Background Deep learning auto‐segmentation (DLAS) models have been adopted in the clinic; however, they suffer from performance deterioration owing to the clinical practice variability. Some commercial DLAS software provide an incremental retraining function that enables users to train a custom model using their institutional data to account for clinical practice variability. Purpose This study was performed to evaluate and implement the commercial DLAS software with the incremental retraining function for definitive treatment of patients with prostate cancer in a multi‐user environment. Methods CT‐based target organs and organs‐at‐risk (OAR) delineation of 215 prostate cancer patients were utilized. The performance of three commercial DLAS software built‐in models was validated with 20 patients. A retrained custom model was developed using 100 patients and evaluated on the remaining data (n = 115). Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Hausdorff distance (HD), mean surface distance (MSD), and surface DSC (SDSC) were utilized for quantitative evaluation. A multi‐rater qualitative evaluation was blindly performed with a five‐level scale. Visual inspection was performed in consensus and non‐consensus unacceptable cases to identify the failure modes. Results Three commercial DLAS vendor built‐in models achieved sub‐optimal performance in 20 patients. The retrained custom model had a mean DSC of 0.82 for prostate, 0.48 for seminal vesicles (SV), and 0.92 for rectum, respectively. This represents a significant improvement over the built‐in model with DSC of 0.73, 0.37, and 0.81 for the corresponding structures. Compared to the acceptance rate of 96.5% and consensus unacceptable rate (i.e., both reviewers rated as unacceptable) of 3.5% achieved by manual contours, the custom model achieved a 91.3% acceptance rate and 8.7% consensus unacceptable rate. The failure modes of retrained custom model were attributed to the following: cystogram (n = 2), hip prosthesis (n = 2), low dose rate brachytherapy seeds (n = 2), air in endorectal balloon(n = 1), non‐iodinated spacer (n = 2), and giant bladder(n = 1). Conclusion The commercial DLAS software with the incremental retraining function was validated and clinically adopted for prostate patients in a multi‐user environment. AI‐based auto‐delineation of the prostate and OARs is shown to achieve improved physician acceptance, overall clinical utility, and accuracy.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background In patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma (eSTS), we describe outcomes of preoperative external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), limb‐sparing surgery (LSS), and intraoperative electron radiation therapy (IOERT). Methods One hundred and eighteen patients with eSTS treated between October 17, 2002 and July 28, 2021 were identified. EBRT was delivered preoperatively followed by LSS and IOERT. Results The median follow‐up was 24.9 months. The presentation was primary in 102 (94%) patients and recurrent in 6 (6%) patients. Tumor location was lower extremity in 82 (76%) patients and upper extremity in 26 (24%) patients. Stage distribution was as follows: 3 (3%) IA, 24 (22%) IB, 31 (29%) II, 24 (22%) IIIA, and 25 (23%) IIIB. Final surgical margins were negative in 96 (89%) patients. The 5‐year local control, failure‐free survival, and overall survival were 94%, 75%, and 64%, respectively. Univariate analysis identified age >50, lower extremity, and higher grade as significant negative prognostic factors for overall survival. Grade 3 fracture or osteoradionecrosis requiring surgical fixation, neuropathy, and lymphedema occurred in 7 (6%), 1 (1%), and 0 patients, respectively. Conclusions This study represents one of the largest series using preoperative EBRT, LSS, and IOERT for eSTS, with high local control and a low rate of late severe toxicity.

Purpose/Objectives Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is commonly performed in patients with significant bladder outlet obstruction. However, there are few reports on the toxicity of external beam irradiation (RT) for prostate cancer in patients after prior HoLEP. In this study, we evaluate the side effects and treatment outcomes of RT after HoLEP. Materials/Methods Eighteen patients who had HoLEP and subsequently received RT for prostate cancer were included. Data collected included patient and disease characteristics, urinary function, and radiation dose. Acute and late urinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) side effects were evaluated. Disease control and survival rates were calculated using Kaplan–Meier method. Results Median follow‐up was 18 months (range: 4–46 months). Median prostate volume was 107 ml before HoLEP and 24 ml after HoLEP. Median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 17 (range: 5–32) before HoLEP. Median decline in IPSS score after HoLEP was 7 (range: −2–21). On uroflow study, peak flow rate, and post‐void residual were significantly improved after HoLEP. After radiation, peak flow rate and average flow rate showed a decline but remained significantly improved compared to pre‐HoLEP measurements. Maximum acute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) adverse events were 12 grade 1 and 3 grade 2 for GU, and 3 grade 1 for GI, respectively. Maximum late adverse events were 13 grade 1 and 2 grade 2 for GU, and all grade 0 for GI, respectively. At last follow‐up, there were 8 grade 1 and 1 grade 2 late GU, and 3 grade 1 late GI adverse events, respectively. There was no significant increase in urinary incontinence after RT compared to before RT. The 18‐month biochemical control, local control, distant control rates were 78%, 94%, and 80%, respectively. Conclusions Patients who received RT as definitive treatment for prostate cancer after prior HoLEP had low risk of serious acute and late side effects. HoLEP can be safely performed and should be considered in patients with significant bladder outlet obstruction and large prostate volume before RT.

No abstract

Purpose: Post-operative prostate cancer patients are treated with full bladder instruction and the use of an endorectal balloon (ERB). We reassessed the efficacy of this practice based on daily image guidance and dose delivery using high-quality iterative reconstructed cone-beam CT (iCBCT). Methods: Fractional dose delivery was calculated on daily iCBCT for 314 fractions from 14 post-operative prostate patients (8 with and 6 without ERB) treated with volumetric modulated radiotherapy (VMAT). All patients were positioned using novel iCBCT during image guidance. The bladder, rectal wall, femoral heads, and prostate bed clinical tumor volume (CTV) were contoured and verified on daily iCBCT. The dose-volume parameters of the contoured organs at risk (OAR) and CTV coverage were assessed for the clinical impact of daily bladder volume variations and the use of ERB. Minimum bladder volume was studied, and a straightforward bladder instruction was explored for easy clinical adoption. Results: A “minimum bladder” contour, the overlap between the original bladder contour and a 15 mm anterior and superior expansion from prostate bed PTV, was confirmed to be effective in identifying cases that might fail a bladder constraint of V65% <60%. The average difference between the maximum and minimum bladder volumes for each patient was 277.1 mL. The daily bladder volumes varied from 62.4 to 590.7 mL and ranged from 29 to 286% of the corresponding planning bladder volume. The bladder constraint of V65% <60% was met in almost all fractions (98%). CTVs (D90%, D95%, and D98%) remained well-covered regardless of the absolute bladder volume daily variation or the presence of the endorectal balloon. Patients with an endorectal balloon showed smaller variation but a higher average maximum rectal wall dose (D0.03mL: 104.3% of the prescription) compared to patients without (103.3%). Conclusions: A “minimum bladder” contour was determined that can be easily generated and followed to ensure sufficient bladder sparing. Further analysis and validation are needed to confirm the utility of the minimal bladder contour. Accurate dose delivery can be achieved for prostate bed target coverage and OAR sparing with or without the use of ERB.