E Mannarino

The treatment of recurrent brain metastases with stereotactic radiosurgery.

Between May 1986 and August 1989, we treated 18 patients with 21 recurrent or persistent brain metastases with stereotactic radiosurgery using a modified linear accelerator. To be eligible for radiosurgery, patients had to have a performance status of greater than or equal to 70% and have no evidence of (or stable) systemic disease. All but one patient had received prior radiotherapy, and were treated with stereotactic radiosurgery at the time of recurrence. Polar lesions were treated only if the patient had undergone and failed previous complete surgical resection (10 patients). Single doses of radiation (900 to 2,500 cGy) were delivered to limited volumes (less than 27 cm3) using a modified 6MV linear accelerator. The most common histology of the metastatic lesion was carcinoma of the lung (seven patients), followed by carcinoma of the breast (four patients), and melanoma (four patients). With median follow-up of 9 months (range, 1 to 39), all tumors have been controlled in the radiosurgery field. Two patients failed in the immediate margin of the treated volume and were subsequently treated with surgery and implantation of 125I to control the disease. Radiographic response was dramatic and rapid in the patients with adenocarcinoma, while slight reduction and stabilization occurred in those patients with melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and sarcoma. The majority of patients improved neurologically following treatment, and were able to be withdrawn from corticosteroid therapy. Complications were limited and transient in nature and no cases of symptomatic radiation necrosis occurred in any patient despite previous exposure to radiotherapy. Stereotactic radiosurgery is an effective and relatively safe treatment for recurrent solitary metastases and is an appealing technique for the initial management of deep-seated lesions as a boost to whole brain radiotherapy.

Treatment planning for stereotactic radiosurgery of intra-cranial lesions

Stereotactic radiosurgery of intra-cranial lesions is a treatment modality where a well defined target volume receives a high radiation dose in a single treatment. Our technique delivers this dose using a set of non-coplanar arcs and small circular collimators. We use a standard linear accelerator in our treatments, and the adjustable treatment parameters are: isocenter location, gantry arc rotation interval, couch angle, collimator field size, and dose. The treatment planning phase of the treatment determines these parameters such that the target volume is sufficiently irradiated, and dose to surrounding healthy tissue and critical, dose-limiting structures is minimized. The attachment of a BRW localizing frame to the patients cranium combined with CT imaging (and optionally MRI or angiography) provides the required accuracy for localizing individual structures in the treatment volume. The treatment is fundamentally 3-dimensional and requires a volumetric assessment of the treatment plan. The selection of treatment arcs relies primarily on geometric constraints and the beams eye view concept to avoid irradiating critical structures. The assessment of a treatment plan involves isodose distributions throughout the volume and integral dose-volume histograms. We present the essential concepts of our treatment planning approach, and illustrate these in three clinical cases.

Quality assurance in stereotactic radiosurgery using a standard linear accelerator

Methods have recently been developed for using standard linear accelerators to perform stereotactic radiosurgery. The accuracy necessary to perform this procedure requires an intensive quality assurance program to encompass all aspects of dose calibration and mechanical integrity of the treatment unit, the treatment planning process, and treatment delivery. The programs developed at the Joint Center for Radiation Therapy (JCRT) include testing of the linear accelerator and the stereotactic system, cross checking of the treatment planning process, and a quality assurance check list of the treatment delivery procedure. This report outlines in detail the quality assurance program currently in use at the JCRT.

Low Incidence of Chest Wall Pain with a Risk-Adapted Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Approach Using Three or Five Fractions Based on Chest Wall Dosimetry

Purpose To examine the frequency and potential of dose-volume predictors for chest wall (CW) toxicity (pain and/or rib fracture) for patients receiving lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) using treatment planning methods to minimize CW dose and a risk-adapted fractionation scheme. Methods We reviewed data from 72 treatment plans, from 69 lung SBRT patients with at least one year of follow-up or CW toxicity, who were treated at our center between 2010 and 2013. Treatment plans were optimized to reduce CW dose and patients received a risk-adapted fractionation of 18 Gy×3 fractions (54 Gy total) if the CW V30 was less than 30 mL or 10–12 Gy×5 fractions (50–60 Gy total) otherwise. The association between CW toxicity and patient characteristics, treatment parameters and dose metrics, including biologically equivalent dose, were analyzed using logistic regression. Results With a median follow-up of 20 months, 6 (8.3%) patients developed CW pain including three (4.2%) grade 1, two (2.8%) grade 2 and one (1.4%) grade 3. Five (6.9%) patients developed rib fractures, one of which was symptomatic. No significant associations between CW toxicity and patient and dosimetric variables were identified on univariate nor multivariate analysis. Conclusions Optimization of treatment plans to reduce CW dose and a risk-adapted fractionation strategy of three or five fractions based on the CW V30 resulted in a low incidence of CW toxicity. Under these conditions, none of the patient characteristics or dose metrics we examined appeared to be predictive of CW pain.

Total dural irradiation: RapidArc versus static-field IMRT: A case study

The purpose of this study was to compare conventional fixed-gantry angle intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with RapidArc for total dural irradiation. We also hypothesize that target volume-individualized collimator angles may produce substantial normal tissue sparing when planning with RapidArc. Five-, 7-, and 9-field fixed-gantry angle sliding-window IMRT plans were generated for comparison with RapidArc plans. Optimization and normal tissue constraints were constant for all plans. All plans were normalized so that 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) received at least 100% of the dose. RapidArc was delivered using 350° clockwise and counterclockwise arcs. Conventional collimator angles of 45° and 315° were compared with 90° on both arcs. Dose prescription was 59.4 Gy in 33 fractions. PTV metrics used for comparison were coverage, V(107)%, D1%, conformality index (CI(95)%), and heterogeneity index (D(5)%-D(95)%). Brain dose, the main challenge of this case, was compared using D(1)%, Dmean, and V(5) Gy. Dose to optic chiasm, optic nerves, globes, and lenses was also compared. The use of unconventional collimator angles (90° on both arcs) substantially reduced dose to normal brain. All plans achieved acceptable target coverage. Homogeneity was similar for RapidArc and 9-field IMRT plans. However, heterogeneity increased with decreasing number of IMRT fields, resulting in unacceptable hotspots within the brain. Conformality was marginally better with RapidArc relative to IMRT. Low dose to brain, as indicated by V5Gy, was comparable in all plans. Doses to organs at risk (OARs) showed no clinically meaningful differences. The number of monitor units was lower and delivery time was reduced with RapidArc. The case-individualized RapidArc plan compared favorably with the 9-field conventional IMRT plan. In view of lower monitor unit requirements and shorter delivery time, RapidArc was selected as the optimal solution. Individualized collimator angle solutions should be considered by RapidArc dosimetrists for OARs dose reduction. RapidArc should be considered as a treatment modality for tumors that extensively involve in the skull, dura, or scalp.

Technical modifications required to treat cervical chemodactomas with stereotactic radiosurgery

This report describes the radiosurgical treatment of a high neck lesion in a patient with familial multifocal bilateral chemodactoma. The necessary modifications to standard radiosurgery are described. The advantages of this treatment modality for patients with familial chemodactoma are discussed.

Evaluation of initial setup accuracy and intrafraction motion for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy using stereotactic body frames

PURPOSE The purposes of this study were (1) to evaluate the initial setup accuracy and intrafraction motion for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using stereotactic body frames (SBFs) and (2) to validate an in-house-developed SBF using a commercial SBF as a benchmark. METHODS AND MATERIALS Thirty-two spine SBRT patients (34 sites, 118 fractions) were immobilized with the Elekta and in-house (BHS) SBFs. All patients were set up with the Brainlab ExacTrac system, which includes infrared and stereoscopic kilovoltage x-ray-based positioning. Patients were initially positioned in the frame with the use of skin tattoos and then shifted to the treatment isocenter based on infrared markers affixed to the frame with known geometry relative to the isocenter. ExacTrac kV imaging was acquired, and automatic 6D (6 degrees of freedom) bony fusion was performed. The resulting translations and rotations gave the initial setup accuracy. These translations and rotations were corrected for by use of a robotic couch, and verification imaging was acquired that yielded residual setup error. The imaging/fusion process was repeated multiple times during treatment to provide intrafraction motion data. RESULTS The BHS SBF had greater initial setup errors (mean±SD): -3.9±5.5mm (0.2±0.9°), -1.6±6.0mm (0.5±1.4°), and 0.0±5.3mm (0.8±1.0°), respectively, in the vertical (VRT), longitudinal (LNG), and lateral (LAT) directions. The corresponding values were 0.6±2.7mm (0.2±0.6°), 0.9±5.3mm (-0.2±0.9°), and -0.9±3.0mm (0.3±0.9°) for the Elekta SBF. The residual setup errors were essentially the same for both frames and were -0.1±0.4mm (0.1±0.5°), -0.2±0.4mm (0.0±0.4°), and 0.0±0.4mm (0.0±0.4°), respectively, in VRT, LNG, and LAT. The intrafraction shifts in VRT, LNG, and LAT were 0.0±0.4mm (0.0±0.3°), 0.0±0.5mm (0.0±0.4°), and 0.0±0.4mm (0.0±0.3°), with no significant difference observed between the 2 frames. CONCLUSIONS These results showed that the combination of the ExacTrac system with either SBF was highly effective in achieving both setup accuracy and intrafraction stability, which were on par with that of mask-based cranial radiosurgery.

Acute gastrointestinal toxicity and bowel bag dose-volume parameters for preoperative radiation therapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma

PURPOSE Acute gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity has been studied in GI and gynecological (GYN) cancers, with volume receiving 15 Gy (V15) <830 mL, V25 <650 mL, and V45 <195 mL identified as dose constraints for the peritoneal space (bowel bag [BB]). There are no reported constraints derived from retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS), and prospective trials for RPS have adopted some of the GI and GYN constraints. This study quantified GI toxicity during preoperative radiation therapy (RT) for RPS, assessed toxicity using published constraints, and evaluated predictors for toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS From 2003 to 2013, 56 patients with RPS underwent preoperative RT at 2 institutions. Toxicity was scored using Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria for upper and lower acute GI toxicity. BB was contoured on planning computed tomography scans per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group atlas guidelines with review by a radiologist. Relationships among toxicity, clinical factors, and BB dose were analyzed. RESULTS Three patients (5%) developed grade ≥3 acute GI toxicity: 2 grade 3 toxicities (anorexia and nausea) and 1 grade 5 toxicity (tumor-bowel fistula). Thirty-six patients (64%) had grade 2 toxicity (nausea, 55%; diarrhea, 23%; pain, 20%). Tumor size was the only significant clinical predictor of grade ≥2 acute GI toxicity. Larger mean BB volumes predicted for grade ≥2 toxicity (P = .001). On receiver operating characteristics analysis, V30 was the best discriminator for toxicity (P = .0001). Median BB V15 was 1375 mL; 75% of patients had V15 ≥830 mL. Median V25 was 1083 mL; 68% had V25 ≥650 mL. Median V45 was 575 mL; 82% had V45 ≥195 mL. V25 ≥650 mL was significantly associated with grade ≥2 toxicity (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS Among patients treated with preoperative RT for RPS, significant acute GI toxicity was very low despite BB dose exceeding established constraints for most cases. Acceptable dose constraints for RPS may be higher than those for GI or GYN cancers. Further assessment of dose-volume constraints for RPS is needed.

TU‐E‐BRB‐02: A Decision Support Tool for SBRT Planning Using a Searchable DVH Database

PURPOSE Develop a decision support tool that aids dosimetrists, physicians, and physicists in assessing and improving plan quality through comparison to plans previously used in similar clinical situations. METHODS Software was developed to capture and store DVHs and other clinically relevant treatment plan characteristics in a database. In addition to the plan DVH, the database contains a total of 24 plan characteristics including fractionation, prescribed dose, treatment volume, prior surgery, tumor position, and smoking history. DVH and other plan data was captured from the treatment planning system via exported dicom RT files. Structures in the plan were automatically matched by name to a list of standard structures using a system of regular expressions. Additional fields were entered manually using a simple java interface. As a support tool, a plan under development can be quickly compared to similar plans in the database based on selected plan characteristics. A plot displaying the current and historical DVHs provides an easy visual comparison. Our interface also provides statistics for comparison for each dose/volume level such as average, minimum, maximum and standard deviation. RESULTS DVHs from 111 lung SBRT plans treated from 2009-2011 were imported in accordance with an approved IRB protocol. As an example of data comparisons that can be easily performed to guide plan evaluation, we examined plans prescribing 5400cGy in 3 fractions and found that tumors >7.5cc (n=34) had an average PTV coverage of 94.2% (range: 73.5-95.0%), and tumors =7.5cc (n=35) had an average PTV coverage of 94.9% (range: 81.6-99.6%). CONCLUSION A searchable DVH database was constructed to provide planners, physicists, and physicians with a straightforward means of comparing plans against historic distributions of DVHs. In the future, outcome data will be included in the database to strengthen its functionality as a decision support and research tool.

SU-E-J-34: Setup Accuracy in Spine SBRT Using CBCT 6D Image Guidance in Comparison with 6D ExacTrac

Purpose Volumetric information of the spine captured on CBCT can potentially improve the accuracy in spine SBRT setup that has been commonly performed through 2D radiographs. This work evaluates the setup accuracy in spine SBRT using 6D CBCT image guidance that recently became available on Varian systems. Methods ExacTrac radiographs have been commonly used for Spine SBRT setup. The setup process involves first positioning patients with lasers followed by localization imaging, registration, and repositioning. Verification images are then taken providing the residual errors (ExacTracRE) before beam on. CBCT verification is also acquired in our institute. The availability of both ExacTrac and CBCT verifications allows a comparison study. 41 verification CBCT of 16 patients were retrospectively registered with the planning CT enabling 6D corrections, giving CBCT residual errors (CBCTRE) which were compared with ExacTracRE. Results The RMS discrepancies between CBCTRE and ExacTracRE are 1.70mm, 1.66mm, 1.56mm in vertical, longitudinal and lateral directions and 0.27°, 0.49°, 0.35° in yaw, roll and pitch respectively. The corresponding mean discrepancies (and standard deviation) are 0.62mm (1.60mm), 0.00mm (1.68mm), −0.80mm (1.36mm) and 0.05° (0.58°), 0.11° (0.48°), −0.16° (0.32°). Of the 41 CBCT, 17 had high-Z surgical implants. No significant difference in ExacTrac-to-CBCT discrepancy was observed between patients with and without the implants. Conclusion Multiple factors can contribute to the discrepancies between CBCT and ExacTrac: 1) the imaging iso-centers of the two systems, while calibrated to coincide, can be different; 2) the ROI used for registration can be different especially if ribs were included in ExacTrac images; 3) small patient motion can occur between the two verification image acquisitions; 4) the algorithms can be different between CBCT (volumetric) and ExacTrac (radiographic) registrations.