Bill J. Salter

Stereotactic body radiation therapy: The report of AAPM Task Group 101

Task Group 101 of the AAPM has prepared this report for medical physicists, clinicians, and therapists in order to outline the best practice guidelines for the external-beam radiation therapy technique referred to as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The task group report includes a review of the literature to identify reported clinical findings and expected outcomes for this treatment modality. Information is provided for establishing a SBRT program, including protocols, equipment, resources, and QA procedures. Additionally, suggestions for developing consistent documentation for prescribing, reporting, and recording SBRT treatment delivery is provided.

IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons,a report from AAPM Task Group 119

AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept confidence limit = /mean/ + 1.96sigma. Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.

Repositioning Accuracy of a Commercially Available Double-vacuum Whole Body Immobilization System for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

We evaluated the repositioning accuracy of a commercially available stereotactic whole body immobilization system (BodyFIX, Medical Intelligence, Schwabmuenchen, Germany) in 36 patients treated by hypofractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy. CT data were acquired for positional control of patient and tumor before each fraction of the treatment course. Those control CT datasets were compared with the original treatment planning CT simulation and analyzed with respect to positional misalignment of bony patient anatomy, and the respective position of the treated small lung or liver lesions. We assessed the stereotactic coordinates of distinct bony anatomical landmarks in the original CT and each control dataset. In addition, the target isocenter was recorded in the planning CT simulation dataset. An iterative optimization algorithm was implemented, utilizing a root mean square scoring function to determine the best-fit orientation of subsequent sets of anatomical landmark measurements relative to the original treatment planning CT data set. This allowed for the calculation of the x, y and z-components of translation of the patients body and the targets center-of-mass for each control CT study, as well as rotation about the principal room axes in the respective CT data sets. In addition to absolute patient/target translation, the total magnitude vector of patient and target misalignment was calculated. A clinical assessment determined whether or not the assigned planning target volume safety margins would have provided the desired target coverage. To this end, each control CT study was co-registered with the original treatment planning study using immobilization system related fiducial markers, and the computed isodose calculation was superimposed. In 109 control setup CT scans available for comparison with their respective treatment planning CT simulation study (2–5 per patient, median 3), anatomical landmark analysis revealed a mean bony landmark translation of −0.4 ± 3.9 (mean ± SD), −0.1 ± 1.6 and 0.3 ± 3.6 mm in x, y and z-directions, respectively. Bony landmark setup deviations along one or more principal axis larger than 5 mm were observed in 32 control CT studies (29.4%). Body rotations about the x-, y-and z-axis were 0.9 ± 0.7, 0.8 ± 0.7 and 1.8 ± 1.6 degrees, respectively. Assuming a rigid body relationship of target and bony anatomy, the mean computed absolute target translation was 2.9 ± 3.3, 2.3 ± 2.5 and 3.2 ± 2.7 mm in x, y and z-directions, respectively. The median and mean magnitude vector of target isocenter displacement was computed to be 4.9 mm, and 5.7 ± 3.7 mm. Clinical assessment of PTV/target volume coverage revealed 72 (66.1%), 23 (21.1%), and 14 (12.8%), of excellent (100% isodose coverage), good (>90% isodose coverage), and poor GTV/isodose alignment quality (less than 90% isodose coverage to some aspect of the GTV), respectively. Loss of target volume dose coverage was correlated with translations >5 mm along one or more axes (p<0.0001), rotations >3° about the z-axis (p=0.0007) and body mass index >30 (p<0.0001). The analyzed BodyFIX whole body immobilization system performed favorably compared with other stereotactic body immobilization systems for which peer-reviewed repositioning data exist. While the measured variability in patient and target setup provided clinically acceptable setup accuracy in the vast majority of cases, larger setup deviations were occasional observed. Such deviations constitute a potential for partial target underdosing warranting, in our opinion, a pre-delivery positional assessment procedure (e.g., pre-treatment control CT scan).

The talon removable head frame system for stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy: measurement of the repositioning accuracy

PURPOSE To present the TALON removable head frame system as an immobilization device for single-fraction intensity-modulated stereotactic radiosurgery (IMRS) and fractionated stereotactic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (FS-IMRT); and to evaluate the repositioning accuracy by measurement of anatomic landmark coordinates in repeated computed tomography (CT) examinations. METHODS AND MATERIALS Nine patients treated by fractionated stereotactic intensity-modulated radiotherapy underwent repeated CTs during their treatment courses. We evaluated anatomic landmark coordinates in a total of 26 repeat CT data sets and respective x, y, and z shifts relative to their positions in the nine treatment-planning reference CTs. An iterative optimization algorithm was employed using a root mean square scoring function to determine the best-fit orientation of subsequent sets of anatomic landmark measurements relative to the original image set. This allowed for the calculation of the x, y, and z components of translation of the target isocenter for each repeat CT. In addition to absolute target isocenter translation, the magnitude (sum vector) of isocenter motion and the patient/target rotation about the three principal axes were calculated. RESULTS Anatomic landmark analysis over a treatment course of 6 weeks revealed a mean target isocenter translation of 0.95 +/- 0.55, 0.58 +/- 0.46, and 0.51 +/- 0.38 mm in x, y, and z directions, respectively. The mean magnitude of isocenter translation was 1.38 +/- 0.48 mm. The 95% confidence interval ([CI], mean translation plus two standard deviations) for repeated isocenter setup accuracy over the 6-week period was 2.34 mm. Average rotations about the x, y, and z axes were 0.41 +/- 0.36, 0.29 +/- 0.25, and 0.18 +/- 0.15 degrees, respectively. Analysis of the accuracy of the first repeated setup control, representative of single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery situations, resulted in a mean target isocenter translation in the x, y, and z directions of 0.52 +/- 0.38, 0.56 +/- 0.30, and 0.46 +/- 0.25 mm, respectively. The mean magnitude of isocenter translation was 0.99 +/- 0.28 mm. The 95% confidence interval for these radiosurgery situations was 1.55 mm. Average rotations at first repeated setup control about the x, y, and z axes were 0.24 +/- 0.19, 0.19 +/- 0.17, and 0.19 +/- 0.12 degrees, respectively. CONCLUSION The TALON relocatable head frame was seen to be well suited for immobilization and repositioning of single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery treatments. Because of its unique removable design, the system was also seen to provide excellent repeat immobilization and alignment for fractionated stereotactic applications. The exceptional accuracy for the single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgical application of the system was seen to deteriorate only slightly over a 6-week fractionated stereotactic treatment course.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for centrally located lung lesions

Presentation of outcomes of patients treated by stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for lung lesions located within or touching a 2 cm zone around major airways. Serial tomotherapeutic SBRT has been planned and delivered at our institution since August 2001. Of 108 patients treated for primary and secondary lung tumors, nine harbored tumors (8 metastases, 1 recurrent NSCLC) located in close proximity to carina, right and left main bronchi, right and left upper lobe bronchi, intermedius, right middle lobe, lingular, or right and left lower lobe bronchi. SBRT was delivered to total doses of 36 Gy in 3 fractions (n = 8) or 6 fractions (n = 1), using a serial tomotherapy system (Nomos Peacock). We assessed local tumor control, clinical toxicity, normal tissue imaging changes, and overall survival. Median tumor volume was 26 cm3 (range 1.7 to 135 cm3). Tumor locations were hilar (n = 3), and parenchymal in six cases. Hilar lesions accounted for the three largest tumor volumes in the series. During a median follow-up of 10.6 months (range 2.5 to 41.5 months), all lesions treated were locally controlled as confirmed by CT or CT/PET imaging. Parenchymal imaging changes included focal lung fibrosis and major airway wall thickening. One occurrence of major airway occlusion (right lower lobe bronchus) was observed. This event was diagnosed by chest x-ray at 36 months, following treatment of the second largest hilar lesion in the present series. Based on the outcomes observed in this small sample series, SBRT for centrally located lung lesions appears feasible, was associated with low incidence of toxicities, and provided sustained local tumor control. However, long-term survival may be associated with major airway injury. As long-term follow-up in larger numbers of patients is lacking at this time, exclusion of patients with centrally located lesions may be considered when patients are treated in curative intent.

Standard fractionation intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of primary and recurrent glioblastoma multiforme

BackgroundIntensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) affords unparalleled capacity to deliver conformal radiation doses to tumors in the central nervous system. However, to date, there are few reported outcomes from using IMRT, either alone or as a boost technique, for standard fractionation radiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM).MethodsForty-two patients were treated with IMRT alone (72%) or as a boost (28%) after 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). Thirty-three patients with primary disease and 9 patients with recurrent tumors were included. Thirty-four patients (81%) had surgery, with gross tumor resection in 13 patients (36%); 22 patients (53%) received chemo-radiotherapy. The median total radiation dose for all patients was 60 Gy with a range from 30.6 to 74 Gy. Standard fractions of 1.8 Gy/day to 2.0 Gy/day were utilized.ResultsMedian survival was 8.7 months, with 37 patients (88%) deceased at last contact. Nonparametric analysis showed no survival difference in IMRT-boost vs. IMRT-only groups.ConclusionWhile technically feasible, preliminary results suggest delivering standard radiation doses by IMRT did not improve survival outcomes in this series compared to historical controls. In light of this lack of a survival benefit and the costs associated with use of IMRT, future prospective trials are needed to evaluate non-survival endpoints such as quality of life and functional preservation. Short of such evidence, the use of IMRT for treatment of GBM needs to be carefully rationalized.

A Tutorial on Radiation Oncology and Optimization

Designing radiotherapy treatments is a complicated and important task that affects patient care, and modern delivery systems enable a physician more flexibility than can be considered. Consequently, treatment design is increasingly automated by techniques of optimization, and many of the advances in the design process are accomplished by a collaboration among medical physicists, radiation oncologists, and experts in optimization. This tutorial is meant to aid those with a background in optimization in learning about treatment design. Besides discussing several optimization models, we include a clinical perspective so that readers understand the clinical issues that are often ignored in the optimization literature. Moreover, we discuss many new challenges so that new researchers can quickly begin to work on meaningful problems.

Quality assurance of U.S.-guided external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Report of AAPM Task Group 154

Task Group 154 (TG154) of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) was created to produce a guidance document for clinical medical physicists describing recommended quality assurance (QA) procedures for ultrasound (U.S.)-guided external beam radiotherapy localization. This report describes the relevant literature, state of the art, and briefly summarizes U.S. imaging physics. Simulation, treatment planning and treatment delivery considerations are presented in order to improve consistency and accuracy. User training is emphasized in the report and recommendations regarding peer review are included. A set of thorough, yet practical, QA procedures, frequencies, and tolerances are recommended. These encompass recommendations to ensure both spatial accuracy and image quality.

Daily Stereotactic Ultrasound Prostate Targeting: Inter-user Variability

We analyzed the inter-user variability of patient setup for prostate radiotherapy using a stereotactic ultrasound-targeting device. Setup variations in 20 prostate cancer patients were analyzed. Users were a radiation oncologist, a medical physicist, four radiation technologists (RTT) and a radiologist. The radiation oncologist, radiologist, physicist and two RTTs were experienced users of the system (>18 months of experience); two RTTs were users new to the system. Gold standard for this analysis was a control CT acquired immediately following ultrasound targeting. For inter-user variability assessments, the radiation oncologist provided a set of axial and sagittal freeze-frames (standard freeze-frames) for virtual targeting by all users. Additionally each user acquired individual freeze-frames for target alignments. We analyzed the range of virtual setups in each patient along the principal room axes based on standard and individual freeze-frames. The magnitude of residual setup error and percentage of setup change for each user was assessed by control CT/planning CT comparison with individual virtual shifts. A total of 184 alignments were analyzed. The range of virtual shifts between users was 2.7±1.4, 3.6±1.1, and 4.4±1.4 mm (mean±SD) in x, y and z-direction for setups based on standard freeze-frames and 3.9±2.6, 6.0±4.7, and 5.4±2.7 mm for setups based on individual freeze-frames. When only virtual shifts of experienced users were analyzed, the mean ranges were reduced by up to 2.4 mm. Average magnitude of initial setup error before ultrasound targeting was 14.3 mm. Average improvement of prostate setup was 63.1±23.4% in experienced and 35.14±37.7% in inexperienced users, respectively (p<0.0001). Only 5 of 184 (2.7%) virtual alignments would have introduced new larger setup errors (mean 3.2 mm, range 0.2 to 9.5 mm) than the magnitude of the initial setup error. We conclude that ultrasound guided treatment setup for patients treated for prostate cancer can be performed with high inter-user consistency and does lead to improved treatment setup in more than 97% of attempted setups. Experienced use is correlated with a reduced range of setups between users and higher degree of setup improvement when compared with users new to the system.

Monte Carlo characterization of target doses in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)

To compare finite-size pencil beam/equivalent path-length (FSPB/EPL) and Monte Carlo (MC) SBRT dose computations for serial tomotherapy and to quantitatively assess dose differences between the dose calculation methods. Based on 72 SBRT plans for pulmonary targets, FSPB/EPL, considering the inhomogeneous lung environment, and MC calculations were performed to establish differences between FSPB/EPL predicted dose and MC derived doses. Compared with MC, FSPB/EPL consistently overestimated minimum doses to the clinical target volume and planning target volumes by an average of 18.1±7.15% (range 4 to 33.4%), and 21.9±10.4% (range 1.2 to 45.5%), respectively. The respective mean target dose differences were 15.5±7.4% (2.8–36.4%) and 19.2±7.6% (3.6–40.1%). Deviations from MC doses were lesion size and location dependent, with smaller lesions completely embedded into lung parenchyma being most susceptible. Larger lesion in contact with mediastinum and chest wall showed lesser differences. In comparison with MC dose calculation, FSPB/EPL overestimates doses delivered to pulmonary SBRT targets. The observed dose differences may have impact on local tumor control rates, and may deserve consideration when using fast, but less accurate dose calculation methods.