Whole breast radiotherapy in prone and supine position: is there a place for multi-beam IMRT?

Background

Early stage breast cancer patients are long-term survivors and finding techniques that may lower acute and late radiotherapy-induced toxicity is crucial. We compared dosimetry of wedged tangential fields (W-TF), tangential field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (TF-IMRT) and multi-beam IMRT (MB-IMRT) in prone and supine positions for whole-breast irradiation (WBI).

Methods

MB-IMRT, TF-IMRT and W-TF treatment plans in prone and supine positions were generated for 18 unselected breast cancer patients. The median prescription dose to the optimized planning target volume (PTV_optim) was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Dose-volume parameters and indices of conformity were calculated for the PTV_optim and organs-at-risk.

Results

Prone MB-IMRT achieved (p<0.01) the best dose homogeneity compared to WTF in the prone position and WTF and MB-IMRT in the supine position. Prone IMRT scored better for all dose indices. MB-IMRT lowered lung and heart dose (p<0.05) in supine position, however the lowest ipsilateral lung doses (p<0.001) were in prone position. In left-sided breast cancer patients population averages for heart sparing by radiation dose was better in prone position; though non-significant. For patients with a PTV_optim volume ≥600 cc heart dose was consistently lower in prone position; while for patients with smaller breasts heart dose metrics were comparable or worse compared to supine MB-IMRT. Doses to the contralateral breast were similar regardless of position or technique. Dosimetry of prone MB-IMRT and prone TF-IMRT differed slightly.

Conclusions

MB-IMRT is the treatment of choice in supine position. Prone IMRT is superior to any supine treatment for right-sided breast cancer patients and left-sided breast cancer patients with larger breasts by obtaining better conformity indices, target dose distribution and sparing of the organs-at-risk. The influence of treatment techniques in prone position is less pronounced; moreover dosimetric differences between TF-IMRT and MB-IMRT are rather small.

Three-phase adaptive dose-painting-by-numbers for head-and-neck cancer: initial results of the phase I clinical trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate feasibility of using deformable image co-registration in three-phase adaptive dose-painting-by-numbers (DPBN) for head-and-neck cancer and to report dosimetrical data and preliminary clinical results.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between November 2010 and October 2011, 10 patients with non-metastatic head-and-neck cancer enrolled in this phase I clinical trial where treatment was adapted every ten fractions. Each patient was treated with three DPBN plans based on: a pretreatment 18[F]-FDG-PET scan (phase I: fractions 1-10), a per-treatment 18[F]-FDG-PET/CT scan acquired after 8 fractions (phase II: fractions 11-20) and a per-treatment 18[F]-FDG-PET/CT scan acquired after 18 fractions (phase III: fractions 21-30). A median prescription dose to the dose-painted target was 70.2 Gy (fractions 1-30) and to elective neck was 40 Gy (fractions 1-20). Deformable image co-registration was used for automatic region-of-interest propagation and dose summation of the three treatment plans.

RESULTS

All patients (all men, median age 68, range 48-74 years) completed treatment without any break or acute G≥4 toxicity. Target volume reductions (mean (range)) between pre-treatment CT and CT on the last day of treatment were 72.3% (57.9-98.4) and 46.3% (11.0-73.1) for GTV and PTV(high_dose), respectively. Acute G3 toxicity was limited to dysphagia in 3/10 patients and mucositis in 2/10 patients; none of the patients lost ≥20% weight. At median follow-up of 13, range 7-22 months, 9 patients did not have evidence of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-phase adaptive 18[F]-FDG-PET-guided dose painting by numbers using currently available tools is feasible. Irradiation of smaller target volumes might have contributed to mild acute toxicity with no measurable decrease in tumor response.

A predictive model for dysphagia following IMRT for head and neck cancer: introduction of the EMLasso technique

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Design a model for prediction of acute dysphagia following intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer. Illustrate the use of the EMLasso technique for model selection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Radiation-induced dysphagia was scored using CTCAE v.3.0 in 189 head and neck cancer patients. Clinical data (gender, age, nicotine and alcohol use, diabetes, tumor location), treatment parameters (chemotherapy, surgery involving the primary tumor, lymph node dissection, overall treatment time), dosimetric parameters (doses delivered to pharyngeal constrictor (PC) muscles and esophagus) and 19 genetic polymorphisms were used in model building. The predicting model was achieved by EMLasso, i.e. an EM algorithm to account for missing values, applied to penalized logistic regression, which allows for variable selection by tuning the penalization parameter through crossvalidation on AUC, thus avoiding overfitting.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients (28%) developed acute ≥ grade 3 dysphagia. The final model has an AUC of 0.71 and contains concurrent chemotherapy, D2 to the superior PC and the rs3213245 (XRCC1) polymorphism. The model's false negative rate and false positive rate in the optimal operation point on the ROC curve are 21% and 49%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the utility of the EMLasso technique for model selection in predictive radiogenetics.

Rational use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy: the importance of clinical outcome

During the last 2 decades, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) became a standard technique despite its drawbacks of volume delineation, planning, robustness of delivery, challenging quality assurance, and cost as compared with non-IMRT. The theoretic advantages of IMRT dose distributions are generally accepted, but the clinical advantages remain debatable because of the lack of clinical assessment of the effort that is required to overshadow the disadvantages. Rational IMRT use requires a positive advantage/drawback balance. Only 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 3 in the breast and 2 in the head and neck, which compare IMRT with non-IMRT (2-dimensional technique in four fifths of the trials), have been published (as of March 2011), and all had toxicity as the primary endpoint. More than 50 clinical trials compared results of IMRT-treated patients with a non-IMRT group, mostly historical controls. RCTs systematically showed a lower toxicity in IMRT-treated patients, and the non-RCTs confirmed these findings. Toxicity reduction, counterbalancing the drawbacks of IMRT, was convincing for breast and head and neck IMRT. For other tumor sites, the arguments favoring IMRT are weaker because of the inability to control bias outside the randomized setting. For anticancer efficacy endpoints, like survival, disease-specific survival, or locoregional control, the balance between advantages and drawbacks is fraught with uncertainties because of the absence of robust clinical data.

IMRT for sinonasal tumors minimizes severe late ocular toxicity and preserves disease control and survival

PURPOSE

To report late ocular (primary endpoint) and other toxicity, disease control, and survival (secondary endpoints) after intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for sinonasal tumors.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 1998 and 2009, 130 patients with nonmetastatic sinonasal tumors were treated with IMRT at Ghent University Hospital. Prescription doses were 70 Gy (n = 117) and 60-66 Gy (n = 13) at 2 Gy per fraction over 6-7 weeks. Most patients had adenocarcinoma (n = 82) and squamous cell carcinoma (n = 23). One hundred and one (101) patients were treated postoperatively. Of 17 patients with recurrent tumors, 9 were reirradiated. T-stages were T1-2 (n = 39), T3 (n = 21), T4a (n = 38), and T4b (n = 22). Esthesioneuroblastoma was staged as Kadish A, B, and C in 1, 3, and 6 cases, respectively.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 52, range 15-121 months. There was no radiation-induced blindness in 86 patients available for late toxicity assessment (≥6 month follow-up). We observed late Grade 3 tearing in 10 patients, which reduced to Grade 1-2 in 5 patients and Grade 3 visual impairment because of radiation-induced ipsilateral retinopathy and neovascular glaucoma in 1 patient. There was no severe dry eye syndrome. The worst grade of late ocular toxicity was Grade 3 (n = 11), Grade 2 (n = 31), Grade 1 (n = 33), and Grade 0 (n = 11). Brain necrosis and osteoradionecrosis occurred in 6 and 1 patients, respectively. Actuarial 5-year local control and overall survival were 59% and 52%, respectively. On multivariate analysis local control was negatively affected by cribriform plate and brain invasion (p = 0.044 and 0.029, respectively) and absence of surgery (p = 0.009); overall survival was negatively affected by cribriform plate and orbit invasion (p = 0.04 and <0.001, respectively) and absence of surgery (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

IMRT for sinonasal tumors allowed delivering high doses to targets at minimized ocular toxicity, while maintaining disease control and survival. Avoidance of severe dry eye syndrome and radiation-induced blindness suggests IMRT as a standard treatment for sinonasal tumors.

Adaptive dose painting by numbers for head-and-neck cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the feasibility of adaptive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using dose painting by numbers (DPBN) for head-and-neck cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Each patient's treatment used three separate treatment plans: fractions 1-10 used a DPBN ([(18)-F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography [(18)F-FDG-PET]) voxel intensity-based IMRT plan based on a pretreatment (18)F-FDG-PET/computed tomography (CT) scan; fractions 11-20 used a DPBN plan based on a (18)F-FDG-PET/CT scan acquired after the eighth fraction; and fractions 21-32 used a conventional (uniform dose) IMRT plan. In a Phase I trial, two dose prescription levels were tested: a median dose of 80.9 Gy to the high-dose clinical target volume (CTV(high_dose)) (dose level I) and a median dose of 85.9 Gy to the gross tumor volume (GTV) (dose level II). Between February 2007 and August 2009, 7 patients at dose level I and 14 patients at dose level II were enrolled.

RESULTS

All patients finished treatment without a break, and no Grade 4 acute toxicity was observed. Treatment adaptation (i.e., plans based on the second (18)F-FDG-PET/CT scan) reduced the volumes for the GTV (41%, p = 0.01), CTV(high_dose) (18%, p = 0.01), high-dose planning target volume (14%, p = 0.02), and parotids (9-12%, p < 0.05). Because the GTV was much smaller than the CTV(high_dose) and target adaptation, further dose escalation at dose level II resulted in less severe toxicity than that observed at dose level I.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this represents the first clinical study that combines adaptive treatments with dose painting by numbers. Treatment as described above is feasible.

Regional relapse after intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the regional relapse rate in the elective neck using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head-and-neck cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We retrospectively analyzed the data from 285 patients treated with IMRT between 2000 and 2008. The median dose prescription to the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes was 69 Gy in 32 fractions. The elective neck was treated simultaneously according to Protocol 1 (multiple dose prescription levels of 56-69 Gy; 2-Gy normalized isoeffective dose, 51-70 Gy; 222 patients) or Protocol 2 (one dose prescription level of 56 Gy; 2-Gy normalized isoeffective dose, 51 Gy; 63 patients). Primary surgery or lymph node dissection was performed before IMRT in 72 (25%) and 157 (55%) patients, respectively. Also, 92 patients (32%) received concomitant chemotherapy. The median follow-up of living patients was 27.4 months (range, 0.3-99).

RESULTS

Regional, local, and distant relapse were observed in 16 (5.6%), 35 (12.3%), and 47 (16.5%) patients, respectively. The 2- and 5-year rate of regional relapse was 7% and 10%, respectively, with a trend favoring Protocol 2 (p = 0.06). Seven isolated regional relapses were detected at a median follow-up of 7.3 months in patients treated with Protocol 1 and none in those treated with Protocol 2. Percutaneous gastrostomy was required more frequently in patients who received Protocol 1 (p = 0.079).

CONCLUSION

Isolated regional relapse is rare after IMRT for head-and-neck cancer. Elective neck node doses >51 Gy for a 2-Gy normalized isoeffective dose do not seem to improve regional control.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for recurrent and second primary head and neck cancer in previously irradiated territory

PURPOSE

To evaluate re-irradiation using IMRT for recurrent and second primary head and neck cancer in previously irradiated territory.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1997 and 2008, 84 patients with recurrent and second primary head and neck cancer were treated with IMRT to a median dose of 69 Gy. Median time interval between initial radiotherapy and re-irradiation was 49.5 (5.2-298.3) months. Salvage surgery preceded re-irradiation in 19 patients; 17 patients received concurrent chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Median follow-up of living patients was 19.8 (1.9-76.1) months. Five-year locoregional control and overall survival were 40% and 20%, respectively. Five-year disease-specific survival and disease-free survival were 29% and 15%, respectively. Stage T4 (p=0.015), time interval between initial treatment and re-irradiation (p=0.011) and hypopharyngeal cancer (p=0.013) were independent prognostic factors for worse overall survival in multivariate analysis. Twenty-six and 11 patients developed Grade 3 acute and late toxicity, respectively. No Grade 5 acute toxicity was encountered. There were 2 fatal vascular ruptures during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose IMRT for recurrent and second primary head and neck cancer in previously irradiated territory leads to approximately 20% long-term survival in a non-selected patient population. Identification of patients who would benefit most of curative IMRT is warranted.

The use of [123I]-2-iodo-L-phenylalanine as an early radiotherapy evaluation tool: in vitro R1M rabdomyosarcoma cell and in vivo mouse experiments

This study was performed to determine whether [123I]-2-iodo-L-phenylalanine single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) can be used to monitor the tumor response to radiotherapy in an early phase.

METHODS

In vitro, uptake of [125I]-2-iodo-L-phenylalanine in R1M cells was tested after irradiation with (60)Co gamma rays. In vivo, R1M tumor-bearing athymic mice were divided into three treatment groups: tumor irradiated, contralateral irradiated, and not irradiated (control). [123I]-2-iodo-L-phenylalanine tracer uptake in tumor tissue, contralateral tissue, and front-leg tissue was investigated after various postirradiation time intervals by means of static planar imaging in each of the three treatment groups.

RESULTS

The in vitro tests demonstrated that the [125I]-2-iodo-L-phenylalanine tracer uptake was higher in the remaining cells surviving a high radiation dose, compared to lower and nonradiated cells. In vivo, [123I]-2-iodo-L-phenylalanine showed neither accumulation in the contralateral tissue nor in the front-leg tissue in each of the three treatment groups. Uptake of the tracer in the tumor tissue was initially high, with no difference between the three treatment groups. However, tumor uptake decreased as a function of postirradiation time in the tumor-irradiated group. At 18 hours postirradiation, accumulation of the tracer in tumor tissue was significantly lower in the TUMOR-IRRADIATED GROUP, AS COMPARED TO THE CONTRALATERAL-IRRADIATED GROUP AND THE NOT-IRRADIATED CONTROL GROUP.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings in our cell and animal model systems indicate that [123I]-2-iodo-L-phenylalanine is a suitable tumor SPECT tracer candidate to evaluate and predict the individual patient response to radiotherapy.

Evidence behind use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: a systematic review of comparative clinical studies

Since its introduction more than a decade ago, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has spread to most radiotherapy departments worldwide for a wide range of indications. The technique has been rapidly implemented, despite an incomplete understanding of its advantages and weaknesses, the challenges of IMRT planning, delivery, and quality assurance, and the substantially increased cost compared with non-IMRT. Many publications discuss the theoretical advantages of IMRT dose distributions. However, the key question is whether the use of IMRT can be exploited to obtain a clinically relevant advantage over non-modulated external-beam radiation techniques. To investigate which level of evidence supports the routine use of IMRT for various disease sites, we did a review of clinical studies that reported on overall survival, disease-specific survival, quality of life, treatment-induced toxicity, or surrogate endpoints. This review shows evidence of reduced toxicity for various tumour sites by use of IMRT. The findings regarding local control and overall survival are generally inconclusive.

Predicting Risk of Radiation-Induced Lung Injury

Radiation-induced lung injury (RILI) is the most common, dose-limiting complication of thoracic radio- and radiochemotherapy. Unfortunately, predicting which patients will suffer from this complication is extremely difficult. Ideally, individual phenotype- and genotype-based risk profiles should be able to identify patients who are resistant to RILI and who could benefit from dose escalation in chemoradiotherapy. This could result in better local control and overall survival. We review the risk predictors that are currently in clinical use--dosimetric parameters of radiotherapy such as normal tissue complication probability, mean lung dose, V20 and V30--as well as biomarkers that might individualize risk profiles. These biomarkers comprise a variety of proinflammatory and profibrotic cytokines and molecules including transforming growth factor beta1 that are implicated in development and persistence of RILI. Dosimetric parameters of radiotherapy show a low negative predictive value of 60% to 80%. Depending on the studied molecule, negative predictive value of biomarkers is approximately 50%. The predictive power of biomarkers might be increased if they are coupled with radiogenomics, e.g., genotyping analysis of single nucleotide polymorphisms in transforming growth factor beta1, transforming growth factor beta1 pathway genes, and other cytokines. Genetic variability and the complexity of RILI and its underlying molecular mechanisms make identification of biological risk predictors challenging. Further investigations are needed to develop more effective risk predictors of RILI.

Positron emission tomography-guided, focal-dose escalation using intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using positron emission tomography (PET)-guided dose escalation, and to determine the maximum tolerated dose in head and neck cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A Phase I clinical trial was designed to escalate the dose limited to the [(18)-F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG-PET)-delineated subvolume within the gross tumor volume. Positron emission tomography scanning was performed in the treatment position. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy with an upfront simultaneously integrated boost was employed. Two dose levels were planned: 25 Gy (level I) and 30 Gy (level II), delivered in 10 fractions. Standard IMRT was applied for the remaining 22 fractions of 2.16 Gy.

RESULTS

Between 2003 and 2005, 41 patients were enrolled, with 23 at dose level I, and 18 at dose level II; 39 patients completed the planned therapy. The median follow-up for surviving patients was 14 months. Two cases of dose-limiting toxicity occurred at dose level I (Grade 4 dermitis and Grade 4 dysphagia). One treatment-related death at dose level II halted the study. Complete response was observed in 18 of 21 (86%) and 13 of 16 (81%) evaluated patients at dose levels I and II (p < 0.7), respectively, with actuarial 1-year local control at 85% and 87% (p = n.s.), and 1-year overall survival at 82% and 54% (p = 0.06), at dose levels I and II, respectively. In 4 of 9 patients, the site of relapse was in the boosted (18)F-FDG-PET-delineated region.

CONCLUSIONS

For head and neck cancer, PET-guided dose escalation appears to be well-tolerated. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached at the investigated dose levels.

Comparison of 6MV and 18MV photons for IMRT treatment of lung cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To compare 6 MV and 18 MV photon intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for non-small cell lung cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Doses for a cohort of 10 patients, typical for our department, were computed with a commercially available convolution/superposition (CS) algorithm. Final dose computation was also performed with a dedicated IMRT Monte Carlo dose engine (MCDE).

RESULTS

CS plans showed higher D(95%) (Gy) for the GTV (68.13 vs 67.36, p=0.004) and CTV (67.23 vs 66.87, p=0.028) with 18 than with 6 MV photons. MCDE computations demonstrated higher doses with 6 MV than 18 MV in D(95%) for the PTV (64.62 vs 63.64, p=0.009), PTV(optim) (65.48 vs 64.83, p=0.014) and CTV (66.22 vs 65.64, p=0.027). Dose inhomogeneity was lower with 18 than with 6 MV photons for GTV (0.08 vs 0.09, p=0.007) and CTV (0.10 vs 0.11, p=0.045) in CS but not MCDE plans. 6 MV photons significantly (D(33%); p=0.045) spared the esophagus in MCDE plans. Observed dose differences between lower and higher energy IMRT plans were dependent on the individual patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Selection of photon energy depends on priority ranking of endpoints and individual patients. In the absence of highly accurate dose computation algorithms such as CS and MCDE, 6 MV photons may be the prudent choice.

Accuracy of patient dose calculation for lung IMRT: A comparison of Monte Carlo, convolution/superposition, and pencil beam computations

The accuracy of dose computation within the lungs depends strongly on the performance of the calculation algorithm in regions of electronic disequilibrium that arise near tissue inhomogeneities with large density variations. There is a lack of data evaluating the performance of highly developed analytical dose calculation algorithms compared to Monte Carlo computations in a clinical setting. We compared full Monte Carlo calculations (performed by our Monte Carlo dose engine MCDE) with two different commercial convolution/superposition (CS) implementations (Pinnacle-CS and Helax-TMS's collapsed cone model Helax-CC) and one pencil beam algorithm (Helax-TMS's pencil beam model Helax-PB) for 10 intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) lung cancer patients. Treatment plans were created for two photon beam qualities (6 and 18 MV). For each dose calculation algorithm, patient, and beam quality, the following set of clinically relevant dose-volume values was reported: (i) minimal, median, and maximal dose (Dmin, D50, and Dmax) for the gross tumor and planning target volumes (GTV and PTV); (ii) the volume of the lungs (excluding the GTV) receiving at least 20 and 30 Gy (V20 and V30) and the mean lung dose; (iii) the 33rd percentile dose (D33) and Dmax delivered to the heart and the expanded esophagus; and (iv) Dmax for the expanded spinal cord. Statistical analysis was performed by means of one-way analysis of variance for repeated measurements and Tukey pairwise comparison of means. Pinnacle-CS showed an excellent agreement with MCDE within the target structures, whereas the best correspondence for the organs at risk (OARs) was found between Helax-CC and MCDE. Results from Helax-PB were unsatisfying for both targets and OARs. Additionally, individual patient results were analyzed. Within the target structures, deviations above 5% were found in one patient for the comparison of MCDE and Helax-CC, while all differences between MCDE and Pinnacle-CS were below 5%. For both Pinnacle-CS and Helax-CC, deviations from MCDE above 5% were found within the OARs: within the lungs for two (6 MV) and six (18 MV) patients for Pinnacle-CS, and within other OARs for two patients for Helax-CC (for Dmax of the heart and D33 of the expanded esophagus) but only for 6 MV. For one patient, all four algorithms were used to recompute the dose after replacing all computed tomography voxels within the patient's skin contour by water. This made all differences above 5% between MCDE and the other dose calculation algorithms disappear. Thus, the observed deviations mainly arose from differences in particle transport modeling within the lungs, and the commissioning of the algorithms was adequately performed (or the commissioning was less important for this type of treatment). In conclusion, not one pair of the dose calculation algorithms we investigated could provide results that were consistent within 5% for all 10 patients for the set of clinically relevant dose-volume indices studied. As the results from both CS algorithms differed significantly, care should be taken when evaluating treatment plans as the choice of dose calculation algorithm may influence clinical results. Full Monte Carlo provides a great benchmarking tool for evaluating the performance of other algorithms for patient dose computations.