SummaryThe lack of specific treatment planning tools limits the spread of Intraoperative Electron Radiation Therapy. An innovative simulation and planning tool is presented. Applicator positioning, isodose curves, and dose volume histograms can be estimated for previously segmented regions to treat/protect. Evaluation by three radiation oncologists on 15 patients showed high parameter agreement in nine cases, demonstrating the possibilities in cases involving different anatomical locations, and Purpose: Intraoperative electron beam radiation therapy (IOERT) involves a modified strategy of conventional radiation therapy and surgery. The lack of specific planning tools limits the spread of this technique. The purpose of the present study is to describe a new simulation and planning tool and its initial evaluation by clinical users. Methods and Materials: The tool works on a preoperative computed tomography scan. A physi cian contours regions to be treated and protected and simulates applicator positioning, calcu lating isodoses and the corresponding doseevolume histograms depending on the selected electron energy. Three radiation oncologists evaluated data from 15 IOERT patients, including different tumor locations. Segmentation masks, applicator positions, and treatment parameters were compared. Results: High parameter agreement was found in the following cases: three breast and three rectal cancer, retroperitoneal sarcoma, and rectal and ovary monotopic recurrences. All radiation oncologists performed similar segmentations of tumors and high risk areas. The average appli cator position difference was 1.2 AE 0.95 cm. The remaining cancer sites showed higher devia tions because of differences in the criteria for segmenting high risk areas (one rectal, one pancreas) and different surgical access simulated (two rectal, one Ewing sarcoma). Conclusions:The results show that this new tool can be used to simulate IOERT cases involving different anatomic locations, and that preplanning has to be carried out with specialized surgical input.

No abstract

No abstract

PURPOSE The sequencing of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) may affect outcomes for prostate cancer in an RT-field size-dependent manner. Herein, we investigate the impact of ADT sequencing for men receiving ADT with prostate-only RT (PORT) or whole-pelvis RT (WPRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS Individual patient data from 12 randomized trials that included patients receiving neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant short-term ADT (4-6 months) with RT for localized disease were obtained from the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate consortium. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with propensity scores derived from age, initial prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, T stage, RT dose, and mid-trial enrollment year. Metastasis-free survival (primary end point) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by IPTW-adjusted Cox regression models, analyzed independently for men receiving PORT versus WPRT. IPTW-adjusted Fine and Gray competing risk models were built to evaluate distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer–specific mortality. RESULTS Overall, 7,409 patients were included (6,325 neoadjuvant/concurrent and 1,084 concurrent/adjuvant) with a median follow-up of 10.2 years (interquartile range, 7.2-14.9 years). A significant interaction between ADT sequencing and RT field size was observed for all end points ( P interaction < .02 for all) except OS. With PORT (n = 4,355), compared with neoadjuvant/concurrent ADT, concurrent/adjuvant ADT was associated with improved metastasis-free survival (10-year benefit 8.0%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.79; P < .0001), DM (subdistribution HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = .0046), prostate cancer–specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.54; P < .0001), and OS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83; P = .0001). However, in patients receiving WPRT (n = 3,049), no significant difference in any end point was observed in regard to ADT sequencing except for worse DM (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.05; P = .0009) with concurrent/adjuvant ADT. CONCLUSION ADT sequencing exhibits a significant impact on clinical outcomes with a significant interaction with field size. Concurrent/adjuvant ADT should be the standard of care where short-term ADT is indicated in combination with PORT.