Dosimetric and clinical review of helical tomotherapy

Helical Tomotherapy Versus 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy in High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

We present long-term outcomes from a phase 3 randomized controlled trial that compared helical tomotherapy with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Newly diagnosed patients with high-risk prostate cancer were randomly allocated to receive radical radiation therapy (RT) using 3D-CRT or helical tomotherapy. In both arms, patients received an initial dose of 46 Gy in 23 fractions to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes, followed by an additional boost to the prostate of 32 Gy in 16 fractions. RT was combined with 3 years of adjuvant androgen deprivation. The primary endpoint was late (>90 days since RT initiation) rectal toxicity.

RESULTS

Overall,123 patients were randomly assigned to either the 3D-CRT (n = 60) or tomotherapy (n = 63) arms. The median follow-up was 161 months. Overall, the proportion of patients with grade ≥ 2 late rectal toxicity was 8.3% (95% CI, 3.1-19.1; n = 5) in the 3D-CRT arm and 11.1% (95% CI, 5.0-22.2; n = 7) in the tomotherapy arm with no significant between-arm difference (P = .83). There was no significant difference (P = .17) in the proportion of patients with late grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicity:10.0% (95% CI, 4.1-21.2) in the 3D-CRT arm and 20.6% (95% CI, 11.9-33.0) in the tomotherapy arm. There was no significant difference in the hazard of biochemical progression or death between the 2 groups (hazard ratio for the tomotherapy arm: 0.72; 95% CI, 0.46-1.15; P = .17).

CONCLUSIONS

In this phase 3 trial, the overall incidence of grade ≥ 2 rectal toxicity was low and was not significantly different between the 2 arms. There was no significant evidence of improved biochemical progression-free survival in patients treated with tomotherapy. These findings should be interpreted considering the possibility of type II errors due to limited sample size and low event rates.

Clinical Outcomes of Curative Intent Radiotherapy by Helical Tomotherapy for Laryngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Analysis in a Tertiary Referral Center

Background

The management of laryngeal cancer involves balancing curative treatment with preserving essential functions. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of helical tomotherapy, an advanced form of radiation therapy, as a primary treatment modality for laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of data obtained from a tertiary referral center was performed to assess treatment response rates, survival outcomes, disease control, and treatment-related adverse events.

Results

The study included 45 patients with LSCC treated with helical tomotherapy between May 2015 and September 2022. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate and disease-free survival (DFS) rate were 89.2% and 71.1%, respectively. Local control and laryngeal preservation rates at 5 years were 79.7% and 84.7%, respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed higher DFS rates in early-stage patients (84.2%) compared to advanced-stage patients (58.9%).

Conclusions

The results indicate that helical tomotherapy offers effective tumor control and potential for laryngeal preservation in LSCC. Further prospective studies and longer follow-up are needed to validate these findings and optimize treatment strategies for LSCC patients.

Comparative Evaluation of Dosimetric Quality and Treatment Efficiency for Halcyon, TrueBeam, and TomoTherapy in Cervical-Thoracic Esophageal Cancer Radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

This study primarily aims to investigate the suitability of Halcyon in the context of cervical-thoracic esophageal cancer by exploring the dosimetric quality and delivery efficiency of Halcyon plans with different arc configurations. Additionally, it compares these findings with the dosimetric indices and delivery efficiency of TrueBeam and TomoTherapy accelerators, focusing on their capability to optimize protection for organs at risk (OARs) while maintaining efficient treatment delivery strategies.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved 26 patients diagnosed with cervical-thoracic esophageal cancer, and new radiotherapy plans were created using Halcyon, TrueBeam, and TomoTherapy. Dose volume histogram (DVH) metrics and delivery efficiency for plans involving different arc numbers on Halcyon (2, 3, and 4 arcs) were compared with those from TrueBeam and TomoTherapy. T-tests were employed to evaluate differences in organ protection among the accelerators.

RESULTS

The Halcyon plans, especially those with 4 arcs, provided superior protection for organs at risk, including the heart, lungs, and spinal cord, while maintaining excellent delivery efficiency. Compared to TrueBeam 2arc plans and TomoTherapy helical plans, Halcyon plans with 3 arcs also showed slight advantages. Although TomoTherapy offered better uniformity in dose distribution, it did not demonstrate a clear advantage over the other accelerators in terms of OAR protection or treatment efficiency. Furthermore, despite the lack of clear advantages in TrueBeam 2arc plans with flattening filter (FF), TrueBeam with flattening filter free (FFF) plans may hold potential in the treatment.

CONCLUSION

Halcyon, particularly with 4 arcs, offers an optimal balance between reducing toxicity to organs at risk and maintaining treatment efficiency, making it a preferred choice in cervical thoracic esophageal cancer radiotherapy. The findings highlight the need for careful selection of radiotherapy accelerators based on specific clinical goals, with Halcyon showing potential advantages in scenarios where both treatment efficiency and OAR protection are paramount.

Validation of esophageal cancer treatment methods from 3D-CRT, IMRT, and Rapid Arc plans using custom Python software to compare radiobiological plans to normal tissue integral dosage

Background

The aim was to develop in-house software that is able to calculate and generate the biological plan evaluation of the esophagus treatment plan using the Niemierko model for normal tissue complication probability and tumor control probability. The Niemierko model can be applied for esophagus cancer treatment plan to estimate the tumor control probability (TCP) and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) using different planning techniques. The equivalent uniform dose (EUD) and effective volume parameters were compared with organ at risk. Subsequently, EUD and TCP parameter were compared with tumor volume for all five different planning techniques.

Materials and methods

Ten cases for esophageal cancer were included in this study. For each patient, five treatment plans were generated. The Anisotropic analytical algorithms (AAA) were used for dose calculation for the three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques. The in-house developed radiobiological plan evaluation software using python programming is used for this study which takes a dose volume histogram (DVH) text file as an input file for biological plan evaluation.

Results and Conclusion

EUD, NTCP, TCP and effective volume were calculated from the Niemierko model using the in-house developed python based software and compared with treatment monitor units (MU) with all five different treatment plan. The best technique is quantified as benchmarked out of other different qualities of treatment. The four field 3D-CRT treatment plan is found to be the best suited from the perspective of biological plan index evaluation among the other planning techniques.

Evaluation on dosimetric plan quality and treatment delivery time of dynamic jaw mode in TomoTherapy® for left-side breast cancer patients

Background:

Few studies claimed that dynamic jaw (DJ) mode in Helical TomoTherapy® (HT) could improve the cranio-caudal dose distribution without prolonging the treatment time in treating different types of cancer. Also, studies suggested that DJ with a wider 5 cm field width (FW) could replace fixed jaws (FJ) with 2.5 cm FW to reduce the delivery time with the sustainable plan quality. Yet, the study on breast cancer with supraclavicular fossa (SCF) nodal involvement using DJ mode in HT is limited. This study aims to evaluate the DJ mode retrospectively by comparing their dosimetric quality with normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of organs at risk and treatment delivery time with FJ mode on treating left-side breast with SCF nodal involvement.

Materials and methods:

All post-mastectomy patients, who had been irradiated for left-side breast with SCF nodal involvement were selected retrospectively in this study. With the same dose constraint and prescription as the treated DJ2.5 plan, two extra plans using DJ mode with 5 cm FW(DJ5.0) and FJ mode with 2.5 cm FW (FJ2.5) were computed for plan comparison.

Results:

No statistical significance was found in all the parameters of PTV and OARs, except for V20 of whole lung. DJ5.0 received V20 in ipsilateral left lung than FJ2.5 and DJ2.5. However, the average delivery time of DJ5.0 was significantly lower than that of DJ2.5 and FJ2.5 by almost 40%.

Conclusions:

No statistical significance was found in those dosimetric and radiobiological parameters among three modes while the delivery time has greatly reduced by using DJ5.0. A shorter treatment time can minimise intra-fractional error and better the patient’s experience during treatment.

Brain Tumor Causes, Symptoms, Diagnosis and Radiotherapy Treatment

The strategy used for the treatment of given brain cancer is critical in determining the post effects and survival. An oncological diagnosis of tumor evaluates a range of parameters such as shape, size, volume, location and neurological complexity that define the symptomatic severity. The evaluation determines a suitable treatment approach chosen from a range of options such as surgery, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, radiation therapy and other targeted therapies. Often, a combination of such therapies is applied to achieve superior results. Radiotherapy serves as a better treatment strategy because of a higher survival rate. It offers the flexibility of synergy with other treatment strategies and fewer side effects on organs at risk. This review presents a radiobiological perspective in the treatment of brain tumor. The cause, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, post-treatment effects and the framework involved in its elimination are summarized.

The Capabilities and Characteristics of Helical Tomotherapy and Co-Planar Dual Arcs Volumetric-Modulated arc Therapy Associated with Hippocampal Sparing During Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation

Objective: To investigate the features of helical tomotherapy and co-planar dual Arcs volumetric-modulated arc therapy during prophylactic cranial irradiation associated with bilateral hippocampal tissue sparing. Materials and methods: Helical tomotherapy and co-planar dual arcs volumetric-modulated arc therapy treatment plans were generated with a dose of 30 Gy/10 fractions in 16 patients treated with prophylactic cranial irradiation. The dose to the bilateral hippocampal tissues, organs at risk, and planning target volume were determined when the average dose of bilateral hippocampal tissues was reduced by approximately 4 Gy as an observation point. Changes in dosimetry when sparing the bilateral hippocampal tissues were determined for both modalities. Results: When bilateral hippocampal tissues were restricted to 8 Gy, D40%mean-bilateral hippocampal tissues = 7.64 ± 0.41 Gy in helical tomotherapy, while D40%mean-bilateral hippocampal tissues = 10.96 ± 0.38 Gy in co-planar dual arcs volumetric-modulated arc therapy volumetric-modulated arc therapy. Helical tomotherapy was associated with significantly lower doses to organs at risk, including Dmean-bilateral hippocampal tissues (P = .03), D98%-bilateral hippocampal tissues (P = .01), D2%-bilateral hippocampal tissues (P = .01), Dmean-inner ear (P = .02), Dmean-parotid glands (P = .02), Dmax-lens (P = .02), and Dmax-brainstem (P = .02), but not Dmax-optic nerves (P = .87). Helical tomotherapy provided better target coverage, with lower average D2%-PTV (P = .02), higher average D98%-PTV (P = .02), and better conformal index (0.87 vs 0.84, P = .02) and homogeneity index (0.15 vs 0.21, P = .05). With smaller bilateral hippocampal tissues doses, the planning target volume dose changed across 3 dosimetry regions for both modalities; the plateau region (>20.0 Gy for helical tomotherapy versus >16.0 Gy for co-planar dual arcs volumetric-modulated arc therapy), gradient region (20.0-12.0 Gy vs 16.0-11.0 Gy), and falling region (<12.0 Gy vs <11.0 Gy). The average delivery duration of helical tomotherapy was almost 7.7 times longer than that of co-planar dual arcs volumetric-modulated arc therapy. Conclusions: Helical tomotherapy was better at sparing the bilateral hippocampal tissues and organs at risk and had better target coverage but a significantly longer treatment duration than co-planar dual arcs volumetric-modulated arc therapy. Further dose decreases in the bilateral hippocampal tissues would yield worse target dose coverage.

Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison of External Beam Radiotherapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique for Esophageal Cancer in Different Location

Objectives: To compare treatment plans of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique for esophageal cancer (EC) of different locations using dosimetry and radiobiology. Methods: Forty EC patients were planned for IMRT, VMAT, and HT plans, including 10 cases located in the cervix, upper, middle, and lower thorax, respectively. Dose-volume metrics, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were analyzed to evaluate treatment plans. Results: HT showed significant improvement over IMRT and VMAT in terms of CI (p = 0.007), HI (p < 0.001), and TCP (p < 0.001) in cervical EC. IMRT yielded more superior CI, HI and TCP compared with VMAT and HT in upper and middle thoracic EC (all p < 0.05). Additionally, V30 (27.72 ± 8.67%), mean dose (1801.47 ± 989.58cGy), and NTCP (Niemierko model: 0.44 ± 0.55%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 0.61 ± 0.59%) of heart in IMRT were sharply reduced than VMAT and HT in middle thoracic EC. For lower thoracic EC, the three techniques offered similar CI and HI (all p > 0.05). But VMAT dramatically lowered liver V30 (9.97 ± 2.84%), and reduced NTCP of lungs (Niemierko model: 0.47 ± 0.48%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 1.41 ± 1.07%) and liver (Niemierko model: 0.10 ± 0.08%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 0.17 ± 0.17%). Conclusions: HT was a good option for cervical EC with complex target coverage but little lungs and heart involvement as it achieved superior dose conformity and uniformity. Due to potentially improving tumor control and reducing heart dose with acceptable lungs sparing, IMRT was a preferred choice for upper and middle thoracic EC with large lungs involvement. VMAT could ameliorate therapeutic ratio and lower lungs and liver toxicity, which was beneficial for lower thoracic EC with little thoracic involvement but being closer to heart and liver. Individually choosing optimal technique for EC in different location will be warranted.

Dosimetric Comparisons of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Tomotherapy for Early T-Stage Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

PURPOSE

To compare the dosimetric differences between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) in treating early T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

METHOD

Ten patients with early T-stage NPC who received tomotherapy using simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) strategies were replanned with VMAT (RapidArc of Varian, dual-arc). Dosimetric comparisons between the RapidArc plan and the HT plan included the following: (1) D98, homogeneity, and conformity of PTVs; (2) sparing of organs at risk (OARs); (3) delivery time and monitor units (MUs).

RESULTS

(1) Compared with RapidArc, HT achieved better dose conformity (CI of PGTVnx + nd: 0.861 versus 0.818, P = 0.004). (2) In terms of OAR protection, RapidArc exhibited significant superiority in sparing ipsilateral optic nerve (Dmax: 27.5Gy versus 49.1Gy, P < 0.001; D2: 23.5Gy versus 48.2Gy, P < 0.001), contralateral optic nerve (Dmax: 30.4Gy versus 49.2Gy, P < 0.001; D2: 26.2Gy versus 48.1Gy, P < 0.001), and optic chiasm (Dmax: 32.8Gy versus 48.3Gy, P < 0.001; D2: 30Gy versus 47.6Gy, P < 0.001). HT demonstrated a superior ability to protect the brain stem (D1cc: 43.0Gy versus 45.2Gy, P = 0.012), ipsilateral temporal lobe (Dmax 64.5Gy versus 66.4 Gy, P = 0.015), contralateral temporal lobe (Dmax: 62.8Gy versus 65.1Gy, P = 0.001), ipsilateral lens (Dmax: 4.27Gy versus 5.24Gy, P = 0.009; D2: 4.00Gy versus 5.05Gy, P = 0.002; Dmean: 2.99Gy versus 4.31Gy, P < 0.001), contralateral lens (Dmax: 4.25Gy versus 5.09Gy, P = 0.047; D2: 3.91Gy versus 4.92Gy, P = 0.005; Dmean: 2.91Gy versus 4.18Gy, P < 0.001), ipsilateral parotid (Dmean: 36.4Gy versus 41.1Gy, P = 0.002; V30Gy: 54.8% versus 70.4%, P = 0.009), and contralateral parotid (Dmean: 33.4Gy versus 39.1Gy, P < 0.001; V30Gy: 48.2% versus 67.3%, P = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences in spinal cord or pituitary protection between the RapidArc plan and the HT plan. (3) RapidArc achieved a much shorter delivery time (3.8 min versus 7.5 min, P < 0.001) and a lower MU (618MUs versus 5646MUs, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that RapidArc and HT are comparable in D98, dose homogeneity, and protection of the spinal cord and pituitary gland. RapidArc performs better in shortening delivery time, lowering MUs, and sparing the optic nerve and optic chiasm. HT is superior in dose conformity and protection of the brain stem, temporal lobe, lens, and parotid.

Converting Treatment Plans From Helical Tomotherapy to L-Shape Linac: Clinical Workflow and Dosimetric Evaluation

This work evaluated a commercial fallback planning workflow designed to provide cross-platform treatment planning and delivery. A total of 27 helical tomotherapy intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans covering 4 anatomical sites were selected, including 7 brain, 5 unilateral head and neck, 5 bilateral head and neck, 5 pelvis, and 5 prostate cases. All helical tomotherapy plans were converted to 7-field/9-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated radiotherapy plans through fallback dose-mimicking algorithm using a 6-MV beam model. The planning target volume (PTV) coverage ( D₁, D₉₉, and homogeneity index) and organs at risk dose constraints were evaluated and compared. Overall, all 3 techniques resulted in relatively inferior target dose coverage compared to helical tomotherapy plans, with higher homogeneity index and maximum dose. The organs at risk dose ratio of fallback to helical tomotherapy plans covered a wide spectrum, from 0.87 to 1.11 on average for all sites, with fallback plans being superior for brain, pelvis, and prostate sites. The quality of fallback plans depends on the delivery technique, field numbers, and angles, as well as user selection of structures for organs at risk. In actual clinical scenario, fallback plans would typically be needed for 1 to 5 fractions of a treatment course in the event of machine breakdown. Our results suggested that <1% dose variance can be introduced in target coverage and/or organs at risk from fallback plans. The presented clinical workflow showed that the fallback plan generation typically takes 10 to 20 minutes per case. Fallback planning provides an expeditious and effective strategy for transferring patients cross platforms, and minimizing the untold risk of a patient missing treatment(s).

Monitoring cancer stem cells: insights into clinical oncology

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are a small, characteristically distinctive subset of tumor cells responsible for tumor initiation and progression. Several treatment modalities, such as surgery, glycolytic inhibition, driving CSC proliferation, immunotherapy, and hypofractionated radiotherapy, may have the potential to eradicate CSCs. We propose that monitoring CSCs is important in clinical oncology as CSC populations may reflect true treatment response and assist with managing treatment strategies, such as defining optimal chemotherapy cycles, permitting pretreatment cancer surveillance, conducting a comprehensive treatment plan, modifying radiation treatment, and deploying rechallenge chemotherapy. Then, we describe methods for monitoring CSCs.

Acute Toxicity From Breast Cancer Radiation Using Helical Tomotherapy With a Simultaneous Integrated Boost

PURPOSE

To evaluate 2 simultaneous integrated boost treatment planning techniques using helical tomotherapy for breast conserving therapy with regard to acute skin toxicity and dosimetry.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients were studied. The original approach was for 16 patients and incorporated a directional block of the ipsilateral lung and breast. An additional 16 patients were planned for using a modified approach that incorporates a full block of the ipsilateral lung exclusive of 4 cm around the breast. Dose-volume histograms of targets and critical structures were evaluated. Skin toxicity monitoring was performed throughout treatment and follow-up using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.

RESULTS

Treatment was well tolerated with patients receiving a median dose of 59.36 Gy. Of the 16 patients in both groups, 8 had grade 2 erythema immediately after radiation. On 3-week follow-up, 10 and 7 patients in the original and modified groups showed grade 1 erythema. On 3- and 6-month follow-up, both groups had minimal erythema, with all patients having either grade 0 or 1 symptoms. No grade 2 or 3 toxicities were reported. Mean treatment time was 7.5 and 10.4 minutes using the original and modified methods. Adequate dose coverage was achieved using both methods (V95 = 99.5% and 98%). Mean dose to the heart was 10.5 and 1.8 Gy, respectively (P < .01). For right-sided tumors, the original and modified plans yielded a mean of 8.8 and 1.1 Gy (P < .01) versus 11.7 and 2.4 Gy for left-sided tumors (P < .01). The mean dose to the ipsilateral lung was also significantly lower in the modified plans (11.8 vs. 5.0 Gy, P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Tomotherapy is capable of delivering homogeneous treatment plans to the whole breast and lumpectomy cavity using simultaneous integrated boost treatment. Using the treatment methods described herein, extremely low doses to critical structures can be achieved without compromising acute skin toxicity.

Helical tomotherapy with dynamic running-start-stop delivery compared to conventional tomotherapy delivery

PURPOSE

Despite superior target dose uniformity, helical tomotherapy(®) (HT) may involve a trade-off between longitudinal dose conformity and beam-on time (BOT), due to the limitation of only three available jaw sizes with the conventional HT (1.0, 2.5, and 5.0 cm). The recently introduced dynamic running-start-stop (RSS) delivery allows smaller jaw opening at the superior and inferior ends of the target when a sharp penumbra is needed. This study compared the dosimetric performance of RSS delivery with the fixed jaw HT delivery.

METHODS

Twenty patient cases were selected and deidentified prior to treatment planning, including 16 common clinical cases (brain, head and neck (HN), lung, and prostate) and four special cases of whole brain with hippocampus avoidance (WBHA) that require a high degree of dose modulation. HT plans were generated for common clinical cases using the fixed 2.5 cm jaw width (HT2.5) and WBHA cases using 1.0 cm (HT1.0). The jaw widths for RSS were preset with a larger size (RSS5.0 vs HT2.5 and RSS2.5 vs HT1.0). Both delivery techniques were planned based on identical contours, prescriptions, and planning objectives. Dose indices for targets and critical organs were compared using dose-volume histograms, BOT, and monitor units.

RESULTS

The average BOT was reduced from 4.8 min with HT2.5 to 2.5 min with RSS5.0. Target dose homogeneity with RSS5.0 was shown comparable to HT2.5 for common clinical sites. Superior normal tissue sparing was observed in RSS5.0 for optic nerves and optic chiasm in brain and HN cases. RSS5.0 demonstrated improved dose sparing for cord and esophagus in lung cases, as well as penile bulb in prostate cases. The mean body dose was comparable for both techniques. For the WBHA cases, the target homogeneity was significantly degraded in RSS2.5 without distinct dose sparing for hippocampus, compared to HT1.0.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the fixed jaw HT delivery, RSS combined with a larger jaw width provides faster treatment delivery and improved cranial-caudal target dose conformity. The target coverage achieved by RSS with a large jaw width is comparable to the fixed jaw HT delivery for common cancer sites, but may deteriorate for cases where complex geometry is present in the middle part of the target.

Coplanar VMAT vs. noncoplanar VMAT in the treatment of sinonasal cancer

BACKGROUND

Previous studies showed that noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy (NC-IMRT) for sinonasal cancer is superior to coplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a newly introduced treatment modality, and the performance of noncoplanar VMAT for sinonasal cancer has not been well described to date.

PURPOSE

To compare the dosimetry difference of noncoplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT), coplanar VMAT (co-VMAT), and NC-IMRT for sinonasal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ten postoperative patients with sinonasal cancer were randomly selected for planning with NC-VMAT, co-VMAT, and NC-IMRT. Two planning target volumes (PTVs) were contoured representing high-risk and low-risk regions set to receive a median absorbed dose (D50%) of 68 Gy and 59 Gy, respectively. The homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), dose-volume histograms (DVHs), and delivery efficiency were all evaluated.

RESULTS

Both NC-VMAT and co-VMAT showed superior dose homogeneity and conformity in PTVs compared with NC-IMRT. There was no significant difference between NC-VMAT and co-VMAT in PTV coverage. Both VMAT plans provided a better protection for organs at risk (OARs) than NC-IMRT plans, and NC-VMAT showed a small improvement over co-VMAT in sparing of OARs. For peripheral doses, the doses to breast, thyroid, and larynx in the NC-IMRT plans were significantly higher than those in both VMAT plans. Compared to NC-VMAT, co-VMAT significantly reduced peripheral doses. NC-VMAT and co-VMAT reduced the average delivery time by 63.2 and 64.2%, respectively, in comparison with NC-IMRT. No differences in delivery efficiency were observed between the two VMAT plans.

CONCLUSION

Compared to NC-VMAT, co-VMAT showed similar PTV coverage and comparable OAR sparing but significantly reduced peripheral doses and positioning uncertainty. We propose to give priority to coplanar VMAT in the treatment of sinonasal cancer.

Enhancing radiotherapy by lipid nanocapsule-mediated delivery of amphiphilic gold nanoparticles to intracellular membranes

Amphiphilic gold nanoparticles (amph-NPs), composed of gold cores surrounded by an amphiphilic mixed organic ligand shell, are capable of embedding within and traversing lipid membranes. Here we describe a strategy using crosslink-stabilized lipid nanocapsules (NCs) as carriers to transport such membrane-penetrating particles into tumor cells and promote their transfer to intracellular membranes for enhanced radiotherapy of cancer. We synthesized and characterized interbilayer-crosslinked multilamellar lipid vesicles (ICMVs) carrying amph-NPs embedded in the capsule walls, forming Au-NCs. Confocal and electron microscopies revealed that the intracellular distribution of amph-NPs within melanoma and breast tumor cells following uptake of free particles vs Au-NCs was quite distinct and that amph-NPs initially delivered into endosomes by Au-NCs transferred over a period of hours to intracellular membranes through tumor cells, with greater intracellular spread in melanoma cells than breast carcinoma cells. Clonogenic assays revealed that Au-NCs enhanced radiotherapeutic killing of melanoma cells. Thus, multilamellar lipid capsules may serve as an effective carrier to deliver amphiphilic gold nanoparticles to tumors, where the membrane-penetrating properties of these materials can significantly enhance the efficacy of frontline radiotherapy treatments.

Gamma Knife, CyberKnife, TomoTherapy: gadgets or useful tools?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides information and an update on stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) equipment, with a focus on intracranial lesions and brain neoplasms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Gamma Knife radiosurgery represents the gold standard for intracranial radiosurgery, using a dedicated equipment, and has recently evolved with a newly designed technology, Leksell Gamma Knife Perfexion. Linear accelerator-based radiosurgery is more recent, and originally based on existing systems, either adapted or dedicated to radiosurgery. Equipment incorporating specific technologies, such as the robotic CyberKnife system, has been developed. Novel concepts in radiation therapy delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy, were also developed; their integration with computed tomography imaging and helical delivery has led to the TomoTherapy system. Recent data on the management of intracranial tumors with radiosurgery illustrate the trend toward a larger use and acceptance of this therapeutic modality.

SUMMARY

SRS has become an important alternative treatment for a variety of lesions. Each radiosurgery system has its advantages and limitations. The 'perfect' and ubiquitous system does not exist. The choice of a radiosurgery system may vary with the strategy and needs of specific radiosurgery programs. No center can afford to acquire every technology, and strategic choices have to be made. Institutions with large neurosurgery and radiation oncology programs usually have more than one system, allowing optimization of the management of patients with a choice of open neurosurgery, radiosurgery, and radiotherapy. Given its minimally invasive nature and increasing clinical acceptance, SRS will continue to progress and offer new advances as a therapeutic tool in neurosurgery and radiotherapy.