Fiducial-based image-guided SBRT for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Does inter-and intra-fraction treatment variation warrant adaptive therapy?

To compress or to breath-hold? A systematic review of the impact of motion mitigation techniques on motion, interfraction set-up errors, and intrafraction errors in patients with hepatobiliary and pancreatic malignancies

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Reducing motion is vital in treating hepatobiliary (HPB) and pancreatic malignancies. Abdominal compression (AC) and breath-hold (BH) techniques aim to minimise respiratory motion, yet their adoption remains limited, and practices vary. This review examines the impact of AC and BH on motion, set-up errors, and patient tolerability in HPB and pancreatic patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This systematic review, conducted using PRISMA and PICOS criteria, includes publications from January 2015 to February 2023. Eligible studies focused on AC and BH interventions in adults with HPB and pancreatic malignancies. Endpoints examined motion, set-up errors, intra-fraction errors, and patient tolerability. Due to study heterogeneity, Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis was used, and a 5 mm threshold assessed the impact of motion mitigation.

RESULTS

In forty studies, 14 explored AC and 26 BH, with 20 on HPB, 13 on pancreatic, and 7 on mixed cohorts. Six studied pre-treatment, 22 inter/intra-fraction errors, and 12 both. Six AC pre-treatment studies showed > 5 mm motion, and 4 BH and 2 AC studies reported > 5 mm inter-fraction errors. Compression studies commonly investigated the arch and belt, and DIBH was the predominant BH technique. No studies compared AC and BH. There was variation in the techniques, and several studies did not follow standardised error reporting. Patient experience and tolerability were under-reported.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that AC effectively reduces motion, but its effectiveness may vary. BH can immobilise motion; however, it can be inconsistent between fractions. The review underscores the need for larger, standardised studies and emphasizes the importance of considering the patient's perspective for tailored treatments.

A Preliminary Controlled Trial of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fiducial Markers to Guide Pancreas Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is routinely used for fiducial marker placement (FMP) to guide stereotactic radiation of pancreatic tumors, but EUS-FMP explicitly to guide surgery has not been studied in a prospective, controlled manner. Multipurpose EUS systems have been developed that facilitate simultaneous EUS-FMP at the time of biopsy. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of EUS-FMP to guide pancreatic resection.

METHODS

In this prospective trial, we enrolled patients with resectable pancreas masses undergoing tissue sampling and placed preloaded fiducials immediately after biopsy. Intraprocedure confirmation of carcinoma, neuroendocrine, and nonlymphomatous neoplasia by rapid on-site evaluation and lesion size <4 cm was required. The main outcomes were the feasibility and ease of preoperative placement and intraoperative detection of the markers using predefined Likert scales.

RESULTS

In 20 patients, EUS-FMP was successful before planned surgery and placement was technically straightforward (Likert Scale: 9.1 ± 1.3; range: 1, most challenging to 10, most facile). Intraoperative detection was feasible and improved when compared with a pre-established comparator of 5 representing an equivalent lesion without a marker (Likert Scale: 7.8 ± 2.2; range: 1, most difficult to 10, most facile; P = 0.011). The mean tumor size on EUS was 1.7 ± 0.9 (range: 0.5 to 3.6) cm.

CONCLUSION

EUS-FMP is feasible and safe for resectable pancreatic tumors before surgery and may assist in perioperative detection. Preloaded fiducials may be considered for placement at the time of initial referral for EUS-fine needle biopsy.

Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Analysis of Alliance A021501: Preoperative mFOLFIRINOX or mFOLFIRINOX Plus Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Borderline Resectable Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas

PURPOSE

Alliance A021501 is the first randomized trial to evaluate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In this post hoc study, we reviewed the quality of radiation therapy (RT) delivered.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

SBRT (6.6 Gy × 5) was intended but hypofractionated RT (5 Gy × 5) was permitted if SBRT specifications could not be met. Institutional credentialing through the National Cancer Institute-funded Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) was required. Rigorous RT quality assurance (RT QA) was mandated, including pretreatment review by a radiation oncologist. Revisions were required for unacceptable deviations. Additionally, we performed a post hoc RT QA analysis in which contours and plans were reviewed by 3 radiation oncologists and assigned a score (1, 2, or 3) based on adequacy. A score of 1 indicated no deviation, 2 indicated minor deviation, and 3 indicated a major deviation that could be clinically significant. Clinical outcomes were compared by treatment modality and by case score.

RESULTS

Forty patients were registered to receive RT (1 planned but not treated) at 27 centers (18 academic and 9 community). Twenty-three centers were appropriately credentialed for moving lung/liver targets and 4 for static head and neck only. Thirty-two of 39 patients (82.1%) were treated with SBRT and 7 (17.9%) with hypofractionated RT. Five cases (13%) required revision before treatment. On post hoc review, 23 patients (59.0%) were noted to have suboptimal contours or plan coverage, 12 (30.8%) were scored a 2, and 11 (28.2%) were scored a 3. There were no apparent differences in failure patterns or surgical outcomes based on treatment technique or post hoc case score. Details related to on-treatment imaging were not recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite rigorous QA, we encountered variability in simulation, contouring, plan coverage, and dose on trial. Although clinical outcomes did not appear to have been affected, findings from this analysis serve to inform subsequent PDAC SBRT trial designs and QA requirements.

Inter-Breath-Hold Geometric and Dosimetric Variations in Organs at Risk during Pancreatic Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy: Implications for Adaptive Radiation Therapy

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death, with nearly 60,000 cases each year and less than a 10% 5-year overall survival rate. Radiation therapy (RT) is highly beneficial as a local-regional anticancer treatment. As anatomical variation is of great concern, motion management techniques, such as DIBH, are commonly used to minimize OARs toxicities; however, the variability between DIBHs has not been well studied. Here, we present an unprecedented systematic analysis of patients' anatomical reproducibility over multiple DIBH motion-management technique uses for pancreatic cancer RT. We used data from 20 patients; four DIBH scans were available for each patient to design 80 SBRT plans. Our results demonstrated that (i) there is considerable variation in OAR geometry and dose between same-subject DIBH scans; (ii) the RT plan designed for one scan may not be directly applicable to another scan; (iii) the RT treatment designed using a DIBH simulation CT results in different dosimetry in the DIBH treatment delivery; and (iv) this confirms the importance of adaptive radiation therapy (ART), such as MR-Linacs, for pancreatic RT delivery. The ART treatment delivery technique can account for anatomical variation between referenced and scheduled plans, and thus avoid toxicities of OARs because of anatomical variations between DIBH patient setups.

Assessing target localization accuracy across different soft-tissue matching protocols using end-exhalation breath-hold cone-beam computed tomography in patients with pancreatic cancer

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively assess target localization accuracy across different soft-tissue matching protocols using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in a large sample of patients with pancreatic cancer and to estimate the optimal margin size for each protocol. Fifty-four consecutive patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent 15-fraction volumetric modulated arc therapy under the end-exhalation breath-hold condition were enrolled. Two soft-tissue matching protocols were used according to the resectability classification, including gross tumor volume (GTV) matching for potentially resectable tumors and planning target volume (PTV) matching for borderline resectable or unresectable tumors. The tolerance of the target localization error in both matching protocols was set to 5 mm in any direction. The optimal margin size for each soft-tissue matching protocol was calculated from the systematic and random errors of the inter- and intrafraction positional variations using the van Herk formula. The inter- and intrafraction positional variations of PTV matching were smaller than those of GTV matching. The percentage of target localization errors exceeding 5 mm in the first CBCT scan of each fraction in the superior-inferior direction was 12.6 and 4.8% for GTV and PTV matching, respectively. The optimal margin sizes for GTV and PTV matching were 3.7 and 2.7, 5.4 and 4.1 and 3.9 and 3.0 mm in the anterior-posterior, superior-inferior and left-right directions, respectively. Target localization accuracy in PTV matching was higher than that in GTV matching. By setting the tolerance of the target localization error, treatment can be successful within the planned margin size.

Dose Escalation for Pancreas SBRT: Potential and Limitations of using Daily Online Adaptive Radiation Therapy and an Iterative Isotoxicity Automated Planning Approach

Purpose

To determine the dosimetric limitations of daily online adaptive pancreas stereotactic body radiation treatment by using an automated dose escalation approach.

Methods and Materials

We collected 108 planning and daily computed tomography (CT) scans from 18 patients (18 patients × 6 CT scans) who received 5-fraction pancreas stereotactic body radiation treatment at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Dose metrics from the original non-dose-escalated clinical plan (non-DE), the dose-escalated plan created on the original planning CT (DE-ORI), and the dose-escalated plan created on daily adaptive radiation therapy CT (DE-ART) were analyzed. We developed a dose-escalation planning algorithm within the radiation treatment planning system to automate the dose-escalation planning process for efficiency and consistency. In this algorithm, the prescription dose of the dose-escalation plan was escalated before violating any organ-at-risk (OAR) dose constraint. Dose metrics for 3 targets (gross target volume [GTV], tumor vessel interface [TVI], and dose-escalated planning target volume [DE-PTV]) and 9 OARs (duodenum, large bowel, small bowel, stomach, spinal cord, kidneys, liver, and skin) for the 3 plans were compared. Furthermore, we evaluated the effectiveness of the online adaptive dose-escalation planning process by quantifying the effect of the interfractional dose distribution variations among the DE-ART plans.

Results

The median D_95% dose to the GTV/TVI/DE-PTV was 33.1/36.2/32.4 Gy, 48.5/50.9/40.4 Gy, and 53.7/58.2/44.8 Gy for non-DE, DE-ORI, and DE-ART, respectively. Most OAR dose constraints were not violated for the non-DE and DE-ART plans, while OAR constraints were violated for the majority of the DE-ORI patients due to interfractional motion and lack of adaptation. The maximum difference per fraction in D_95%, due to interfractional motion, was 2.5 ± 2.7 Gy, 3.0 ± 2.9 Gy, and 2.0 ± 1.8 Gy for the TVI, GTV, and DE-PTV, respectively.

Conclusions

Most patients require daily adaptation of the radiation planning process to maximally escalate delivered dose to the pancreatic tumor without exceeding OAR constraints. Using our automated approach, patients can receive higher target dose than standard of care without violating OAR constraints.

Automatic stent recognition using perceptual attention U-net for quantitative intrafraction motion monitoring in pancreatic cancer radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Stent has often been used as an internal surrogate to monitor intrafraction tumor motion during pancreatic cancer radiotherapy. Based on the stent contours generated from planning CT images, the current intrafraction motion review (IMR) system on Varian TrueBeam only provides a tool to verify the stent motion visually but lacks quantitative information. The purpose of this study is to develop an automatic stent recognition method for quantitative intrafraction tumor motion monitoring in pancreatic cancer treatment.

METHODS

A total of 535 IMR images from 14 pancreatic cancer patients were retrospectively selected in this study, with the manual contour of the stent on each image serving as the ground truth. We developed a deep learning-based approach that integrates two mechanisms that focus on the features of the segmentation target. The objective attention modeling was integrated into the U-net framework to deal with the optimization difficulties when training a deep network with 2D IMR images and limited training data. A perceptual loss was combined with the binary cross-entropy loss and a Dice loss for supervision. The deep neural network was trained to capture more contextual information to predict binary stent masks. A random-split test was performed, with images of ten patients (71%, 380 images) randomly selected for training, whereas the rest of four patients (29%, 155 images) were used for testing. Sevenfold cross-validation of the proposed PAUnet on the 14 patients was performed for further evaluation.

RESULTS

Our stent segmentation results were compared with the manually segmented contours. For the random-split test, the trained model achieved a mean (±standard deviation) stent Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), 95% Hausdorff distance (HD95), the center-of-mass distance (CMD), and volume difference V o l d i f f $Vo{l_{diff}}$ were 0.96 (±0.01), 1.01 (±0.55) mm, 0.66 (±0.46) mm, and 3.07% (±2.37%), respectively. The sevenfold cross-validation of the proposed PAUnet had the mean (±standard deviation) of 0.96 (±0.02), 0.72 (±0.49) mm, 0.85 (±0.96) mm, and 3.47% (±3.27%) for the DSC, HD95, CMD, and V o l d i f f $Vo{l_{diff}}$ .

CONCLUSION

We developed a novel deep learning-based approach to automatically segment the stent from IMR images, demonstrated its clinical feasibility, and validated its accuracy compared to manual segmentation. The proposed technique could be a useful tool for quantitative intrafraction motion monitoring in pancreatic cancer radiotherapy.

Location, Location, Location: What Should be Targeted Beyond Gross Disease for Localized Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma? Proposal of a Standardized Clinical Tumor Volume for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma of the Head: The "Triangle Volume"

PURPOSE

In patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (BRPC/LAPC), local failure rates after resection remain significant, even in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation. Suboptimal local control may relate to variable radiation target delineation, as no consensus exists around clinical tumor volume (CTV) design in this context. In the surgical literature, recent attention has been given to the "triangle" volume (TV) as a source of subclinical, residual disease. To understand whether the TV can inform optimal CTV design, we mapped locoregional failures after resection in a large cohort of patients with BRPC/LAPC and compared locations of failure to the TV.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with BRPC/LAPC of the head or neck diagnosed between 2016 AND 2019 who developed locoregional failure after surgery, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and radiation were identified. Descriptive statistics were generated to report the frequency of locoregional failures located within the TV and the frequency of new vascular involvement at time of failure, compared with vascular involvement at diagnosis. Additionally, dosimetric coverage of the TV with the preoperative radiation plan that had been used was assessed.

RESULTS

In 31 patients who experienced locoregional failure, the centroid of failure was located within the TV in 28 cases (90%). Extent of vascular involvement at time of locoregional failure included vasculature that had not been involved at diagnosis in 13 cases (42%). The preoperative radiation plan that had been used provided a median V33 Gy and V25 Gy of the TV of only 53% (interquartile range, 34%-72%) and 70% (IQR, 48%-85%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The TV encompassed the vast majority of locoregional failures, but dosimetric coverage of the TV was poor when only targeting gross disease and the full circumference of involved vasculature. As such, the TV may better serve as a basis for CTV design in patients with BRPC/LAPC undergoing neoadjuvant radiation.