Upfront Versus Delayed Systemic Therapy in Patients With Oligometastatic Cancer Treated With SABR in the Phase 2 SABR-5 Trial

PURPOSE

The optimal sequencing of local and systemic therapy for oligometastatic cancer has not been established. This study retrospectively compared progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and SABR-related toxicity between upfront versus delay of systemic treatment until progression in patients in the SABR-5 trial.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The single-arm phase 2 SABR-5 trial accrued patients with up to 5 oligometastases across SABR-5 between November 2016 and July 2020. Patients received SABR to all lesions. Two cohorts were retrospectively identified: those receiving upfront systemic treatment along with SABR and those for whom systemic treatment was delayed until disease progression. Patients treated for oligoprogression were excluded. Propensity score analysis with overlap weighting balanced baseline characteristics of cohorts. Bootstrap sampling and Cox regression models estimated the association of delayed systemic treatment with PFS, OS, and grade ≥2 toxicity.

RESULTS

A total of 319 patients with oligometastases underwent treatment on SABR-5, including 121 (38%) and 198 (62%) who received upfront and delayed systemic treatment, respectively. In the weighted sample, prostate cancer was the most common primary tumor histology (48%) followed by colorectal (18%), breast (13%), and lung (4%). Most patients (93%) were treated for 1 to 2 metastases. The median follow-up time was 34 months (IQR, 24-45). Delayed systemic treatment was associated with shorter PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.15-2.13; P = .005) but similar OS (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.51-1.59; P = .65) compared with upfront systemic treatment. Risk of grade 2 or higher SABR-related toxicity was reduced with delayed systemic treatment (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.70; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed systemic treatment is associated with shorter PFS without reduction in OS and with reduced SABR-related toxicity and may be a favorable option for select patients seeking to avoid initial systemic treatment. Efforts should continue to accrue patients to histology-specific trials examining a delayed systemic treatment approach.

Prospective Longitudinal Assessment of Quality of Life After Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Oligometastases: Analysis of the Population-based SABR-5 Phase II Trial

AIMS

To evaluate longitudinal patient-reported quality of life (QoL) in patients treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for oligometastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The SABR-5 trial was a population-based single-arm phase II study of SABR to up to five sites of oligometastases, conducted in six regional cancer centres in British Columbia, Canada from 2016 to 2020. Prospective QoL was measured using treatment site-specific QoL questionnaires at pre-treatment baseline and at 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 30 and 36 months after treatment. Patients with bone metastases were assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Patients with liver, adrenal and abdominopelvic lymph node metastases were assessed with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Abdominal Discomfort (FACIT-AD). Patients with lung and intrathoracic lymph node metastases were assessed with the Prospective Outcomes and Support Initiative (POSI) lung questionnaire. The two one-sided test procedure was used to assess equivalence between the worst QoL score and the baseline score of individual patients. The mean QoL at all time points was used to determine the trajectory of QoL response after SABR. The proportion of patients with 'stable', 'improved' or 'worsened' QoL was determined for all time points based on standard minimal clinically important differences (MCID; BPI worst pain = 2, BPI functional interference score [FIS] = 0.5, FACIT-AD Trial Outcome Index [TOI] = 8, POSI = 3).

RESULTS

All enrolled patients with baseline QoL assessment and at least one follow-up assessment were analysed (n = 133). On equivalence testing, the patients' worst QoL scores were clinically different from baseline scores and met MCID (BPI worst pain mean difference: 1.8, 90% confidence interval 1.19 to 2.42]; BPI FIS mean difference: 1.68, 90% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.21; FACIT-AD TOI mean difference: -8.76, 90% confidence interval -11.29 to -6.24; POSI mean difference: -4.61, 90% confidence interval -6.09 to -3.14). However, the mean FIS transiently worsened at 9, 18 and 21 months but eventually returned to stable levels. The mean FACIT and POSI scores also worsened at 36 months, albeit with a limited number of responses (n = 4 and 8, respectively). Most patients reported stable QoL at all time points (range: BPI worst pain 71-82%, BPI FIS 45-78%, FACIT-AD TOI 50-100%, POSI 25-73%). Clinically significant stability, worsening and improvement were seen in 70%/13%/18% of patients at 3 months, 53%/28%/19% at 18 months and 63%/25%/13% at 36 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Transient decreases in QoL that met MCID were seen between patients' worst QoL scores and baseline scores. However, most patients experienced stable QoL relative to pre-treatment levels on long-term follow-up. Further studies are needed to characterise patients at greatest risk for decreased QoL.

Predictors of Quality of Life Decline in Patients with Oligometastases treated with Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy: Analysis of the Population-Based SABR-5 Phase II Trial

AIMS

Most patients experience stable quality of life (QoL) after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) treatment for oligometastases. However, a subset of patients experience clinically relevant declines in QoL on post-treatment follow-up. This study aimed to identify risk factors for QoL decline.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The SABR-5 trial was a population-based single-arm phase II study of SABR to up to five sites of oligometastases. Prospective QoL was measured using treatment site-specific tools at pre-treatment baseline and 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 30 and 36 months after treatment. The time to persistent QoL decline was calculated as the time from SABR to the first decline in QoL score meeting minimum clinically important difference with no improvement to baseline score on subsequent assessments. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors associated with QoL decline.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-three patients were included with a median follow-up of 32 months (interquartile range 25-43). Thirty-five patients (26%) experienced a persistent decline in QoL. The median time until persistent QoL decline was not reached. The cumulative incidence of QoL decline at 2 and 3 years were 22% (95% confidence interval 14.0-29.6) and 40% (95% confidence interval 28.0-51.2), respectively. In multivariable analysis, disease progression (odds ratio 5.23, 95% confidence interval 1.59-17.47, P = 0.007) and adrenal metastases (odds ratio 9.70, 95% confidence interval 1.41-66.93, P = 0.021) were associated with a higher risk of QoL decline. Grade 3 or higher (odds ratio 3.88, 95% confidence interval 0.92-16.31, P = 0.064) and grade 2 or higher SABR-associated toxicity (odds ratio 2.24, 95% confidence interval 0.85-5.91, P = 0.10) were associated with an increased risk of QoL decline but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease progression and adrenal lesion site were associated with persistent QoL decline following SABR. The development of grade 3 or higher toxicities was also associated with an increased risk, albeit not statistically significant. Further studies are needed, focusing on the QoL impact of metastasis-directed therapies.

Single vs. multiple fraction non-inferiority trial of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of oligo-metastases/progression: SIMPLIFY-SABR-COMET

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy delivery regimens can vary between a single fraction (SF) and multiple fractions (MF) given daily for up to several weeks depending on the location of the cancer or metastases. With limited evidence comparing fractionation regimens for oligometastases, there is support to explore toxicity levels to nearby organs at risk as a primary outcome while using SF and MF stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as well as explore differences in patient-reported quality of life and experience.

METHODS

This study will randomize 598 patients in a 1:1 ratio between the standard arm (MF SABR) and the experimental arm (SF SABR). This trial is designed as two randomized controlled trials within one patient population for resource efficiency. The primary objective of the first randomization is to determine if SF SABR is non-inferior to MF SABR, with respect to healthcare provider (HCP)-reported grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) that are related to SABR. Primary endpoint is toxicity while secondary endpoints include lesional control rate (LCR), and progression-free survival (PFS). The second randomization (BC Cancer sites only) will allocate participants to either complete quality of life (QoL) questionnaires only; or QoL questionnaires and a symptom-specific survey with symptom-guided HCP intervention. The primary objective of the second randomization is to determine if radiation-related symptom questionnaire-guided HCP intervention results in improved reported QoL as measured by the EuroQoL-5-dimensions-5levels (EQ-5D-5L) instrument. The primary endpoint is patient-reported QoL and secondary endpoints include: persistence/resolution of symptom reporting, QoL, intervention cost effectiveness, resource utilization, and overall survival.

DISCUSSION

This study will compare SF and MF SABR in the treatment of oligometastases and oligoprogression to determine if there is non-inferior toxicity for SF SABR in selected participants with 1-5 oligometastatic lesions. This study will also compare patient-reported QoL between participants who receive radiation-related symptom-guided HCP intervention and those who complete questionnaires alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05784428. Date of Registration: 23 March 2023.

Prospective Longitudinal Assessment of Quality of Life after Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Oligometastases: Analysis of the Population-Based SABR-5 Phase II Trial

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

To evaluate longitudinal patient-reported quality of life (QoL) in patients treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for oligometastases.

MATERIALS/METHODS

The SABR-5 trial was a population-based single-arm phase II study of SABR to up to 5 sites of oligometastases, conducted in 6 regional cancer centers in British Columbia from 2016 to 2020. Prospective QoL was measured using treatment site-specific QoL questionnaires at pre-treatment baseline and 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 30, and 36 months after treatment. Patients with bone metastases were assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Patients with liver, adrenal, and abdominopelvic lymph node metastases were assessed with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Abdominal Discomfort (FACIT-AD). Patients with lung and intrathoracic lymph node metastases were assessed with the Prospective Outcomes and Support Initiative (POSI) lung questionnaire. The two one-sided test procedure was used to assess equivalence between the worst QoL score and baseline score of individual patients. Mean QoL at all time points was used to determine the trajectory of QoL response after SABR. The proportion of patients with "stable," "improved," or "worsened" QoL was determined for all time points based on standard minimal clinically important differences (MCID; BPI worst pain = 2, BPI Functional Interference Score [FIS] = 0.5, FACIT-AD Trial Outcome Index [TOI] = 8, POSI = 3).

RESULTS

All enrolled patients with baseline QoL assessment and at least 1 follow-up assessment were analyzed (n = 135). On equivalence testing, patients' worst QoL scores were clinically different from baseline scores and met MCID (BPI worst pain mean difference: 1.8, 90% CI [1.19 to 2.42]; BPI FIS mean difference: 1.68, 90% CI [1.15 to 2.21]; FACIT-AD TOI mean difference: -8.76, 90% CI [-11.29 to -6.24]; POSI mean difference: -4.61, 90% CI [-6.09 to -3.14]). However, the mean FIS transiently worsened at 9, 18 and 21 months but eventually returned to stable levels. The mean FACIT and POSI scores also worsened at 36 months, albeit with a limited number of responses (n = 4 and 8, respectively). The majority of patients reported stable QoL at all time points (range: BPI worst pain 71-82%, BPI FIS 45-78%, FACIT-AD TOI 50-100%, POSI 25-73%). Clinically significant stability, worsening, and improvement were seen in 70%/13%/18% of patients at 3 months, 53%/28%/19% at 18 months and 63%/25%/13% at 36 months.

CONCLUSION

SABR in the oligometastatic setting can lead to transient decreases in QoL. However, most patients experienced stable QoL relative to pre-treatment levels on long-term follow-up. Further studies are needed to characterize patients at greatest risk for decreased QoL.

Should organs at risk (OARs) be prioritized over target volume coverage in stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for oligometastases? a secondary analysis of the population-based phase II SABR-5 trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for oligometastases may improve survival, however concerns about safety remain. To mitigate risk of toxicity, target coverage was sacrificed to prioritize organs-at-risk (OARs) during SABR planning in the population-based SABR-5 trial. This study evaluated the effect of this practice on dosimetry, local recurrence (LR), and progression-free survival (PFS).

METHODS

This single-arm phase II trial included patients with up to 5 oligometastases between November 2016 and July 2020. Theprotocol-specified planning objective was to cover 95 % of the planning target volume (PTV) with 100 % of the prescribed dose, however PTV coverage was reduced as needed to meet OAR constraints. This trade-off was measured using the coverage compromise index (CCI), computed as minimum dose received by the hottest 99 % of the PTV (D99) divided by the prescription dose. Under-coverage was defined as CCI < 0.90. The potential association between CCI and outcomes was evaluated.

RESULTS

549 lesions from 381 patients were assessed. Mean CCI was 0.88 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.89), and 196 (36 %) lesions were under-covered. The highest mean CCI (0.95; 95 %CI, 0.93-0.97) was in non-spine bone lesions (n = 116), while the lowest mean CCI (0.71; 95 % CI, 0.69-0.73) was in spine lesions (n = 104). On multivariable analysis, under-coverage did not predict for worse LR (HR 0.48, p = 0.37) or PFS (HR 1.24, p = 0.38). Largest lesion diameter, colorectal and 'other' (non-prostate, breast, or lung) primary predicted for worse LR. Largest lesion diameter, synchronous tumor treatment, short disease free interval, state of oligoprogression, initiation or change in systemic treatment, and a high PTV Dmax were significantly associated with PFS.

CONCLUSION

PTV under-coverage was not associated with worse LR or PFS in this large, population-based phase II trial. Combined with low toxicity rates, this study supports the practice of prioritizing OAR constraints during oligometastatic SABR planning.

Determining Planning Priorities for SABR for Oligometastatic Disease: A Secondary Analysis of the SABR-COMET Phase II Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

SABR may improve survival in patients with oligometastases, but for some lesions, safe delivery of SABR may require a reduction in delivered dose or target coverage. This study assessed the association between target coverage compromise and oncologic and survival outcomes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with a controlled primary malignancy and 1 to 5 oligometastases were randomized (1:2) between standard of care (SOC) treatment and SOC plus SABR. In patients receiving SABR, the target dose coverage was reduced to meet organ at risk (OAR) constraints, if necessary. The D99 value (minimum dose received by the hottest 99% of the planning target volume [PTV]) was used as a measure of PTV coverage for each treatment plan, and the relationship between the coverage compromise index (CCI, defined as D99/prescription dose) and patient outcomes was assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients in the SABR arm had dosimetric information available and a total of 109 lesions were evaluated. The mean CCI per lesion was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.56-1.61). Of the 109 lesions evaluated, 29.4% (n = 32) required coverage compromise (CCI <0.9). Adrenal metastases required coverage compromise in 100% of analyzed lesions (n = 7). CCI was not significantly associated with lesional control, adverse events, overall survival (OS), or progression-free survival (PFS).

CONCLUSIONS

Target compromise was required in a substantial minority of cases, but PTV coverage was not associated with OS, progression-free survival, or lesional control. This suggests that OAR constraints used for SABR treatments in the oligometastatic setting should continue to be prioritized during planning.

Treatment With Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Up to 5 Oligometastases in Patients With Cancer: Primary Toxic Effect Results of the Nonrandomized Phase 2 SABR-5 Clinical Trial

Importance

After the publication of the landmark SABR-COMET trial, concerns arose regarding high-grade toxic effects of treatment with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for oligometastases.

Objective

To document toxic effects of treatment with SABR in a large cohort from a population-based, provincial cancer program.

Design, Setting, and Participants

From November 2016 to July 2020, 381 patients across all 6 cancer centers in British Columbia were treated in this single-arm, phase 2 trial of treatment with SABR for patients with oligometastatic or oligoprogressive disease. During this period, patients were only eligible to receive treatment with SABR in these settings in trials within British Columbia; therefore, this analysis is population based, with resultant minimal selection bias compared with previously published SABR series.

Interventions

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy to up to 5 metastases.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Rate of grade 2, 3, 4, and 5 toxic effects associated with SABR.

Findings

Among 381 participants (122 women [32%]), the mean (SD; range) age was 68 (11.1; 30-97) years, and the median (range) follow-up was 25 (1-54) months. The most common histological findings were prostate cancer (123 [32%]), colorectal cancer (63 [17%]), breast cancer (42 [11%]), and lung cancer (33 [9%]). The number of SABR-treated sites were 1 (263 [69%]), 2 (82 [22%]), and 3 or more (36 [10%]). The most common sites of SABR were lung (188 [34%]), nonspine bone (136 [25%]), spine (85 [16%]), lymph nodes (78 [14%]), liver (29 [5%]), and adrenal (15 [3%]). Rates of grade 2, 3, 4, and 5 toxic effects associated with SABR (based on the highest-grade toxic effect per patient) were 14.2%; (95% CI, 10.7%-17.7%), 4.2% (95% CI, 2.2%-6.2%), 0%, and 0.3% (95% CI, 0%-0.8%), respectively. The cumulative incidence of grade 2 or higher toxic effects associated with SABR at year 2 by Kaplan-Meier analysis was 8%, and for grade 3 or higher, 4%.

Conclusions and Relevance

This single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial found that the incidence of grade 3 or higher SABR toxic effects in this population-based study was less than 5%. Furthermore, the rates of grade 2 or higher toxic effects (18.6%) were lower than previously published for SABR-COMET (29%). These results suggest that SABR treatment for oligometastases has acceptable rates of toxic effects and potentially support further enrollment in randomized phase 3 clinical trials.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02933242.

Predictors of early polymetastatic relapse following stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for up to 5 oligometastases: a secondary analysis of the phase II SABR-5 trial

PURPOSE

A subset of patients with oligometastatic cancer experience early widespread cancer dissemination and do not benefit from metastasis-directed therapy such as stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). This study aimed to identify factors associated with early polymetastatic relapse (PMR).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The XXX trial was a single arm phase II study conducted at all 6 regional cancer centres across XXX. SABR for oligometastases was only offered on trial. Patients with up to 5 oligometastatic lesions (total, progressing or induced) received SABR to all lesions. Patients were 18 years of age or older, ECOG 0-2 and life expectancy ≥ 6 months. This secondary analysis evaluated factors associated with early PMR, defined as disease recurrence within 6 months of SABR which is not amenable to further local treatment. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed using binary logistic regression. The Kaplan Meier method and log-rank tests assessed PMR-free survival and differences between risk groups, respectively.

RESULTS

Between November 2016 and July 2020, 381 patients underwent treatment on XXX. A total of 16% of patients experienced PMR. Worse performance status (ECOG 1-2 vs 0; HR=2.01, p=0.018), non-prostate/breast histology (HR=3.64, p<0.001) and oligoprogression (HR=3.84, p<0.001) were independent predictors for early PMR. Risk groups were identified with median PMR-free survival ranging from 5 months to not yet reached at the time of analysis. Rates of 3-year OS were 0%, 53% (95% confidence interval [CI] 48 - 58), 77% (95% CI 73 - 81) and 93% (95% CI 90 - 96) in groups 1-4, respectively (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Four distinct risk groups for early PMR are identified, which differ significantly in PMR-free survival and overall survival. The group with all three risk factors had a median PMR-free survival of 5 months and may not benefit from local ablative therapy alone. This model should be externally validated with data from other prospective trials.

Progression-free survival and local control following stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for up to 5 oligometastases: an analysis from the population-based phase II SABR-5 trial

PURPOSE

Despite increasing utilization of stereotactic ablative therapy (SABR) for oligometastatic cancer, prospective outcomes are lacking. The purpose of this study was to determine progression-free survival (PFS), local control (LC) and prognostic factors from the population-based phase II XXX trial.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The XXX trial was a single arm phase II study with the primary endpoint of toxicity, conducted at the 6 regional cancer centres across XXX, during which time SABR for oligometastases was only offered on trial. Patients with up to 5 oligometastases (total or not controlled by prior treatment, and including induced oligometastatic disease) underwent SABR to all lesions. Patients were 18 years of age or older, ECOG 0-2 and had life expectancy ≥ 6 months. The secondary outcomes of PFS and LC are presented here.

RESULTS

Between November 2016 and July 2020, 381 patients underwent SABR on trial. Median follow-up was 27 months (IQR 18-36). Median PFS was 15 months (95% CI 12-18). LC at 1 and 3 years were 93% (95% CI 91 - 95) and 87% (95% CI 84 - 90), respectively. On multivariable analysis, increasing tumor diameter (HR=1.09, p<0.001), declining performance status (HR=2.13, p<0.001), disease-free interval < 18 months (HR=1.52, p=0.003), four or more metastases at SABR (HR=1.48, p=0.048), initiation or change in systemic treatment (HR=0.50, p<0.001) and oligoprogression (HR=1.56, p=0.008) were significant independent predictors of PFS. Tumor diameter (SHR=1.28, p<0.001), colorectal histology (SHR=4.33, p=0.002) and "other" histology (SHR=3.90, p<0.001) were associated with worse local control.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based cohort including patients with genuine oligometastatic, oligoprogressive, and induced oligometastatic disease, the median PFS was 15 months and LC at 3 years was 87%. This supports ongoing efforts to randomize patients on phase III trials, even outside the original 1-5 metachronous oligometastatic paradigm.

SUPR-3D: A randomized phase iii trial comparing simple unplanned palliative radiotherapy versus 3d conformal radiotherapy for patients with bone metastases: study protocol

Background

Bone metastases in the lower spine and pelvis are effectively palliated with radiotherapy (RT), though this can come with side effects such as radiation induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). We hypothesize that high rates of RINV occur in part because of the widespread use of inexpensive simple unplanned palliative radiotherapy (SUPR), over more complex and resource intensive 3D conformal RT, such as volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

Methods

This is a randomized, multi-centre phase III trial of SUPR versus VMAT. We will accrue 250 patients to assess the difference in patient-reported RINV. This study is powered to detect a difference in quality of life between patients treated with VMAT vs. SUPR.

Discussion

This trial will determine if VMAT reduces early toxicity compared to SUPR and may provide justification for this more resource-intensive and costly form of RT.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03694015.

Date of registration: October 3, 2018.

Population-based phase II trial of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for up to 5 oligometastases: SABR-5

BACKGROUND

Oligometastases refer to a state of disease where cancer has spread beyond the primary site, but is not yet widely metastatic, often defined as 1-3 or 1-5 metastases in number. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is an emerging radiotherapy technique to treat oligometastases that require further prospective population-based toxicity estimates.

METHODS

This is a non-randomized phase II trial where all participants will receive experimental SABR treatment to all sites of newly diagnosed or progressing oligometastatic disease. We will accrue 200 patients to assess toxicity associated with this experimental treatment. The study was powered to give a 95% confidence on the risk of late grade 4 toxicity, anticipating a < 5% rate of grade 4 toxicity.

DISCUSSION

SABR treatment of oligometastases is occurring off-trial at a high rate, without sufficient evidence of its efficacy or toxicity. This trial will provide necessary toxicity data in a population-based cohort, using standardized doses and organ at risk constraints, while we await data on efficacy from randomized phase III trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered through clinicaltrials.gov NCT02933242 on October 14, 2016 prospectively before patient accrual.

Source strength verification and quality assurance of preloaded brachytherapy needles using a CMOS flat panel detector

PURPOSE

Current methods of low dose rate brachytherapy source strength verification for sources preloaded into needles consist of either assaying a small number of seeds from a separate sample belonging to the same lot used to load the needles or performing batch assays of a subset of the preloaded seed trains. Both of these methods are cumbersome and have the limitations inherent to sampling. The purpose of this work was to investigate an alternative approach that uses an image-based, autoradiographic system capable of the rapid and complete assay of all sources without compromising sterility.

METHODS

The system consists of a flat panel image detector, an autoclavable needle holder, and software to analyze the detected signals. The needle holder was designed to maintain a fixed vertical spacing between the needles and the image detector, and to collimate the emissions from each seed. It also provides a sterile barrier between the needles and the imager. The image detector has a sufficiently large image capture area to allow several needles to be analyzed simultaneously.Several tests were performed to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of source strengths obtained using this system. Three different seed models (Oncura 6711 and 9011 (125)I seeds, and IsoAid Advantage (103)Pd seeds) were used in the evaluations. Seeds were loaded into trains with at least 1 cm spacing.

RESULTS

Using our system, it was possible to obtain linear calibration curves with coverage factor k = 1 prediction intervals of less than ±2% near the centre of their range for the three source models. The uncertainty budget calculated from a combination of type A and type B estimates of potential sources of error was somewhat larger, yielding (k = 1) combined uncertainties for individual seed readings of 6.2% for (125)I 6711 seeds, 4.7% for (125)I 9011 seeds, and 11.0% for Advantage (103)Pd seeds.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that a flat panel detector dosimetry system is a viable option for source strength verification in preloaded needles, as it is capable of measuring all of the sources intended for implantation. Such a system has the potential to directly and efficiently estimate individual source strengths, the overall mean source strength, and the positions within the seed-spacer train.

Use of needle track detection to quantify the displacement of stranded seeds following prostate brachytherapy

We aim to compute the movement of permanent stranded implant brachytherapy radioactive sources (seeds) in the prostate from the planned seed distribution to the intraoperative fluoroscopic distribution, and then to the postimplant computed tomography (CT) distribution. We present a novel approach to matching the seeds in these distributions to the plan by grouping the seeds into needle tracks. First, we identify the implantation axis using a sample consensus algorithm. Then, we use a network flow algorithm to group seeds into their needle tracks. Finally, we match the needles from the three stages using both their transverse plane location and the number of seeds per needle. We validated our approach on eight clinical prostate brachytherapy cases, having a total of 871 brachytherapy seeds distributed in 193 needles. For the intraoperative and postimplant data, 99.31% and 99.41% of the seeds were correctly assigned, respectively. For both the preplan to fluoroscopic and fluoroscopic to CT registrations, 100% of the needles were correctly matched. We show that there is an average intraoperative seed displacement of 4.94±2.42 mm and a further 2.97±1.81 mm of postimplant movement. This information reveals several directional trends and can be used for quality control, treatment planning, and intraoperative dosimetry that fuses ultrasound and fluoroscopy.

Quantifying stranded implant displacement following prostate brachytherapy

We aim to compute radioactive stranded-implant displacement during and after prostate brachytherapy. We present the methods used to identify corresponding seeds in planned, intra-operative and postimplant patient data that enable us to compute seed displacements. A minimum cost network flow algorithm is used, on 8 patients, for needle track detection to group seeds into needles that can be matched between datasets. An iterative best line detection algorithm is used both to help with needle detection and to register the different datasets. Our results show that there was an average seed misplacement of 5.08 +/- 2.35 mm during the procedure, which then moved another 3.10 +/- 1.91 mm by the time the quality assurance CT was taken. Several directional trends in different regions of the prostate were noted and commented on.

Semi-automatic segmentation for prostate interventions

In this paper we report and characterize a semi-automatic prostate segmentation method for prostate brachytherapy. Based on anatomical evidence and requirements of the treatment procedure, a warped and tapered ellipsoid was found suitable as the a-priori 3D shape of the prostate. By transforming the acquired endorectal transverse images of the prostate into ellipses, the shape fitting problem was cast into a convex problem which can be solved efficiently. The average whole gland error between non-overlapping volumes created from manual and semi-automatic contours from 21 patients was 6.63 ± 0.9%. For use in brachytherapy treatment planning, the resulting contours were modified, if deemed necessary, by radiation oncologists prior to treatment. The average whole gland volume error between the volumes computed from semi-automatic contours and those computed from modified contours, from 40 patients, was 5.82 ± 4.15%. The amount of bias in the physicians' delineations when given an initial semi-automatic contour was measured by comparing the volume error between 10 prostate volumes computed from manual contours with those of modified contours. This error was found to be 7.25 ± 0.39% for the whole gland. Automatic contouring reduced subjectivity, as evidenced by a decrease in segmentation inter- and intra-observer variability from 4.65% and 5.95% for manual segmentation to 3.04% and 3.48% for semi-automatic segmentation, respectively. We characterized the performance of the method relative to the reference obtained from manual segmentation by using a novel approach that divides the prostate region into nine sectors. We analyzed each sector independently as the requirements for segmentation accuracy depend on which region of the prostate is considered. The measured segmentation time is 14 ± 1s with an additional 32 ± 14s for initialization. By assuming 1-3 min for modification of the contours, if necessary, a total segmentation time of less than 4 min is required, with no additional time required prior to treatment planning. This compares favorably to the 5-15 min manual segmentation time required for experienced individuals. The method is currently used at the British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA) Vancouver Cancer Centre as part of the standard treatment routine in low dose rate prostate brachytherapy and is found to be a fast, consistent and accurate tool for the delineation of the prostate gland in ultrasound images.