a moderate FLASH sparing magnitude (10 % for D2%,PTV) for the 15-Gy UHDR electron boost, while the second scenario indicated a more substantial sparing of brain tissues inside and outside the PTV (32 % for D2%,PTV, 31 % for D2%,Brain).

CONCLUSIONS

From a planning perspective, HUC treatments represent a feasible approach for delivering dosimetrically conformal UHDR treatments, potentially mitigating technical challenges associated with delivering conformal FLASH-RT for deep-seated tumours. While further research is needed to optimize HUC fractionation and delivery schemes for specific patient cohorts, HUC treatments offer a promising avenue for the clinical transfer of FLASH-RT.

A multidisciplinary view of flash irradiation

The delivery of ultra-high dose rates of radiation, called flash irradiation or flash-RT, has emerged as a new modality of radiotherapy shaking up the paradigm of proportionality of effect and dose whatever the method of delivery of the radiation. The hallmark of flash-RT is healthy tissue sparing from the side effects of radiation without decrease of the antitumor efficiency in animal models. In this review we will define its specificities, the molecular mechanisms underlying the flash effect and the ongoing developments to bring this new modality to patient treatment.

Very high-energy electron therapy as light-particle alternative to transmission proton FLASH therapy - An evaluation of dosimetric performances

PURPOSE

Clinical translation of FLASH-radiotherapy (RT) to deep-seated tumours is still a technological challenge. One proposed solution consists of using ultra-high dose rate transmission proton (TP) beams of about 200-250 MeV to irradiate the tumour with the flat entrance of the proton depth-dose profile. This work evaluates the dosimetric performance of very high-energy electron (VHEE)-based RT (50-250 MeV) as a potential alternative to TP-based RT for the clinical transfer of the FLASH effect.

METHODS

Basic physics characteristics of VHEE and TP beams were compared utilizing Monte Carlo simulations in water. A VHEE-enabled research treatment planning system was used to evaluate the plan quality achievable with VHEE beams of different energies, compared to 250 MeV TP beams for a glioblastoma, an oesophagus, and a prostate cancer case.

RESULTS

Like TP, VHEE above 100 MeV can treat targets with roughly flat (within ± 20 %) depth-dose distributions. The achievable dosimetric target conformity and adjacent organs-at-risk (OAR) sparing is consequently driven for both modalities by their lateral beam penumbrae. Electron beams of 400[500] MeV match the penumbra of 200[250] MeV TP beams and penumbra is increased for lower electron energies. For the investigated patient cases, VHEE plans with energies of 150 MeV and above achieved a dosimetric plan quality comparable to that of 250 MeV TP plans. For the glioblastoma and the oesophagus case, although having a decreased conformity, even 100 MeV VHEE plans provided a similar target coverage and OAR sparing compared to TP.

CONCLUSIONS

VHEE-based FLASH-RT using sufficiently high beam energies may provide a lighter-particle alternative to TP-based FLASH-RT with comparable dosimetric plan quality.

Clinical Linear Accelerator-Based Electron FLASH: Pathway for Practical Translation to FLASH Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Ultrahigh-dose-rate (UHDR) radiation therapy (RT) has produced the FLASH effect in preclinical models: reduced toxicity with comparable tumor control compared with conventional-dose-rate RT. Early clinical trials focused on UHDR RT feasibility using specialized devices. We explore the technical feasibility of practical electron UHDR RT on a standard clinical linear accelerator (LINAC).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We tuned the program board of a decommissioned electron energy for UHDR electron delivery on a clinical LINAC without hardware modification. Pulse delivery was controlled using the respiratory gating interface. A short source-to-surface distance (SSD) electron setup with a standard scattering foil was configured and tested on an anthropomorphic phantom using circular blocks with 3- to 20-cm field sizes. Dosimetry was evaluated using radiochromic film and an ion chamber profiler.

RESULTS

UHDR open-field mean dose rates at 100, 80, 70, and 59 cm SSD were 36.82, 59.52, 82.01, and 112.83 Gy/s, respectively. At 80 cm SSD, mean dose rate was ∼60 Gy/s for all collimated field sizes, with an R80 depth of 6.1 cm corresponding to an energy of 17.5 MeV. Heterogeneity was <5.0% with asymmetry of 2.2% to 6.2%. The short SSD setup was feasible under realistic treatment conditions simulating broad clinical indications on an anthropomorphic phantom.

CONCLUSIONS

Short SSD and tuning for high electron beam current on a standard clinical LINAC can deliver flat, homogenous UHDR electrons over a broad, clinically relevant range of field sizes and depths with practical working distances in a configuration easily reversible to standard clinical use.

3D-conformal very-high energy electron therapy as candidate modality for FLASH-RT: A treatment planning study for glioblastoma and lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Pre-clinical ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) electron irradiations on time scales of 100 ms have demonstrated a remarkable sparing of brain and lung tissues while retaining tumor efficacy when compared to conventional dose rate irradiations. While clinically-used gantries and intensity modulation techniques are too slow to match such time scales, novel very-high energy electron (VHEE, 50-250 MeV) radiotherapy (RT) devices using 3D-conformed broad VHEE beams are designed to deliver UHDR treatments that fulfill these timing requirements.

PURPOSE

To assess the dosimetric plan quality obtained using VHEE-based 3D-conformal RT (3D-CRT) for treatments of glioblastoma and lung cancer patients and compare the resulting treatment plans to those delivered by standard-of-care intensity modulated photon RT (IMRT) techniques.

METHODS

Seven glioblastoma patients and seven lung cancer patients were planned with VHEE-based 3D-CRT using 3 to 16 coplanar beams with equidistant angular spacing and energies of 100 and 200 MeV using a forward planning approach. Dose distributions, dose-volume histograms, coverage (V95% ) and homogeneity (HI98% ) for the planning target volume (PTV), as well as near-maximum doses (D2% ) and mean doses (Dmean ) for organs-at-risk (OAR) were evaluated and compared to clinical IMRT plans.

RESULTS

Mean differences of V95% and HI98% of all VHEE plans were within 2% or better of the IMRT reference plans. Glioblastoma plan dose metrics obtained with VHEE configurations of 200 MeV and 3-16 beams were either not significantly different or were significantly improved compared to the clinical IMRT reference plans. All OAR plan dose metrics evaluated for VHEE plans created using 5 beams of 100 MeV were either not significantly different or within 3% on average, except for Dmean for the body, Dmean for the brain, D2% for the brain stem, and D2% for the chiasm, which were significantly increased by 1, 2, 6, and 8 Gy, respectively (however below clinical constraints). Similarly, the dose metrics for lung cancer patients were also either not significantly different or were significantly improved compared to the reference plans for VHEE configurations with 200 MeV and 5 to 16 beams with the exception of D2% and Dmean to the spinal canal (however below clinical constraints). For the lung cancer cases, the VHEE configurations using 100 MeV or only 3 beams resulted in significantly worse dose metrics for some OAR. Differences in dose metrics were, however, strongly patient-specific and similar for some patient cases.

CONCLUSIONS

VHEE-based 3D-CRT may deliver conformal treatments to simple, mostly convex target shapes in the brain and the thorax with a limited number of critical adjacent OAR using a limited number of beams (as low as 3 to 7). Using such treatment techniques, a dosimetric plan quality comparable to that of standard-of-care IMRT can be achieved. Hence, from a treatment planning perspective, 3D-conformal UHDR VHEE treatments delivered on time scales of 100 ms represent a promising candidate technique for the clinical transfer of the FLASH effect.

Transformative Technology for FLASH Radiation Therapy

The general concept of radiation therapy used in conventional cancer treatment is to increase the therapeutic index by creating a physical dose differential between tumors and normal tissues through precision dose targeting, image guidance, and radiation beams that deliver a radiation dose with high conformality, e.g., protons and ions. However, the treatment and cure are still limited by normal tissue radiation toxicity, with the corresponding side effects. A fundamentally different paradigm for increasing the therapeutic index of radiation therapy has emerged recently, supported by preclinical research, and based on the FLASH radiation effect. FLASH radiation therapy (FLASH-RT) is an ultra-high-dose-rate delivery of a therapeutic radiation dose within a fraction of a second. Experimental studies have shown that normal tissues seem to be universally spared at these high dose rates, whereas tumors are not. While dose delivery conditions to achieve a FLASH effect are not yet fully characterized, it is currently estimated that doses delivered in less than 200 ms produce normal-tissue-sparing effects, yet effectively kill tumor cells. Despite a great opportunity, there are many technical challenges for the accelerator community to create the required dose rates with novel compact accelerators to ensure the safe delivery of FLASH radiation beams.

FLASH radiotherapy treatment planning and models for electron beams

The FLASH effect designates normal tissue sparing at ultra-high dose rate (UHDR, >40 Gy/s) compared to conventional dose rate (∼0.1 Gy/s) irradiation while maintaining tumour control and has the potential to improve the therapeutic ratio of radiotherapy (RT). UHDR high-energy electron (HEE, 4-20 MeV) beams are currently a mainstay for investigating the clinical potential of FLASH RT for superficial tumours. In the future very-high energy electron (VHEE, 50-250 MeV) UHDR beams may be used to treat deep-seated tumours. UHDR HEE treatment planning focused at its initial stage on accurate dosimetric modelling of converted and dedicated UHDR electron RT devices for the clinical transfer of FLASH RT. VHEE treatment planning demonstrated promising dosimetric performance compared to clinical photon RT techniques in silico and was used to evaluate and optimise the design of novel VHEE RT devices. Multiple metrics and models have been proposed for a quantitative description of the FLASH effect in treatment planning, but an improved experimental characterization and understanding of the FLASH effect is needed to allow for an accurate and validated modelling of the effect in treatment planning. The importance of treatment planning for electron FLASH RT will augment as the field moves forward to treat more complex clinical indications and target sites. In this review, TPS developments in HEE and VHEE are presented considering beam models, characteristics, and future FLASH applications.

Development of Ultra-High Dose-Rate (FLASH) Particle Therapy

Research efforts in FLASH radiotherapy have increased at an accelerated pace recently. FLASH radiotherapy involves ultra-high dose rates and has shown to reduce toxicity to normal tissue while maintaining tumor response in pre-clinical studies when compared to conventional dose rate radiotherapy. The goal of this review is to summarize the studies performed to-date with proton, electron, and heavy ion FLASH radiotherapy, with particular emphasis on the physical aspects of each study and the advantages and disadvantages of each modality. Beam delivery parameters, experimental set-up, and the dosimetry tools used are described for each FLASH modality. In addition, modeling efforts and treatment planning for FLASH radiotherapy is discussed along with potential drawbacks when translated into the clinical setting. The final section concludes with further questions that have yet to be answered before safe clinical implementation of FLASH radiotherapy.