No abstract

AimIn this study, a not yet commercially available fully-automated lexicographic optimization (LO) planning algorithm, called mCycle (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden), was validated for cervical cancer.Material and methodsTwenty-four mono-institutional consecutive treatment plans (50 Gy/25 fx) delivered between November 2019 and April 2022 were retrospectively selected. The automatic re-planning was performed by mCycle, implemented in the Monaco TPS research version (v5.59.13), in which the LO and Multicriterial Optimization (MCO) are coupled with Monte Carlo calculation. mCycle optimization follows an a priori assigned priority list, the so-called Wish List (WL), representing a dialogue between the radiation oncologist and the planner, setting hard constraints and following objectives. The WL was tuned on a patient subset according to the institution’s clinical protocol to obtain an optimal plan in a single optimization. This robust WL was then used to automatically re-plan the remaining patients. Manual plans (MP) and mCycle plans (mCP) were compared in terms of dose distributions, complexity (modulation complexity score, MCS), and delivery accuracy (perpendicular diode matrices, gamma analysis-passing ratio, PR). Their clinical acceptability was assessed through the blind choice of two radiation oncologists. Finally, a global quality score index (SI) was defined to gather into a single number the plan evaluation process.ResultsThe WL tuning requested four patients. The 20 automated re-planning tasks took three working days. The median optimization and calculation time can be estimated at 4 h and just over 1 h per MP and mCP, respectively. The dose comparison showed a comparable organ-at-risk spare. The planning target volume coverage increased (V95%: MP 98.0% [95.6–99.3]; mCP 99.2%[89.7–99.9], p >0.05). A significant increase has been registered in MCS (MP 0.29 [0.24–0.34]; mCP 0.26 [0.23–0.30], p <0.05) without affecting delivery accuracy (PR (3%/3mm): MP 97.0% [92.7–99.2]; mCP 97.1% [95.0–98.6], p >0.05). In the blind choice, all mCP results were clinically acceptable and chosen over MP in more than 75% of cases. The median SI score was 0.69 [0.41–0.84] and 0.73 [0.51–0.82] for MP and mCP, respectively (p >0.05).ConclusionsmCycle plans were comparable to clinical manual plans, more complex but accurately deliverable and registering a similar SI. Automated plans outperformed manual plans in blinded clinical choice.

BackgroundExtreme hypofractionation requires tight planning margins, high dose gradients, and strict adherence to planning criteria in terms of patient positioning and organ motion mitigation. This study reports the first clinical experience worldwide using a novel electromagnetic (EM) tracking device for intrafraction prostate motion management during dose-escalated linac-based stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).MethodsThirteen patients with organ-confined prostate cancer underwent dose-escalated SBRT using flattening filter-free (FFF) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The EM tracking device consisted of an integrated Foley catheter with a transmitter. Patients were simulated and treated with a filled bladder and an empty rectum. Setup accuracy was achieved by ConeBeam-CT (CBCT) matching, and motion was tracked during all the procedure. Treatment was interrupted when the signals exceeded a 2 mm threshold in any of the three spatial directions and, unless the offset was transient, target position was re-defined by repeating CBCT. Moreover, the displacements that would have occurred without any intrafraction organ motion management (i.e. no interruptions and repositionings) were simulated.ResultsIn 31 out of 56 monitored fractions (55%), no intervention was required to correct the target position. In 25 (45%) a correction was mandated, but only in 10 (18%), the beam delivery was interrupted. Total treatment time lasted on average 10.2 minutes, 6.7 minutes for setup, and 3.5 minutes for beam delivery. Without any intrafraction motion management, the overall mean treatment time and the mean delivery time would have been 6.9 minutes and 3.2 minutes, respectively. The prostate would have been found outside the tolerance in 8% of the total session time, in 4% of the time during the setup, and in 14% during the beam-on phase. Predominant motion pattern was posterior and its probability increased with time, with a mean motion ≤ 2 mm occurring within 10 minutes.ConclusionsEM real-time tracking was successfully implemented for intrafraction motion management during dose-escalated prostate SBRT. Results showed that most of the observed displacements were < 2 mm in any direction; however, there were a non-insignificant number of fractions with motion exceeding the predefined threshold, which would have otherwise gone undetected without intrafraction motion management.

The dosimetric impact of intrafraction prostate motion and interfraction anatomical changes and the effect of beam gating and motion correction were investigated in dose-escalated linac-based SBRT. Fifty-six gated fractions were delivered using a novel electromagnetic tracking device with a 2 mm threshold. Real-time prostate motion data were incorporated into the patient’s original plan with an isocenter shift method. Delivered dose distributions were obtained by recalculating these motion-encoded plans on deformed CTs reflecting the patient’s CBCT daily anatomy. Non-gated treatments were simulated using the prostate motion data assuming that no treatment interruptions have occurred. The mean relative dose differences between delivered and planned treatments were −3.0% [−18.5–2.8] for CTV D99% and −2.6% [−17.8–1.0] for PTV D95%. The median cumulative CTV coverage with 93% of the prescribed dose was satisfactory. Urethra sparing was slightly degraded, with the maximum dose increased by only 1.0% on average, and a mean reduction in the rectum and bladder doses was seen in almost all dose metrics. Intrafraction prostate motion marginally contributed in gated treatments, while in non-gated treatments, further deteriorations in the minimum target coverage and bladder dose metrics would have occurred on average. The implemented motion management strategy and the strict patient preparation regimen, along with other treatment optimization strategies, ensured no significant degradations of dose metrics in delivered treatments.

Purpose Our study investigated the association between treatment-related lymphopenia and overall survival (OS) in a series of glioblastoma (GBM) patients. We also explored clinical and dosimetric predictors of lymphocytes depletion. Methods Between 2015 and 2019, 64 patients were treated at the same institution with postoperative chemoradiotherapy. Peripheral lymphocyte count (PLC) data and dose–volume histogram parameters were collected. Radiotherapy (RT) schedule consisted in standard total dose of 60 Gy in 30 daily fractions, with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ). Posttreatment acute absolute lymphopenia (nadir AAL) was calculated as a PLC lower than 1.0 × 103/mm3. Acute relative lymphopenia (ARL) was expressed by the nadir-PLC/baseline-PLC ratio < 0.5. Nadir-PLC was the lowest PLC registered between the end of RT and the first month of follow-up. Survival rates were estimated with Kaplan–Meier curves. Clinical and dosimetric variables related to AAL/ARL and OS were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses. Results A total of 57 patients were eligible and included in the analyses. The median PLC was significantly decreased following chemoradiotherapy (2180/mm3 vs 900/mm3). Median OS was 16 months (range 5–55 months), with no significant difference between patients who developed nadir AAL and those who did not (16 months vs 16.5 months; p = 0.304). When considering ARL vs non-ARL, median OS was 14 months vs 26 months (p = 0.013), respectively. In multivariate Cox regression only age, sex, extent of surgery, access to adjuvant chemotherapy and brain D98% were independently associated with OS. Conclusion Although iatrogenic immunosuppression could be associated with inferior clinical outcomes, our data show that treatment-related lymphopenia does not adversely affect GBM survival. Prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.

CyberKnife® Lung Optimized Treatment (LOT) allows the treatment of lung cancer without invasive fiducial implantation. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate the feasibility, toxicity and clinical outcome. One hundred fifteen patients (124 lesions) were treated with CyberKnife® using LOT. The median age was 72.6 years (range 31.8-90.3). From 124 treated lesions, 52 were with histopathological confirmation (41 primitive pulmonary cancers, 8 pulmonary metastases) and 72 as untyped tumors. For 5 patients (6 lesions) treatment was an in-field re-irradiation. Concomitant therapy was administered in 7 patients. Zero-View tracking was applied in 69 patients, 1-View in 33 patients, 2-View in 22 patients. The median total dose was 45 Gy (range 18-54), median dose/fraction was 15 Gy (range 4-18) with a median prescription isodose of 80% (range 68-85). The median planning target volume (PTV) was 25 cm 3 (range 3-195). The median followup was 20 months (range 7-47). Thirty-seven patients (32%) were alive with no evidence of disease, 39 patients (34%) were alive with clinically evident disease, and 38 patients (33%) died of the disease. The 1-and 2-year overall survival (OS) rate was 83% and 61%. The median time to progression was 19 months (95% confidence interval: 11-19 months), 1-and 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 62% and 41%, respectively. Smaller PTV was significantly associated with better OS, PFS and in-field PFS in univariate and multivariate analyses. Acute toxicity was observed in 36 patients (41%). Late toxicity was registered in 25 patients (29%). G3 late toxicity was observed in one patient (1.1%). Our data suggest that fiducial less-stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a feasible, well-tolerated and potentially effective treatment with high compliance in the setting of inoperable patients due to concomitant disease or previous treatments.

No abstract

No abstract