Dose escalation to 50 Gy has been completed without DLT. A multicenter phase II trial is underway treating patients to 50 Gy in five fractions to further evaluate this experimental therapy.

Overall, excellent agreement was observed in TrueBeam commissioning data. This set of multi-institutional data can provide comparison data to others embarking on TrueBeam commissioning, ultimately improving the safety and quality of beam commissioning.

No abstract

Purpose-This study was performed to determine the spinal cord tolerance to single-fraction, partial-volume irradiation in swine.Methods/Materials-A 5 cm long cervical segment was irradiated in 38-47 week old Yucatan minipigs using a dedicated, image-guided radiosurgery linear accelerator. Radiation was delivered to a cylindrical volume approximately 5 cm in length and 2 cm in diameter that was positioned lateral to the cervical spinal cord resulting in a dose distribution with the 90%, 50% and 10% isodose lines traversing the ipsilateral, central and contralateral spinal cord, respectively. Dose was prescribed to the 90% isodose line. Twenty-six pigs were stratified into 8 dose groups from 12-47 Gy. The mean maximum spinal cord doses were 16.9±0.1, 18.9±0.1, 21.0±0.1, 23.0±0.2, and 25.3±0.3 Gy in the 16, 18, 20, 22 and 24 Gy dose groups, respectively. The mean percentage spinal cord volumes receiving >= 10 Gy for the same groups were 43%±3, 48%±4, 51%±2, 57% Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptInt J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 January 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript ±2 and 59%±4. The study endpoint was motor neurologic deficit determined by a change in gait during a one year follow-up period.Results-A steep dose response curve was observed with an ED 50 (95% CI) for the maximum dose point of 20.0 Gy (18.3-21.7). Excellent agreement was observed between the occurrence of neurologic change and the presence of histological change. All animals with motor deficits showed some degree of demyelination and focal white matter necrosis on the irradiated side with relative sparing of the gray matter while histology was unremarkable in animals with normal neurologic status. Conclusions-Resultsindicate that for a dose distribution with a steep lateral gradient, pigs have a lower ED 50 for paralysis than has been observed in rats and more closely resembles that for rats, mice and guinea pigs receiving uniform spinal cord irradiation.

BackgroundThere is significant interest in the use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as a treatment modality for liver metastases. A variety of SABR fractionation schemes are in clinical use. We conducted a phase I dose-escalation study to determine the maximum tolerated dose of single-fraction liver SABR.MethodsPatients with liver metastases from solid tumors, for whom a critical volume dose constraint could be met, were treated with single-fraction SABR. Seven patients were enrolled to the first group, with a prescription dose of 35 Gy. Dose was then escalated to 40 Gy in a single fraction, and seven more patients were treated at this dose level. Patients were followed for toxicity and underwent serial imaging to assess lesion response and local control.ResultsFourteen patients with 17 liver metastases were treated. There were no dose-limiting toxicities observed at either dose level. Nine of the 13 lesions assessable for treatment response showed a complete radiographic response to treatment; the remainder showed partial response. Local control of irradiated lesions was 100 % at a median imaging follow-up of 2.5 years. Two-year overall survival for all patients was 78 %.ConclusionsFor selected patients with liver metastases, single-fraction SABR at doses of 35 and 40 Gy is tolerable and shows promising signs of efficacy at intermediate follow-up.

Background and purpose Multiple techniques can be used to assist with more accurate patient setup and monitoring during Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatment. This study analyzes the accuracy of 3D surface mapping with Surface‐guided radiation therapy (SGRT) in detecting interfraction setup error and intrafraction motion during SBRT treatments of the lung and abdomen. Materials and Methods Seventy‐one patients with 85 malignant thoracic or abdominal tumors treated with SBRT were analyzed. For initial patient setup, an alternating scheme of kV/kV imaging or SGRT was followed by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for more accurate tumor volumetric localization. The CBCT six degree shifts after initial setup with each method were recorded to assess interfraction setup error. Patients were then monitored continuously with SGRT during treatment. If an intrafractional shift in any direction >2 mm for longer than 2 sec was detected by SGRT, then CBCT was repeated and the recorded deltas were compared to those detected by SGRT. Results Interfractional shifts after SGRT setup and CBCT were small in all directions with mean values of <5 mm and < 0.5 degrees in all directions. Additionally, 25 patients had detected intrafraction motion by SGRT during a total of 34 fractions. This resulted in 25 (73.5%) additional shifts of at least 2 mm on subsequent CBCT. When comparing the average vector detected shift by SGRT to the resulting vector shift on subsequent CBCT, no significant difference was found between the two. Conclusions Surface‐guided radiation therapy provides initial setup within 5 mm for patients treated with SBRT and can be used in place of skin marks or planar kV imaging prior to CBCT. In addition, continuous monitoring with SGRT during treatment was valuable in detecting potentially clinically meaningful intrafraction motion and was comparable in magnitude to shifts from additional CBCT scans. PTV margin reduction may be feasible for SBRT in the lung and abdomen when using SGRT for continuous patient monitoring during treatment.

The purpose of this study is to describe the comprehensive commissioning process and initial clinical performance of the Vero linear accelerator, a new radiotherapy device recently installed at UT Southwestern Medical Center specifically developed for delivery of image‐guided stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). The Vero system utilizes a ring gantry to integrate a beam delivery platform with image guidance systems. The ring is capable of rotating ± 60° about the vertical axis to facilitate noncoplanar beam arrangements ideal for SABR delivery. The beam delivery platform consists of a 6 MV C‐band linac with a 60 leaf MLC projecting a maximum field size of 15×15 cm2 at isocenter. The Vero planning and delivery systems support a range of treatment techniques, including fixed beam conformal, dynamic conformal arcs, fixed gantry IMRT in either SMLC (step‐and‐shoot) or DMLC (dynamic) delivery, and hybrid arcs, which combines dynamic conformal arcs and fixed beam IMRT delivery. The accelerator and treatment head are mounted on a gimbal mechanism that allows the linac and MLC to pivot in two dimensions for tumor tracking. Two orthogonal kV imaging subsystems built into the ring facilitate both stereoscopic and volumetric (CBCT) image guidance. The system is also equipped with an always‐active electronic portal imaging device (EPID). We present our commissioning process and initial clinical experience focusing on SABR applications with the Vero, including: (1) beam data acquisition; (2) dosimetric commissioning of the treatment planning system, including evaluation of a Monte Carlo algorithm in a specially‐designed anthropomorphic thorax phantom; (3) validation using the Radiological Physics Center thorax, head and neck (IMRT), and spine credentialing phantoms; (4) end‐to‐end evaluation of IGRT localization accuracy; (5) ongoing system performance, including isocenter stability; and (6) clinical SABR applications.PACS number: 87.53.Ly

The aim of this study is to compare the recent Eclipse Acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation engine with the Pinnacle collapsed cone convolution/superposition (CCC) dose calculation algorithm and the Eclipse anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA) for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SAbR) treatment planning of thoracic spinal (T‐spine) metastases using IMRT and VMAT delivery techniques. The three commissioned dose engines (CCC, AAA, and AXB) were validated with ion chamber and EBT2 film measurements utilizing a heterogeneous slab‐geometry water phantom and an anthropomorphic phantom. Step‐and‐shoot IMRT and VMAT treatment plans were developed and optimized for eight patients in Pinnacle, following our institutional SAbR protocol for spinal metastases. The CCC algorithm, with heterogeneity corrections, was used for dose calculations. These plans were then exported to Eclipse and recalculated using the AAA and AXB dose calculation algorithms. Various dosimetric parameters calculated with CCC and AAA were compared to that of the AXB calculations. In regions receiving above 50% of prescription dose, the calculated CCC mean dose is 3.1%–4.1% higher than that of AXB calculations for IMRT plans and 2.8%–3.5% higher for VMAT plans, while the calculated AAA mean dose is 1.5%–2.4% lower for IMRT and 1.2%–1.6% lower for VMAT. Statistically significant differences (p<0.05) were observed for most GTV and PTV indices between the CCC and AXB calculations for IMRT and VMAT, while differences between the AAA and AXB calculations were not statistically significant. For T‐spine SAbR treatment planning, the CCC calculations give a statistically significant overestimation of target dose compared to AXB. AAA underestimates target dose with no statistical significance compared to AXB. Further study is needed to determine the clinical impact of these findings.PACS number: 87.55.D‐, 87.53.Ly