Investigation of the linear accelerator low dose rate mode for pulsed low-dose-rate radiotherapy delivery

Purpose. Pulsed volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) was proposed as an advanced treatment that combines the biological benefits of pulsed low dose rate (PLDR) and the dosimetric benefits of the intensity-modulated beams. In our conventional pulsed VMAT technique, a daily fractional dose of 200 cGy is delivered in 10 arcs with 3 min intervals between the arcs. In this study, we are testing the feasibility of pulsed VMAT that omits the need to split into ten arcs and excludes any beam-off gaps.Methods. The study was conducted using computed tomographic images of 24 patients previously treated at our institution with the conventional PLDR technique. Our newly installed Elekta machine has a low dose rate option on the order of 25 MU min-1. PLDR requires an effective dose rate of 6.7 cGy min-1with attention being paid to the maximum dose received within any point within the target not to exceed 13 cGy min-1. The quality of treatment plans was judged based on dose-volume histograms, isodose distribution, dose conformality to the target, and target dose homogeneity. The dose delivery accuracy was assessed by measurements using theMatriXXEvolution2D array system.Results. All cases were normalized to cover 95% of the target volume with 100% of the prescription dose. The average conformity index was 1.03 ± 0.08 while the average homogeneity index was 1.05 ± 0.02. The maximum reported dose rate at any point within the target was 10.44 cGy min-1. The mean dose rate for all pulsed VMAT plans was 6.88 ± 0.1 cGy min-1. All cases passed our gamma analysis with an average passing rate of 99.00% ± 0.48%.Conclusion. The study showed the applicability of planning pulsed VMAT using Eclipse and its successful delivery on our Elekta linac. Pulsed VMAT using the machine's low dose rate mode is more efficient than our previous pulsed VMAT delivery.

Pulsed-Reduced Dose Rate (PRDR) Radiotherapy for Recurrent Primary Central Nervous System Malignancies: Dosimetric and Clinical Results

PURPOSE

The objective was to describe PRDR outcomes and report EQD2 OAR toxicity thresholds.

METHODS

Eighteen patients with recurrent primary CNS tumors treated with PRDR at a single institution between April 2017 and September 2021 were evaluated. The radiotherapy details, cumulative OAR doses, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicities were collected.

RESULTS

The median PRDR dose was 45 Gy (range: 36-59.4 Gy); the median cumulative EQD2 prescription dose was 102.7 Gy (range: 93.8-120.4 Gy). The median cumulative EQD2 D0.03cc for the brain was 111.4 Gy (range: 82.4-175.2 Gy). Symptomatic radiation necrosis occurred in three patients, for which the median EQD2 brain D0.03cc was 115.9 Gy (110.4-156.7 Gy). The median PFS and OS after PRDR were 6.3 months (95%CI: 0.9-11.6 months) and 8.6 months (95%CI: 4.9-12.3 months), respectively. The systematic review identified five peer-reviewed studies with a median cumulative EQD2 prescription dose of 110.3 Gy. At a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the median PFS and OS were 5.7 months (95%CI: 2.1-15.4 months) and 6.7 months (95%CI: 3.2-14.2 months), respectively.

CONCLUSION

PRDR re-irradiation is a relatively safe and feasible treatment for recurrent primary CNS tumors. Despite high cumulative dose to OARs, the risk of high-grade, treatment-related toxicity within the first year of follow-up remains acceptable.

Pulsed low dose-rate radiotherapy: radiobiology and dosimetry

Pulsed low dose-rate radiotherapy (PLDR) relies on two radiobiological findings, the hyper-radiosensitivity of tumor cells at small doses and the reduced normal tissue toxicity at low dose rates. This is achieved by delivering the daily radiation dose of 2 Gy in 10 sub-fractions (pulses) with a 3 min time interval, resulting in an effective low dose rate of 0.067 Gy min−1. In vitro cell studies and in vivo animal experiments demonstrated the therapeutic potential of PLDR treatments and provided useful preclinical data. Various treatment optimization strategies and delivery techniques have been developed for PLDR on existing linear accelerators. Preliminary results from early clinical studies have shown favorable outcomes for various treatment sites especially for recurrent cancers. This paper reviews the experimental findings of PLDR and dosimetric requirements for PLDR treatment planning and delivery, and summarizes major clinical studies on PLDR cancer treatments.

Clinical experience with planning, quality assurance, and delivery of burst-mode modulated arc therapy

“Burst‐mode” modulated arc therapy (hereafter referred to as “mARC”) is a form of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy characterized by variable gantry rotation speed, static MLCs while the radiation beam is on, and MLC repositioning while the beam is off. We present our clinical experience with the planning techniques and plan quality assurance measurements of mARC delivery. Clinical mARC plans for five representative cases (prostate, low‐dose‐rate brain, brain with partial‐arc vertex fields, pancreas, and liver SBRT) were generated using a Monte Carlo–based treatment planning system. A conventional‐dose‐rate flat 6 MV and a high‐dose‐rate non‐flat 7 MV beam are available for planning and delivery. mARC plans for intact‐prostate cases can typically be created using one 360° arc, and treatment times per fraction seldom exceed 6 min using the flat beam; using the nonflat beam results in slightly higher MU per fraction, but also in delivery times less than 4 min and with reduced mean dose to distal organs at risk. mARC also has utility in low‐dose‐rate brain irradiation; mARC fields can be designed which deliver a uniform 20 cGy dose to the PTV in approximately 3‐minute intervals, making it a viable alternative to conventional 3D CRT. For brain cases using noncoplanar arcs, delivery time is approximately six min using the nonflat beam. For pancreas cases using the nonflat beam, two overlapping 360° arcs are required, and delivery times are approximately 10 min. For liver SBRT, the time to deliver 800 cGy per fraction is at least 12 min. Plan QA measurements indicate that the mARC delivery is consistent with the plan calculation for all cases. mARC has been incorporated into routine practice within our clinic; currently, on average approximately 15 patients per day are treated using mARC; and with the exception of LDR brain cases, all are treated using the nonflat beam.

PACS number(s): 87.55.D‐, 87.55.K‐, 87.53.Ay. 87.56.N‐

Pulsed Radiation Therapy With Concurrent Cisplatin Results in Superior Tumor Growth Delay in a Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Murine Model

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy of 3-week schedules of low-dose pulsed radiation treatment (PRT) and standard radiation therapy (SRT), with concurrent cisplatin (CDDP) in a head and neck squamous cell carcinoma xenograft model.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Subcutaneous UT-SCC-14 tumors were established in athymic NIH III HO female mice. A total of 30 Gy was administered as 2 Gy/d, 5 d/wk for 3 weeks, either by PRT (10 × 0.2 Gy/d, with a 3-minute break between each 0.2-Gy dose) or SRT (2 Gy/d, uninterrupted delivery) in combination with concurrent 2 mg/kg CDDP 3 times per week in the final 2 weeks of radiation therapy. Treatment-induced growth delays were defined from twice-weekly tumor volume measurements. Tumor hypoxia was assessed by (18)F-fluoromisonidazole positron emission tomography imaging, and calculated maximum standardized uptake values compared with tumor histology. Tumor vessel density and hypoxia were measured by quantitative immunohistochemistry. Normal tissues effects were evaluated in gut and skin.

RESULTS

Untreated tumors grew to 1000 mm(3) in 25.4 days (±1.2), compared with delays of 62.3 days (±3.5) for SRT + CDDP and 80.2 days (±5.0) for PRT + CDDP. Time to reach 2× pretreatment volume ranged from 8.2 days (±1.8) for untreated tumors to 67.1 days (±4.7) after PRT + CDDP. Significant differences in tumor growth delay were observed for SRT versus SRT + CDDP (P=.04), PRT versus PRT + CDDP (P=.035), and SRT + CDDP versus PRT + CDDP (P=.033), and for survival between PRT versus PRT + CDDP (P=.017) and SRT + CDDP versus PRT + CDDP (P=.008). Differences in tumor hypoxia were evident by (18)F-fluoromisonidazole positron emission tomography imaging between SRT and PRT (P=.025), although not with concurrent CDDP. Tumor vessel density differed between SRT + CDDP and PRT + CDDP (P=.011). No differences in normal tissue parameters were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent CDDP was more effective in combination PRT than SRT at restricting tumor growth. Significant differences in tumor vascular density were evident between PRT and SRT, suggesting a preservation of vascular network with PRT.

Exploiting sensitization windows of opportunity in hyper and hypo-fractionated radiation therapy

In contrast to the conventional radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy paradigms used in the treatment of majority of cancer types, this review will describe two areas of radiobiology, hyperfractionated and hypofractionated radiation therapy, for cancer treatment focusing on application of novel concepts underlying these treatment modalities. The initial part of the review discusses the phenomenon of hyper-radiation sensitivity (HRS) at lower doses (0.1 to 0.6 Gy), describing the underlying mechanisms and how this could enhance the effects of chemotherapy, particularly, in hyperfractionated settings. The second part examines the radiobiological/physiological mechanisms underlying the effects of high-dose hypofractionated radiation therapy that can be exploited for tumor cure. These include abscopal/bystander effects, activation of immune system, endothelial cell death and effect of hypoxia with re-oxygenation. These biological properties along with targeted dose delivery and distribution to reduce normal tissue toxicity may make high-dose hypofractionation more effective than conventional radiation therapy for treatment of advanced cancers. The novel radiation physics based methods that take into consideration the tumor volume to be irradiated and normal tissue avoidance/tolerance can further improve treatment outcome and post-treatment quality of life. In conclusion, there is enough evidence to further explore novel avenues to exploit biological mechanisms from hyper-fractionation by enhancing the efficacy of chemotherapy and hypo-fractionated radiation therapy that could enhance tumor control and use imaging and technological advances to reduce toxicity.

Investigation of pulsed IMRT and VMAT for re-irradiation treatments: dosimetric and delivery feasibilities

Many tumor cells demonstrate hyperradiosensitivity at doses below ~50 cGy. Together with the increased normal tissue repair under low dose rate, the pulsed low dose rate radiotherapy (PLDR), which separates a daily fractional dose of 200 cGy into 10 pulses with 3 min interval between pulses (~20 cGy/pulse and effective dose rate 6.7 cGy min−1), potentially reduces late normal tissue toxicity while still providing significant tumor control for re-irradiation treatments. This work investigates the dosimetric and technical feasibilities of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-based PLDR treatments using Varian Linacs. Twenty one cases (12 real re-irradiation cases) including treatment sites of pancreas, prostate, pelvis, lung, head-and-neck, and breast were recruited for this study. The lowest machine operation dose rate (100 MU min−1) was employed in the plan delivery. Ten-field step-and-shoot IMRT and dual-arc VMAT plans were generated using the Eclipse TPS with routine planning strategies. The dual-arc plans were delivered five times to achieve a 200 cGy daily dose (~20 cGy arc−1). The resulting plan quality was evaluated according to the heterogeneity and conformity indexes (HI and CI) of the planning target volume (PTV). The dosimetric feasibility of retaining the hyperradiosensitivity for PLDR was assessed based on the minimum and maximum dose in the target volume from each pulse. The delivery accuracy of VMAT and IMRT at the 100 MU min−1 machine operation dose rate was verified using a 2D diode array and ion chamber measurements. The delivery reproducibility was further investigated by analyzing the Dynalog files of repeated deliveries. A comparable plan quality was achieved by the IMRT (CI 1.10–1.38; HI 1.04–1.10) and the VMAT (CI 1.08–1.26; HI 1.05–1.10) techniques. The minimum/maximum PTV dose per pulse is 7.9 ± 5.1 cGy/33.7 ± 6.9 cGy for the IMRT and 12.3 ± 4.1 cGy/29.2 ± 4.7 cGy for the VMAT. Six out of the 186 IMRT pulses (fields) were found to exceed 50 cGy maximum PTV dose per pulse while the maximum PTV dose per pulse was within 40 cGy for all the VMAT pulses (arcs). However, for VMAT plans, the dosimetric quality of the entire treatment plan was less superior for the breast cases and large irregular targets. The gamma passing rates for both techniques at the 100 MU min−1 dose rate were at least 94.1% (3%/3 mm) and the point dose measurements agreed with the planned values to within 2.2%. The average root mean square error of the leaf position was 0.93 ± 0.83 mm for IMRT and 0.53 ± 0.48 mm for VMAT based on the Dynalog file analysis. The RMS error of the leaf position was nearly identical for the repeated deliveries of the same plans. In general, both techniques are feasible for PLDR treatments. VMAT was more advantageous for PLDR with more uniform target dose per pulse, especially for centrally located tumors. However, for large, irregular and/or peripheral tumors, IMRT could produce more favorable PLDR plans. By taking the biological benefit of PLDR delivery and the dosimetric benefit of IMRT and VMAT, the proposed methods have a great potential for those previously-irradiated recurrent patients.

Optimization strategies for pulsed low-dose-rate IMRT of recurrent lung and head and neck cancers

Pulsed low‐dose‐rate radiotherapy (PLDR) has been proven to be a valid method of reirradiation. Previous studies of recurrent cancer radiotherapy were mainly based on conventional 3D CRT and VMAT delivery techniques. There are difficulties in IMRT planning using existing commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) to meet the PLDR protocol. This work focuses on PLDR using ten‐field IMRT and a commercial TPS for two specific sites: recurrent lung cancers and head and neck cancers. Our PLDR protocol requires that the maximum dose to the PTV be less than 0.4 Gy and the mean dose to be 0.2 Gy per field. We investigated various planning strategies to meet the PLDR requirements for 20 lung and head and neck patients. The PTV volume for lung cases ranged from 101.7 to 919.4 cm³ and the maximum dose to the PTV ranged from 0.22 to 0.39 Gy. The PTV volume for head and neck cases ranged from 66.2 to 282.1 cm³ and the maximum dose to the PTV ranged from 0.21 to 0.39 Gy. With special beam arrangements and dosimetry parameters, it is feasible to use a commercial TPS to generate quality PLDR IMRT plans for lung and head and neck reirradiation.

PACS number: 87.55.D‐