Volumetric modulation arc radiotherapy compared with static gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma tumor: a feasibility study

GOECP/SEOR clinical guidelines on radiotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare tumor with poor prognosis and rising incidence. Palliative care is common in MPM as radical treatment with curative intent is often not possible due to metastasis or extensive locoregional involvement. Numerous therapeutic advances have been made in recent years, including the use of less aggressive surgical techniques associated with lower morbidity and mortality (e.g., pleurectomy/decortication), technological advancements in the field of radiotherapy (intensity-modulated radiotherapy, image-guided radiotherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy, proton therapy), and developments in systemic therapies (chemotherapy and immunotherapy). These improvements have had as yet only a modest effect on local control and survival. Advances in the management of MPM and standardization of care are hampered by the evidence to date, limited by high heterogeneity among studies and small sample sizes. In this clinical guideline prepared by the oncological group for the study of lung cancer of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology, we review clinical, histologic, and therapeutic aspects of MPM, with a particular focus on all aspects relating to radiotherapy, including the current evidence base, associations with chemotherapy and surgery, treatment volumes and planning, technological advances, and reradiation.

Dosimetric Comparison Between Helical Tomotherapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

AIMS

To carry out a dosimetric comparison and constraints feasibility proof of adjuvant radiotherapy through helical tomotherapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for malignant pleural mesothelioma patients after pleurectomy/decortication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective calculations were carried out on previously acquired simulations. A whole-pleura volume with 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions was prescribed, simulating a no residual tumour situation. Calculations were carried out using an anisotropic analytical algorithm with a 2.0 mm grid. Beam-on time, planning target volume (PTV) coverage, homogeneity index and organ at risk exposure were compared.

RESULTS

Sixteen patient plans were calculated per device. Constraints were met overall by both modalities. For helical tomotherapy and VMAT plans, median beam-on times were 13.8 (11.6-16.1) min and 6.4 (6.1-7.0) min; P = 0.006. The median left-sided radiotherapy PTV D₉₈ were 48.1 (48.0-48.8) Gy and 47.6 (46.5-48.3) Gy; P = 0.023. No significant difference for right-sided radiotherapy was found. PTV D₂ for left-sided radiotherapy was higher with VMAT (P = 0.014). For right-sided radiotherapy, helical tomotherapy showed higher doses (P = 0.039). No homogeneity index differences for left-sided radiotherapy (P = 1.00) and right-sided radiotherapy (P = 0.598) were seen. Significant organ at risk exposure differences were found on left-sided radiotherapy whole-lung V_20, as well as D₅₀ (both P = 0.008). Higher contralateral lung and ipsilateral kidney exposures were found with VMAT plans for both treatment sides.

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant radiotherapy after pleurectomy/decortication in malignant pleural mesothelioma patients, with a VMAT- or helical tomotherapy-based platform, is dosimetrically feasible. Lung sparing was mostly improved with helical tomotherapy. Technique selection must be carried out according to availability and clinical criteria.

Dosimetric comparison of MR-linac-based IMRT and conventional VMAT treatment plans for prostate cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the performance of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans, planned for low-field strength magnetic resonance (MR) guided linear accelerator (linac) delivery (labelled IMRT MRL plans), and clinical conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, for the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). Both plans used the original planning target volume (PTV) margins. Additionally, the potential dosimetric benefits of MR-guidance were estimated, by creating IMRT MRL plans using smaller PTV margins.

Materials and methods

20 PCa patients previously treated with conventional VMAT were considered. For each patient, two different IMRT MRL plans using the low-field MR-linac treatment planning system were created: one with original (orig.) PTV margins and the other with reduced (red.) PTV margins. Dose indices related to target coverage, as well as dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters for the target and organs at risk (OAR) were compared. Additionally, the estimated treatment delivery times and the number of monitor units (MU) of each plan were evaluated.

Results

The dose distribution in the high dose region and the target volume DVH parameters (D_98%, D_50%, D_2% and V_95%) were similar for all three types of treatment plans, with deviations below 1% in most cases. Both IMRT MRL plans (orig. and red. PTV margins) showed similar homogeneity indices (HI), however worse values for the conformity index (CI) were also found when compared to VMAT. The IMRT MRL plans showed similar OAR sparing when the orig. PTV margins were used but a significantly better sparing was feasible when red. PTV margins were applied. Higher number of MU and longer predicted treatment delivery times were seen for both IMRT MRL plans.

Conclusions

A comparable plan quality between VMAT and IMRT MRL plans was achieved, when applying the same PTV margin. However, online MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy allows for a reduction of PTV margins. With a red. PTV margin, better sparing of the surrounding tissues can be achieved, while maintaining adequate target coverage. Nonetheless, longer treatment delivery times, characteristic for the IMRT technique, have to be expected.

Dosimetric Comparison of Lung-Sparing Radiation Therapy between Volumetric Arc Therapy and Helical Tomotherapy for Unresectable Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Objective

To compare volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) plans in terms of dosimetric parameters in positron emission tomography- (PET-) computerized tomography- (CT-) based radiation therapy planning in unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

Methods

CT and coregistered PET-CT data from seven patients with histologically-proven MPM were utilized for VMAT and HT plans. Target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were delineated. The prescription doses for planning target volume 1 (PTV₁) and PTV₂ were 45.0 Gy and 54 Gy in 1.8 Gy/fr, respectively. Each technique was evaluated in terms of target volume coverage and OAR doses.

Findings

Although the maximum (p=0.001) and mean (p < 0.001) doses of PTV₁, and PTV₂ (p < 0.001 for maximum and p=0.001 for mean doses) favored the HT technique over VMAT, both techniques efficiently covered the target volumes. Additionally, HT also provided more homogeneous dose distribution (p < 0.001) and numerically lower doses received by most OARs, but again both rotational techniques were successful in keeping the OAR doses below the universally accepted limits. The major disadvantage of the HT technique was the requirement for longer treatment times (7.4 versus 2.5 minutes/fr; p < 0.001) to accomplish the intended treatment.

Conclusion

Results of this dosimetric comparison clearly demonstrated the possibility of safe hemithoracic irradiation of medically/technically unresectable MPM patients with either of the two rotational RT techniques, namely the VMAT and HT. Clinically, considering their poor prognosis, these promising findings may open a potential new window for curative treatment of unresectable MPM patients, if further confirmed by future clinical studies.

Extra-pleural pneumonectomy in the era of image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To assess the outcome of malignant pleural mesothelioma patients treated with extra-pleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and adjuvant radiotherapy (RT), using the most advanced radiotherapeutic techniques, namely image-guided intensity-modulated RT (IG-IMRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fifty-four patients were analyzed. Minimum radiation dose was 50 Gy (2 Gy/fr). Planning target volume encompassed the entire hemithorax, including the ipsilateral mediastinum if interested by disease, the pericardium and diaphragm, and any drain sites. The study endpoints included loco-regional control (LRC), distant metastases free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS), as well as radiation-related toxicity.

RESULTS

Major patients and treatment characteristics were the following: median age 62 years, epithelioid histology in 51 (94%) cases, locally advanced disease in 41 (90%) cases, and metastatic mediastinal lymph nodes in 27 patients (50%). Only 7 patients (13%) had gross residual disease after surgery. Chemotherapy was administered in 38 patients (70%). Median follow-up was 16 months (range 0-73 months). Median and 2-year OS were 21 months and was 43.8%, respectively. The predominant pattern of failure was distant: 34 patients (62.9%) developed some component of distant failure, and only 5 patients (9.2%) developed an isolated loco-regional recurrence. The estimates of LRC and DMFS at 2 years were 63.4% and 43.4%, respectively. Three fatal pneumonitis were documented. Other major toxicities included: Grade 2 and 3 pneumonitis in 1 and 2 cases, respectively, 1 case of bronchial fistula, pleural empyema, and Grade 3 esophagitis, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although executed in the era of high-technology radiotherapy (IG-IMRT), EPP should not be routinely performed.

Tomotherapy in malignant mesothelioma: a planning study to establish dose constraints

PURPOSE

A planning study was performed for helical tomotherapy treatment. We evaluated the maximum achievable protection of organs at risk (OARs) in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma after pleurectomy with simultaneous optimal target coverage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The datasets of 13 patients were included. The applied dose to the planning target volume (PTV) was 50.4 Gy with single doses of 1.8 Gy per fraction. Presuming optimal target coverage, we evaluated the applied dose to the OARs with special regard to the contralateral lung.

RESULTS

For left-(lsRT)/right(rsRT)-sided radiotherapy, target coverage for the PTV showed a D98 (mean) of 49.37/49.71 Gy (98.0%/98.6%) and a D2 (mean) of 54.19/54.61 Gy (107.5%/108.3%). The beam-on time was kept below 15 min. The achieved mean dose (D50) to the contralateral lung was kept below 4 Gy for lsRT and rsRT. With regard to the other organs at risk the applied doses were as follows: mean dose (lsRT): ipsilateral kidney (Dmean) 13.03 (5.32-22.18) Gy, contralateral kidney (Dmean) <2.0 Gy, heart (Dmean) 22.23 (13.57-27.72) Gy, spinal cord D1 <Gy; mean dose (rsRT): ipsilateral kidney (Dmean) 10.22 (6.30-18.04) Gy, contralateral kidney (Dmean) <2.1 Gy, heart (Dmean) 8.02 (6.0-10.38) Gy, spinal cord D1 <35.5 Gy.

CONCLUSION

With helical tomotherapy, postoperative treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma after pleurectomy achieves good target coverage combined with simultaneous dose sparing to the (especially contralateral) OARs.

Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

Purpose To provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and others on the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, thoracic surgery, radiation oncology, pulmonary, pathology, imaging, and advocacy experts to conduct a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective comparative observational studies published from 1990 through 2017. Outcomes of interest included survival, disease-free or recurrence-free survival, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. Results The literature search identified 222 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. Recommendations Evidence-based recommendations were developed for diagnosis, staging, chemotherapy, surgical cytoreduction, radiation therapy, and multimodality therapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Dosimetric comparison between IMRT and VMAT in irradiation for peripheral and central lung cancer

The aim of the present study was to compare intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in irradiation of lung cancer. Plans of 14 patients were compared. The results demonstrated that in peripheral lung cancer, V5 (%) of the lung in partial-arc (PA)-VMAT was decreased compared with IMRT, single-arc (SA)-, and double partial-arc (2PA)-VMAT. V30 (%) of the lung in IMRT was decreased compared with SA-, PA- and 2PA-VMAT. In the case of planning target volume (PTV) not encompassing the mediastinum in central lung cancer, the conformality index (CI) and heterogeneity index (HI) of SA-VMAT was improved compared with IMRT, PA-, and 2PA-VMAT. The received dose of heart in SA-VMAT was higher compared with IMRT, PA- and 2PA-VMAT. V30 (%) and V5 (%) of the lung in IMRT was higher compared with SA-, PA- and 2PA-VMAT; V10 (%) of the lung in 2PA was decreased compared with IMRT, SA- and PA. In the case of PTV encompassing the mediastinum in central lung cancer, the HI and CI of 2PA was improved compared with IMRT, SA- and PA-VMAT. The received dose of heart in 2PA was higher compared with IMRT, SA- and PA-VMAT. V30 (%) and V5 (%) of the lung in 2PA-VMAT was higher compared with IMRT, SA- and PA-VMAT. V20 (%) of the lung in 2PA was decreased compared with IMRT, SA- and PA-VMAT. In conclusion, it may be necessary to classify the radiotherapy plans of lung cancer into three categories including peripheral lung cancer, PTV not encompassing the mediastinum of central lung cancer, and PTV encompassing the mediastinum of central lung cancer. Each of IMRT, SA-VMAT, PA-VMAT, 2PA-VMAT strategy had individual advantages, and therefore it may be crucial to employ different planning techniques for different disease classifications and OAR requirements.

Radiotherapy for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an aggressive disease that continues to be associated with poor outcomes. Although, traditionally this disease is considered to be resistant to radiotherapy, more recent evidence suggests that radiotherapy can produce positive outcomes. Over the past 15 years, the development of new, highly conformal radiotherapy techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), has enabled investigators to optimise the delivery of high-dose radiotherapy to the whole of the hemithorax. Prospective single-arm trials have shown that the median survival of patients who have completed high-dose hemithoracic radiotherapy after extrapleural pneumonectomy could reach 23·9-39·4 months independent of the chemotherapeutic response, suggesting that IMRT could potentially have an intrinsic benefit to this subset of patients. These observations have led to a change in practice, with the introduction of adjuvant pleural IMRT after pleurectomy-decortication and the development of induction-accelerated hemithoracic IMRT followed by extrapleural pneumonectomy. This Review focuses on recent observations on the role of radiotherapy in the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma, with particular emphasis on the results of clinical trials that evaluate the role of high-dose hemithoracic radiotherapy.

The role of radical radiotherapy in the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: A systematic review

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a devastating disease with limited treatment options and a dismal prognosis. Attempts to employ radical radiotherapy in this disease have been limited by the complex shape of the pleura and the dose restrictions necessitated by the close proximity of radiosensitive structures. Recent shifts towards a 'lung sparing' surgical approach in MPM have further heightened these challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to assess recent advances in radiotherapy planning and delivery, to ascertain how these developments have impacted on the feasibility of delivering photon-based, high-dose radiotherapy with radical intent in MPM. Three electronic databases were searched and a total of 249 articles reviewed. The challenge of generating high quality, practice-defining data for diseases such as MPM was highlighted by the identification of just two randomised studies. Much of the literature consisted of low quality, retrospective data with small cohorts and inconsistent reporting on radiotherapy techniques and dosimetry. Nevertheless, a number of prospective phase II studies were identified to suggest that radical doses of radiotherapy can be delivered safely after a lung sparing procedure in MPM, reporting encouraging survival data and acceptable levels of toxicity.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy for treatment of solid tumors: current insights

Aim

This article discusses the current use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques in clinical practice and reviews the available data from clinical outcome studies in different clinical settings. An overview of available literature about clinical outcomes with VMAT stereotactic/radiosurgical treatment is also reported.

Materials and methods

All published manuscripts reporting the use of VMAT in a clinical setting from 2009 to November 2016 were identified. The search was carried out in December 2016 using the National Library of Medicine (PubMed/Medline). The following words were searched: “volumetric arc therapy”[All Fields] OR “vmat”[All Fields] OR “rapidarc”[All Fields], AND “radiotherapy”[All Fields] AND “Clinical Trial”[All Fields].

Results

Overall, 37 studies (21 prospective and 16 retrospective) fulfilling inclusion criteria and thus included in the review evaluated 2,029 patients treated with VMAT; of these patients, ~30.8% had genitourinary (GU) tumors (81% prostate, 19% endometrial), 26.2% head-and-neck cancer (H&NC), 13.9% oligometastases, 11.2% had anorectal cancer, 10.6% thoracic neoplasms (81% breast, 19% lung), and 7.0% brain metastases (BMs). Six different clinical scenarios for VMAT use were identified: 1) BMs, 2) H&NC, 3) thoracic neoplasms, 4) GU cancer, 5) anorectal tumor, and 6) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) performed by VMAT technique in the oligometastatic patient setting.

Conclusion

The literature addressing the clinical appropriateness of VMAT is scarce. Current literature suggests that VMAT, especially when used as simultaneous integrated boost or SBRT strategy, is an effective safe modality for all cancer types.

Long-term outcomes of intensity-modulated radiotherapy following extra-pleural pneumonectomy for malignant pleural mesothelioma

BACKGROUND

The purpose was to evaluate safety and efficacy of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) following extra-pleural pneumonectomy (EPP) for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with MPM of clinical stage I-III, which were macroscopic completely resected with EPP were eligible for this prospective study. The ipsilateral hemithorax was irradiated with a prescribed dose of 50.4 Gy. When the high-risk surgical margins or FDG-avid regions were identified, simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) with 56.0 Gy or 61.6 Gy was applied.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients were enrolled. SIB was applied to five patients. The planned IMRT fractions were completed in all, but four patients who suffered from severe fatigue or radiation pneumonitis. With a potential median follow-up of 6.3 years, overall survival was 37.5% at 3 years since the IMRT. The median survival time was 17.5 and 27.0 months since the IMRT and the initial treatment, respectively. Three patients have survived for more than 5 years. Distant metastasis was observed in 15 patients. Local recurrence was also observed in 2 of the 15 patients. Acute toxicities of Grade 3 or worse were observed in 15 patients, including 9 with hematological, 3 with pneumonitis and 6 with fatigue, nausea or vomiting. Five patients developed Grade 3 or worse late toxicities associated with IMRT, consisting of one with persistent Grade 4 thrombocytopenia, one with brain infarction and congestive liver dysfunction, and three with elevation of serum transaminase or biliary enzyme. No Grade 5 toxicity was observed. Patients with N2 showed significantly worse survival than those with N0-1 (18.2% vs. 60.0% at 3 years, p = .014).

CONCLUSION

IMRT following EPP achieved excellent local control for MPM, that might lead to the long-term survival in selected patients. However, treatment burden including acute and late toxicities should be considered in this treatment approach.

Functional image guided radiation therapy planning in volumetric modulated arc therapy for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma

PURPOSE

To investigate the incorporation of functional lung image-derived low-attenuation area (LAA) based on 4-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT) in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) after extrapleural pneumonectomy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Twelve patients with MPM after extrapleural pneumonectomy were included. The primarily affected side was the right in 6 patients and the left in 6 patients. LAA was generated from 4D-CT data according to CT values with a threshold of less than -860 Hounsfield units (HU). Functional lung image was defined as the area where LAA was excluded from contralateral lung image. Two radiation therapy plans were designed: (1) Plan C, conventional VMAT and (2) Plan F, functional VMAT plan based on the functional lung. Both plans were compared in each patient with respect to the following dosimetric parameters: fV20, V20, fV10, V10, fV5, and V5, the percentages of functional or contralateral lung volumes irradiated with >20 Gy, 10 Gy, or 5 Gy, respectively; functional mean lung dose (fMLD) and mean lung dose (MLD), the mean dose to the functional or contralateral lung, respectively; maximum dose to the cord; mean doses to the liver and heart; and planning target volume homogeneity index.

RESULTS

fV5 and MLD were significantly lower in Plan F (fV5, median 57.5% in Plan C vs 38.5% in Plan F, P < .01; MLD, median 7.0 Gy in Plan C vs 6.4 Gy in Plan F, P = .04). fV10, V5, and fMLD were also significantly lower in Plan F. Compared with Plan C, planning target volume homogeneity index and liver, heart, and cord doses were not significantly elevated in Plan F.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant reductions in fV5, fV10, fMLD, V5, and MLD were achieved with the functional image guided VMAT plan without negative effects on other factors. LAA-based functional image guided radiation therapy planning in VMAT is a feasible method to spare the functional lung in patients with MPM.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy for carotid sparing in the management of early glottic cancer

Purpose

Radiotherapy of the neck is known to cause carotid artery stenosis. We compared the carotid artery dose received between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans in patients with early glottic cancer.

Materials and Methods

Twenty-one early glottic cancer patients who previously underwent definitive radiotherapy were selected for this study. For each patient, double arc VMAT, 8-field IMRT, 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), and lateral parallel-opposed photon field radiotherapy (LPRT) plans were created. The 3DCRT plan was generated using lateral parallel-opposed photon fields plus an anterior photon field. VMAT and IMRT treatment plan optimization was performed under standardized conditions to obtain adequate target volume coverage and spare the carotid artery. Dose-volume specifications for the VMAT, IMRT, 3DCRT, and LPRT plans were calculated with radiotherapy planning system. Monitor units (MUs) and delivery time were measured to evaluate treatment efficiency.

Results

Target volume coverage and homogeneity results were comparable between VMAT and IMRT; however, VMAT was superior to IMRT for carotid artery dose sparing. The mean dose to the carotid arteries in double arc VMAT was reduced by 6.8% compared to fixed-field IMRT (p < 0.001). The MUs for VMAT and IMRT were not significantly different (p = 0.089). VMAT allowed an approximately two-fold reduction in treatment delivery time in comparison to IMRT (3 to 5 minutes vs. 5 to 10 minutes).

Conclusion

VMAT resulted in a lower carotid artery dose compared to conventional fixed-field IMRT, and maintained good target coverage in patients with early glottic cancer.

Clinical utility of RapidArc™ radiotherapy technology

RapidArc™ is a radiation technique that delivers highly conformal dose distributions through the complete rotation (360°) and speed variation of the linear accelerator gantry. This technique, called volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), compared with conventional radiotherapy techniques, can achieve high-target volume coverage and sparing damage to normal tissues. RapidArc delivers precise dose distribution and conformity similar to or greater than intensity-modulated radiation therapy in a short time, generally a few minutes, to which image-guided radiation therapy is added. RapidArc has become a currently used technology in many centers, which use RapidArc technology to treat a large number of patients. Large and small hospitals use it to treat the most challenging cases, but more and more frequently for the most common cancers. The clinical use of RapidArc and VMAT technology is constantly growing. At present, a limited number of clinical data are published, mostly concerning planning and feasibility studies. Clinical outcome data are increasing for a few tumor sites, even if only a little. The purpose of this work is to discuss the current status of VMAT techniques in clinical use through a review of the published data of planning systems and clinical outcomes in several tumor sites. The study consisted of a systematic review based on analysis of manuscripts retrieved from the PubMed, BioMed Central, and Scopus databases by searching for the keywords “RapidArc”, “Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy”, and “Intensity-modulated radiotherapy”.

Clinical experience of volumetric modulated arc therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma after extrapleural pneumonectomy

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) after extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). A total of 15 patients who received VMAT after EPP were enrolled. All patients were males, and the median age was 67 years (Stage IB in two, II in six, and III in seven patients). The clinical target volume (CTV) included the entire preoperative ipsilateral hemithorax and involved nodal stations. The CTV was generally expanded by 10-15 mm beyond the planning target volume (PTV). The dose prescription was designed to cover 95% of the PTV with 54 Gy in 30 fractions. The median follow-up period was 11 months. Treatment-related toxicities were evaluated by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) ver. 4. One-year local control, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates were 55.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 25.6-85.8%], 29.3% (95% CI: 5.3-53.3%), and 43.1% (95% CI: 17.1-69.0%), respectively. According to the histological analysis, the one-year LC rate was significantly worse in patients with non-epithelial type (biphasic and sarcomatoid types) than in patients with epithelial type [epithelial type: 83.3% (95% CI, 53.5-100%), non-epithelial type: 0% (95% CI, 0%), P = 0.0011]. Grade 3 pneumonitis after VMAT was observed in three patients (20.0%); however, no patients died of pulmonary toxicity. VMAT appears to be relatively safe for patients with MPM after EPP because of the low pulmonary dose.

New and emerging therapeutic options for malignant pleural mesothelioma: review of early clinical trials

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare tumor that is challenging to control. Despite some benefit from using the multimodality-approach (surgery, combination chemotherapy and radiation), survival remains poor. However, current research produced a list of potential therapies. Here, we summarize significant new preclinical and early clinical developments in treatment of MPM, which include mesothelin specific antibody and toxin therapies, interleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor toxins, dendritic cell vaccines, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and gene-based therapies. In addition, several local modalities such as photodynamic therapy, postoperative lavage using betadine, and cryotherapy for local recurrence, have also shown to be effective for local control of disease.

Hemithoracic intensity modulated radiation therapy after pleurectomy/decortication for malignant pleural mesothelioma: toxicity, patterns of failure, and a matched survival analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate safety, efficacy, and recurrence after hemithoracic intensity modulated radiation therapy after pleurectomy/decortication (PD-IMRT) and after extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP-IMRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In 2009-2013, 24 patients with mesothelioma underwent PD-IMRT to the involved hemithorax to a dose of 45 Gy, with an optional integrated boost; 22 also received chemotherapy. Toxicity was scored with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0. Pulmonary function was compared at baseline, after surgery, and after IMRT. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to locoregional failure, and time to distant metastasis. Failures were in-field, marginal, or out of field. Outcomes were compared with those of 24 patients, matched for age, nodal status, performance status, and chemotherapy, who had received EPP-IMRT.

RESULTS

Median follow-up time was 12.2 months. Grade 3 toxicity rates were 8% skin and 8% pulmonary. Pulmonary function declined from baseline to after surgery (by 21% for forced vital capacity, 16% for forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and 19% for lung diffusion of carbon monoxide [P for all = .01]) and declined still further after IMRT (by 31% for forced vital capacity [P=.02], 25% for forced expiratory volume in 1 second [P=.01], and 30% for lung diffusion of carbon monoxide [P=.01]). The OS and PFS rates were 76% and 67%, respectively, at 1 year and 56% and 34% at 2 years. Median OS (28.4 vs 14.2 months, P=.04) and median PFS (16.4 vs 8.2 months, P=.01) favored PD-IMRT versus EPP-IMRT. No differences were found in grade 4-5 toxicity (0 of 24 vs 3 of 24, P=.23), median time to locoregional failure (18.7 months vs not reached, P not calculable), or median time to distant metastasis (18.8 vs 11.8 months, P=.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Hemithoracic intensity modulated radiation therapy after pleurectomy/decortication produced little high-grade toxicity but led to progressive declines in pulmonary function; OS and PFS were better in PD-IMRT compared with EPP-IMRT.

Applying the technique of volume-modulated arc radiotherapy to upper esophageal carcinoma

This study aims to evaluate the possibility of using the technique of volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to combine the advantages of simplified intensity-modulated radiation therapy (sIMRT) with that of regular intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in upper esophageal cancer. Ten patients with upper esophageal carcinoma were randomly chosen in this retrospective study. sIMRT, IMRT, and VMAT plans were generated to deliver 60 Gy in 30 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). For each patient, with the same clinical requirements (target dose prescription, and dose/dose-volume constraints to organs at risk (OARs)), three plans were designed for sIMRT (five equispaced coplanar beams), IMRT (seven equispaced coplanar beams), and VMAT (two complete arcs). Comparisons were performed for dosimetric parameters of PTV and of OARs (lungs, spinal cord PRV, heart and normal tissue (NT)). All the plans were delivered to a phantom to evaluate the treatment time. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs, signed-rank test was used for intragroup comparison. For all patients, compared to sIMRT plans, VMAT plans statistically provide: a) significant improvement in HI and CI for PTV; b) significant decrease in delivery time, lung V20, MLD, heart V30 and spinal cord PRV D1cc; c) significant increase in NT V5; and d) no significant reduction in lung V5, V10, and heart MD. For all patients, compared to IMRT plans, VMAT plans statistically provide: a) significant improvement in CI for PTV; b) significant decrease in delivery time, lung V20, MLD, NT and spinal cord PRV D1cc; c) significant increase in NT V5; and d) no significant reduction in HI for PTV, lung V5, V10, heart V30 and heart MD. For patients with upper esophageal carcinoma, using VMAT significantly reduces the delivery time and the dose to the lungs compared with IMRT, and consequently saves as much treatment time as sIMRT. Considering those significant advantages, compared to sIMRT and IMRT, VMAT is the first choice of radiotherapy techniques for upper esophageal carcinoma.

Clinical outcome of postoperative highly conformal versus 3D conformal radiotherapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma

Background

Radiotherapy (RT) is currently under investigation as part of a trimodality treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). The introduction of highly conformal radiotherapy (HCRT) technique improved dose delivery and target coverage in comparison to 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). The following study was undertaken to investigate the clinical outcome of both radiation techniques.

Methods

Thirty-nine MPM patients were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and adjuvant RT. Twenty-five patients were treated with 3DCRT, and 14 with HCRT (Intensity modulated radiotherapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy). Overall survival, disease free survival, locoregional recurrence and pattern of recurrence were assessed. A matched pair analysis was performed including 11 patients of each group.

Results

After matching for gender, age, histology, tumor stage and resection status, HCRT seemed superior to 3DCRT with a local relapse rate of 27.3% compared to 72.7% after 3DCRT (p = 0.06). The median time to local relapse was increased by 49% with HCRT in comparison to 3DCRT from 10.9 ± 5.4 months to 16.2 ± 3.1 months (p = 0.06). The median overall survival was 22.3 ± 15.3 months for HCRT and 21.2 ± 9.2 months for 3DCRT (p = 0.57). Recurrence analysis showed that in-field local relapses occurred in previously underdosed regions of the tumor bed in 16% of patients treated with 3DCRT and in 0% of HCRT patients.

Conclusions

The use of HCRT increases the probability of local control as compared to 3DCRT by improving target volume coverage. HCRT did not improve overall survival in this patient series due to the high rate of distant recurrences.

[Helical tomotherapy in the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma: The impact of low doses on pulmonary and oesophageal toxicity]

PURPOSE

To evaluate the adjuvant treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma by helical tomotherapy and the impact of low doses on esophageal and pulmonary toxicity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between June 2007 and May 2011, 29 patients diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma received adjuvant radiotherapy by helical tomotherapy. The median age was 63 years (34-72). Histologically, 83 % of patients had epithelioid malignant pleural mesothelioma. Clinically, 45 % of patients were T3 and 55 % N0. Eighty six percent of the patients were treated by extrapleural pneumonectomy and 35 % received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with platinum and pemetrexed. The median dose in the pneumonectomy cavity was 50Gy at 2Gy/fraction.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 2.3 years after diagnosis. Overall survival at 1 and 2 years was 65 and 36 % respectively. The median survival from diagnosis was 18 months. Median lung volumes receiving 2, 5, 10, 13, 15 and 20Gy (V2, V5, V10, V13, V15 and V20) were 100, 98, 52, 36, 19 and 5 %. The median of the mean remaining lung dose was 11Gy. Two patients died of pulmonary complications, three patients had grade 3 lung toxicity, while esophageal grade 3-4 toxicity was observed in three other patients. No significant impact of clinical characteristics and dosimetric parameters were found on pulmonary toxicity, however a V10≥50 %, a V15≥15 % and mean lung dose of 10Gy or more had a tendency to be predictive of pulmonary toxicity (P<0.1). Moreover, in our analysis, the mean lung dose seems to have a significant impact on esophageal toxicity (P=0.03) as well as low doses to the controlateral lung: V5, V10 and V13 (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Helical tomotherapy is a promising technique in the multimodality treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Low doses received by the contralateral lung appear to be the limiting factor. A dosimetric comparison with volumetric modulated arctherapy techniques would be interesting in this setting.

Role of new radiation techniques in the treatment of pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive neoplasm arising from the surface serosal cells of the pleural cavity. Surgery remains the main therapeutic standard in the treatment of MPM with the goal of complete gross cytoreduction of the tumor. Because MPM is a diffuse disease affecting the entire mesothelial lining of the hemithorax, surgery alone can rarely achieve adequate tumor-free resection margins. The surgical choices are pleurectomy/decortication (P/D) or extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP). Radiotherapy (RT) is usually applied postoperatively with the aim to improve local control. However, the efficacy of RT is limited by the large volume of the target to be irradiated (tumor and pleural cavity) and the radiosensitivity of the nearby organs (heart, liver, lung, spinal cord, and esophagus). These factors have historically limited the effective radiation doses that can be given to the patient. There is no role for radical RT alone, but the role of RT as part of multimodality therapy is discussed. After EPP adjuvant RT to the entire hemithorax can reduce the recurrence rate and is well tolerated if strict limits to the dose to contralateral lung are applied: the V20 and V5 (the percent volume of the lung receiving more than 20Gy and 5Gy of radiation) correlate with increased lung toxicity. The use of modern sophisticated techniques allows good target coverage, more conformal high dose delivery, and clinically relevant normal tissue sparing.

Patterns of failure, toxicity, and survival after extrapleural pneumonectomy and hemithoracic intensity-modulated radiation therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma

INTRODUCTION

We investigated safety, efficacy, and recurrence after postoperative hemithoracic intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma treated with extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), during the past decade at a single institution.

METHODS

In 2001-2011, 136 consecutive patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma underwent EPP with planned adjuvant IMRT. Eighty-six patients (64%) underwent hemithoracic IMRT; the rest were not eligible because of postoperative complications, disease progression, or poor performance status. We assessed toxicity, survival, and patterns of failure in these 86 patients. Toxicity was scored with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0; survival outcomes were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method; and locoregional patterns of failure were classified as in-field, marginal, or out-of-field. Risk factors related to survival were identified by univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Median overall survival time for all 86 patients receiving IMRT was 14.7 months. Toxicity rates of grade of 3 or more were: skin 17%, lung 12%, heart 2.3%, and gastrointestinal toxicity 16%. Five patients experienced grade 5 pulmonary toxicity. Rates of locoregional recurrence-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were 88%, 55%, and 55% at 1 year and 71%, 40%, and 32% at 2 years. On multivariate analysis, pretreatment forced expiratory volume in 1 second, nonepithelioid histology, and nodal status were associated with distant metastasis-free survival and OS.

CONCLUSION

IMRT after EPP is associated with low rates of locoregional recurrence, though some patients experience life-threatening lung toxicity. Tumor histology and nodal status can be helpful in identifying patients for this aggressive treatment.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma after extrapleural pleuropneumonectomy

Radiotherapy reduces the local relapse rate after pleuropneumonectomy of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). The optimal treatment technique with photons remains undefined. Comparative planning for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) was performed. Six MPM patients with significant postoperative intrathoracic air cavities were planned with IMRT and VMAT. A dose comparison for the targets and organ at risks (OAR) was performed. Robustness was assessed in respect to the variation of target dose with change in volume of air cavities. VMAT reduced the dose to the contralateral lung by reducing the volume covered by 13 Gy and 20 Gy by a factor 1.8 and 2.8, in respect to IMRT (p=0.02). Dose distribution with VMAT was the most stable technique in regard to postsurgical air cavity variation. For IMRT, V90,V95, and the minimal target dose decreased by 40%, 64%, and 12% compared to 29%, 47%, and 7% with VMAT when air cavity decreased. Two arcs compared to one arc decreased the dose to all the organs at risk (OAR) while leaving PTV dose coverage unchanged. Increasing the number of arcs from two to three did not reduce the dose to the OAR further, but increased the beam‐on time by 50%. Using partial arcs decreased the beam‐on time by 43%. VMAT allows a lower lung dose and is less affected by the air cavity variation than IMRT. The best VMAT plans were obtained with two partial arcs. VMAT seems currently the most suitable technique for the treatment of MPM patients when air cavities are remaining and no adaptive radiotherapy is performed.

PACS number: 87.55.D‐

Volumetric modulated arc therapy with flattening filter free (FFF) beams for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with medically inoperable early stage non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with flattening filter free (FFF) beams for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in inoperable stage I NSCLC. Current data were compared against a cohort of patients previously treated with advanced conformal techniques (3DCRT) based on conformal arcs.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From July 2006 to December 2011 132 patients underwent SBRT, 86 by 3DCRT with flattened beams (FF), while the last 46 with VMAT RapidArc and unflattened beams (FFF). All patients were treated with 48 Gy in four fractions of 12 Gy each. Patients underwent follow-up. Clinical outcome was evaluated with thoracic and abdominal CT scan and 18FDG-CTPET before and after treatment.

RESULTS

Both techniques achieved adequate dose conformity to the target but with a statistically significant reduction of ipsilateral lung doses in RapidArc plans and also of Beam-on-Time (BOT) with FFF mode. The median follow up was 16 months (range 2-24 months). At 1 year, local control rate was 100% with FFF beams compared with 92.5% with FF beams (p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT with FFF beams permitted us a safe delivery of high dose per fraction in a short treatment time and resulted in an earlier radiological response compared with FF beams.

Feasibility study of volumetric modulated arc therapy with constant dose rate for endometrial cancer

To investigate the feasibility, efficiency, and delivery accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy with constant dose rate (VMAT-CDR) for whole-pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) of endometrial cancer. The nine-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), VMAT with variable dose-rate (VMAT-VDR), and VMAT-CDR plans were created for 9 patients with endometrial cancer undergoing WPRT. The dose distribution of planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk (OARs), and normal tissue (NT) were compared. The monitor units (MUs) and treatment delivery time were also evaluated. For each VMAT-CDR plan, a dry run was performed to assess the dosimetric accuracy with MatriXX from IBA. Compared with IMRT, the VMAT-CDR plans delivered a slightly greater V20 of the bowel, bladder, pelvis bone, and NT, but significantly decreased the dose to the high-dose region of the rectum and pelvis bone. The MUs decreased from 1105 with IMRT to 628 with VMAT-CDR. The delivery time also decreased from 9.5 to 3.2 minutes. The average gamma pass rate was 95.6% at the 3%/3mm criteria with MatriXX pretreatment verification for 9 patients. VMAT-CDR can achieve comparable plan quality with significant shorter delivery time and smaller number of MUs compared with IMRT for patients with endometrial cancer undergoing WPRT. It can be accurately delivered and be an alternative to IMRT on the linear accelerator without VDR capability.

Is RapidArc more susceptible to delivery uncertainties than dynamic IMRT?

PURPOSE

Rotational IMRT has been adopted by many clinics for its promise to deliver treatments in a shorter amount of time than other conventional IMRT techniques. In this paper, the authors investigate whether RapidArc is more susceptible to delivery uncertainties than dynamic IMRT using fixed fields.

METHODS

Dosimetric effects of delivery uncertainties in dose rate, gantry angle, and MLC leaf positions were evaluated by incorporating these uncertainties into RapidArc and sliding window IMRT (SW IMRT) treatment plans for five head-and-neck and five prostate cases. Dose distributions and dose-volume histograms of original and modified plans were recalculated and compared using Gamma analysis and dose indices of planned treatment volumes (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR). Results of Gamma analyses using passing criteria ranging from 1%-1 mm up to 5%-3 mm were reported.

RESULTS

Systematic shifts in MLC leaf bank positions of SW-IMRT cases resulted in 2-4 times higher average percent differences than RapidArc cases. Uniformly distributed random variations of 2 mm for active MLC leaves had a negligible effect on all dose distributions. Sliding window cases were much more sensitive to systematic shifts in gantry angle. Dose rate variations during RapidArc must be much larger than typical machine tolerances to affect dose distributions significantly; dynamic IMRT is inherently not susceptible to such variations.

CONCLUSIONS

RapidArc deliveries were found to be more tolerant to variations in gantry position and MLC leaf position than SW IMRT. This may be attributed to the fact that the average segmental field size or MLC leaf opening is much larger for RapidArc. Clinically acceptable treatments may be delivered successfully using RapidArc despite large fluctuations in dose rate and gantry position.

Accelerated large volume irradiation with dynamic Jaw/Dynamic Couch Helical Tomotherapy

BACKGROUND

Helical Tomotherapy (HT) has unique capacities for the radiotherapy of large and complicated target volumes. Next generation Dynamic Jaw/Dynamic Couch HT delivery promises faster treatments and reduced exposure of organs at risk due to a reduced dose penumbra.

METHODS

Three challenging clinical situations were chosen for comparison between Regular HT delivery with a field width of 2.5 cm (Reg 2.5) and 5.0 cm (Reg 5.0) and DJDC delivery with a maximum field width of 5.0 cm (DJDC 5.0): Hemithoracic Irradiation, Whole Abdominal Irradiation (WAI) and Total Marrow Irradiation (TMI). For each setting, five CT data sets were chosen, and target coverage, conformity, integral dose, dose exposure of organs at risk (OAR) and treatment time were calculated.

RESULTS

Both Reg 5.0 and DJDC 5.0 achieved a substantial reduction in treatment time while maintaining similar dose coverage. Treatment time could be reduced from 10:57 min to 3:42 min / 5:10 min (Reg 5.0 / DJDC 5.0) for Hemithoracic Irradiation, from 18:03 min to 8:02 min / 8:03 min for WAI and to 18:25 min / 18:03 min for TMI. In Hemithoracic Irradiation, OAR exposure was identical in all modalities. For WAI, Reg 2.5 resulted in lower exposure of liver and bone. DJDC plans showed a small but significant increase of ∼ 1 Gy to the kidneys, the parotid glans and the thyroid gland. While Reg 5.0 and DJDC were identical in terms of OAR exposure, integral dose was substantially lower with DJDC, caused by a smaller dose penumbra.

CONCLUSIONS

Although not clinically available yet, next generation DJDC HT technique is efficient in improving the treatment time while maintaining comparable plan quality.

Automated volumetric modulated Arc therapy treatment planning for stage III lung cancer: how does it compare with intensity-modulated radio therapy?

PURPOSE

To compare the quality of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans generated by an automated inverse planning system with that of dosimetrist-generated IMRT treatment plans for patients with stage III lung cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Two groups of 8 patients with stage III lung cancer were randomly selected. For group 1, the dosimetrists spent their best effort in designing IMRT plans to compete with the automated inverse planning system (mdaccAutoPlan); for group 2, the dosimetrists were not in competition and spent their regular effort. Five experienced radiation oncologists independently blind-reviewed and ranked the three plans for each patient: a rank of 1 was the best and 3 was the worst. Dosimetric measures were also performed to quantitatively evaluate the three types of plans.

RESULTS

Blind rankings from different oncologists were generally consistent. For group 1, the auto-VMAT, auto-IMRT, and manual IMRT plans received average ranks of 1.6, 2.13, and 2.18, respectively. The auto-VMAT plans in group 1 had 10% higher planning tumor volume (PTV) conformality and 24% lower esophagus V70 (the volume receiving 70 Gy or more) than the manual IMRT plans; they also resulted in more than 20% higher complication-free tumor control probability (P+) than either type of IMRT plans. The auto- and manual IMRT plans in this group yielded generally comparable dosimetric measures. For group 2, the auto-VMAT, auto-IMRT, and manual IMRT plans received average ranks of 1.55, 1.75, and 2.75, respectively. Compared to the manual IMRT plans in this group, the auto-VMAT plans and auto-IMRT plans showed, respectively, 17% and 14% higher PTV dose conformality, 8% and 17% lower mean lung dose, 17% and 26% lower mean heart dose, and 36% and 23% higher P+.

CONCLUSIONS

mdaccAutoPlan is capable of generating high-quality VMAT and IMRT treatment plans for stage III lung cancer. Manual IMRT plans could achieve quality similar to auto-IMRT plans if best effort was spent.

[Is volumetric modulated arctherapy the final evolution of conformal radiotherapy?]

Technology development in radiotherapy has improved significantly during the last decade. The rapid evolution of 3D radiotherapy to intensity-modulated radiotherapy was possible thanks to inverse planning systems. Intensity modulated radiotherapy improved in its turn by possibilities of volumetric irradiation during a single rotation, reducing therefore the overall treatment. This article presents the technical parameters of this volumetric irradiation technique and a review of miscellaneous clinical indications.

A comprehensive comparison of IMRT and VMAT plan quality for prostate cancer treatment

PURPOSE

We performed a comprehensive comparative study of the plan quality between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the treatment of prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eleven patients with prostate cancer treated at our institution were randomly selected for this study. For each patient, a VMAT plan and a series of IMRT plans using an increasing number of beams (8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 beams) were examined. All plans were generated using our in-house-developed automatic inverse planning (AIP) algorithm. An existing eight-beam clinical IMRT plan, which was used to treat the patient, was used as the reference plan. For each patient, all AIP-generated plans were optimized to achieve the same level of planning target volume (PTV) coverage as the reference plan. Plan quality was evaluated by measuring mean dose to and dose-volume statistics of the organs at risk, especially the rectum, from each type of plan.

RESULTS

For the same PTV coverage, the AIP-generated VMAT plans had significantly better plan quality in terms of rectum sparing than the eight-beam clinical and AIP-generated IMRT plans (p < 0.0001). However, the differences between the IMRT and VMAT plans in all the dosimetric indices decreased as the number of beams used in IMRT increased. IMRT plan quality was similar or superior to that of VMAT when the number of beams in IMRT was increased to a certain number, which ranged from 12 to 24 for the set of patients studied. The superior VMAT plan quality resulted in approximately 30% more monitor units than the eight-beam IMRT plans, but the delivery time was still less than 3 min.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the superior plan quality as well as the delivery efficiency of VMAT compared with that of IMRT, VMAT may be the preferred modality for treating prostate cancer.

Comparison of total MU and segment areas in VMAT and step-and-shoot IMRT plans

We compared treatment plans for volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in terms of their monitor unit (MU) and segment area at each control point to investigate the difference between the two methods. We investigated three sites: prostate (three cases), head and neck (three cases), and pleura (two cases). We used the total MU and the MU weighted average of segment area (MWSA) in each plan to compare VMAT and IMRT plans. VMAT plans tended to have a larger MWSA and a lower total MU than did IMRT plans in all sites, although there was little difference between dose indices in either irradiation technique. We conclude that VMAT is a better treatment technique due to its higher MU efficiency caused by the larger segment area.

Can volumetric modulated arc therapy with flattening filter free beams play a role in stereotactic body radiotherapy for liver lesions? A volume-based analysis

PURPOSE

To compare volumetric modulated arc therapy with flattening filter free (FFF) and flattening filter (FF) beams in patients with hepatic metastases subject to hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT).

METHODS

A planning study on 13 virtual lesions of increasing volume was performed. Two single arc plans were optimized with the RapidArc technique using either FFF or FF beams. A second planning study was performed on ten patients treated for liver metastases to validate conclusions. In all cases, a dose of 75 Gy in 3 fractions was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV) and plans were evaluated in terms of coverage, homogeneity, conformity, mean dose to healthy liver and to healthy tissue. For each parameter, results were expressed in relative terms as the percentage ratio between FFF and FF data.

RESULTS

In terms of PTV coverage, conformity index favored FFF for targets of intermediate size while FF resulted more suitable for small (<100 cm(3)) and large (>300 cm(3)) targets. Plans optimized with FFF beams resulted in increased sparing of healthy tissue in ≈85% of cases. Despite the qualitative results, no statistically significant differences were found between FFF and FF results. Plans optimized with un-flattened beams resulted in higher average MU∕Gy than plans with FF beams. A remarkable and significant difference was observed in the beam-on time (BOT) needed to deliver plans. The BOT for FF plans was 8.2 ± 1.0 min; for FFF plans BOT was 2.2 ± 0.2 min.

CONCLUSIONS

RapidArc plans optimized using FFF were dosimetrically equivalent to those optimized using FF beams, showing the feasibility of SBRT treatments with FFF beams. Some improvement in healthy tissue sparing was observed when using the FFF modality due to the different beam's profile. The main advantage was a considerable reduction of beam-on time, relevant for SBRT techniques.

Hemithoracic intensity-modulated radiotherapy using helical tomotherapy for patients after extrapleural pneumonectomy for malignant pleural mesothelioma

Postoperative hemithoracic irradiation is regarded as an important part of the curative treatment for resectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Because the clinical target volume in postoperative MPM is irregular and surrounded by dose-limiting critical structures, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is thought to be suitable. However, postoperative hemithoracic IMRT remains experimental due to a high incidence of fatal pneumonitis. Therefore, a Phase I dose escalation study for hemithoracic IMRT using helical tomotherapy was planned, and the results of the first three patients are herein reported because this technique may provide benefits to such patients. For 3 patients with postoperative MPM, who were treated by extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), a radiation dose of 45.0 Gy in 25 fractions was given to cover 95% of the PTV. The lung V5s of the three patients were 14.3%, 10.0%, and 31.3%, respectively. The V5s of the present plans was smaller than that of the recent IMRT planning studies. The lung V20s of these patients were 2.4%, 2.2%, and 4.3%, respectively. Their MLDs were 4.3 Gy, 3.4 Gy, and 5.8 Gy, respectively. The follow-up periods of the patients were 26, 14 and 9 months from initiation of IMRT, respectively. All patients were alive, although local and contralateral recurrences had developed in 1 patient. Only 1 patient had Grade 2 acute esophagitis and nausea. There was no treatment-related pneumonitis. Hemithoracic IMRT using helical tomotherapy may play a crucial role in adjuvant treatment for MPM after EPP.

Adjuvant intensity-modulated proton therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma. A comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and a spot size variation assessment

PURPOSE

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is the state-of-the-art treatment for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). The goal of this work was to assess whether intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) could further improve the dosimetric results allowed by IMRT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We re-planned 7 MPM cases using both photons and protons, by carrying out IMRT and IMPT plans. For both techniques, conventional dose comparisons and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) analysis were performed. In 3 cases, additional IMPT plans were generated with different beam dimensions.

RESULTS

IMPT allowed a slight improvement in target coverage and clear advantages in dose conformity (p < 0.001) and dose homogeneity (p = 0.01). Better organ at risk (OAR) sparing was obtained with IMPT, in particular for the liver (D(mean) reduction of 9.5 Gy, p = 0.001) and ipsilateral kidney (V(20) reduction of 58%, p = 0.001), together with a very large reduction of mean dose for the contralateral lung (0.2 Gy vs 6.1 Gy, p = 0.0001). NTCP values for the liver showed a systematic superiority of IMPT with respect to IMRT for both the esophagus (average NTCP 14% vs. 30.5%) and the ipsilateral kidney (p = 0.001). Concerning plans obtained with different spot dimensions, a slight loss of target coverage was observed along with sigma increase, while maintaining OAR irradiation always under planning constraints.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that IMPT allows better OAR sparing with respect to IMRT, mainly for the liver, ipsilateral kidney, and contralateral lung. The use of a spot dimension larger than 3 × 3 mm (up to 9 × 9 mm) does not compromise dosimetric results and allows a shorter delivery time.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver tumours using flattening filter free beam: dosimetric and technical considerations

Purpose

To report the initial institute experience in terms of dosimetric and technical aspects in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) delivered using flattening filter free (FFF) beam in patients with liver lesions.

Methods and Materials

From October 2010 to September 2011, 55 consecutive patients with 73 primary or metastatic hepatic lesions were treated with SBRT on TrueBeam using FFF beam and RapidArc technique. Clinical target volume (CTV) was defined on multi-phase CT scans, PET/CT, MRI, and 4D-CT. Dose prescription was 75 Gy in 3 fractions to planning target volume (PTV). Constraints for organs at risk were: 700 cc of liver free from the 15 Gy isodose, D_max < 21 Gy for stomach and duodenum, D_max < 30 Gy for heart, D_{0.1 cc} < 18 Gy for spinal cord, V_{15 Gy} < 35% for kidneys. The dose was downscaled in cases of not full achievement of dose constraints. Daily cone beam CT (CBCT) was performed.

Results

Forty-three patients with a single lesion, nine with two lesions and three with three lesions were treated with this protocol. Target and organs at risk objectives were met for all patients. Mean delivery time was 2.8 ± 1.0 min. Pre-treatment plan verification resulted in a Gamma Agreement Index of 98.6 ± 0.8%. Mean on-line co-registration shift of the daily CBCT to the simulation CT were: -0.08, 0.05 and -0.02 cm with standard deviations of 0.33, 0.39 and 0.55 cm in, vertical, longitudinal and lateral directions respectively.

Conclusions

SBRT for liver targets delivered by means of FFF resulted to be feasible with short beam on time.

Medical treatment of mesothelioma: anything new?

In the present report, we review the current standard and investigational treatments of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Several studies have reported the use of gemcitabine and cisplatin as an induction chemotherapy in combination with extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and thoracic radiation in a combined-modality approach for resectable MPM. Since the combination of cisplatin with pemetrexed was applied as the standard first-line regimen for unresectable MPM, the combination as an induction chemotherapy regimen has been proven effective in phase 2 trials. In addition, intensity-modulated radiation therapy and proton therapy have been introduced as new radiation methods into the combined modality. Hyperthermic intraoperative chemotherapy following EPP appears effective with acceptable toxicity. In addition, clinical studies that include molecular targeting agents, immunotherapy, and gene therapy have all been conducted. Thus, although there are numerous hopeful treatments for MPM, the benefits of these regimens remain to be proven in a randomized clinical setting.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a review of current literature and clinical use in practice

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a novel radiation technique, which can achieve highly conformal dose distributions with improved target volume coverage and sparing of normal tissues compared with conventional radiotherapy techniques. VMAT also has the potential to offer additional advantages, such as reduced treatment delivery time compared with conventional static field intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The clinical worldwide use of VMAT is increasing significantly. Currently the majority of published data on VMAT are limited to planning and feasibility studies, although there is emerging clinical outcome data in several tumour sites. This article aims to discuss the current use of VMAT techniques in practice and review the available data from planning and clinical outcome studies in various tumour sites including prostate, pelvis (lower gastrointestinal, gynaecological), head and neck, thoracic, central nervous system, breast and other tumour sites.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy after extrapleural pneumonectomy in the combined-modality treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma

INTRODUCTION

Local therapy is becoming increasingly important as a part of the definitive treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma after extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) because of the emergence of trimodality therapy consisted of chemotherapy, EPP, and adjuvant radiotherapy. Herein, we explore the current evidence and indications for adjuvant intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), as well as how to further improve this technique and adapt new technology in the delivering adjuvant radiotherapy in the setting of trimodality therapy.

METHODS

A systematic review of relevant studies identified through PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge (Web of Science), the Cochrane Library, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse search engines was performed.

RESULTS

Local control remains poor despite the inclusion of conventional adjuvant radiation therapy in trimodality therapy. This can be improved by the delivery of adjuvant IMRT. However, IMRT can be associated with severe pulmonary toxicity if the radiation dose to the remaining lung is not kept to a very low level. This is especially true when patients are receiving chemotherapy. New advances in technology can allow for lower doses to the contralateral lung, decreased treatment delivery time, and improved target dose coverage.

CONCLUSION

Excellent local control can be achieved through adjuvant IMRT after EPP for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Severe pulmonary toxicity may be avoided by setting stringent dose constraints for the contralateral lung. This can be aided by the advances in technology. Post-treatment surveillance may be reliably conducted by periodical [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography imaging.

Bilateral kidney preservation by volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) compared to conventional radiation therapy (3D-CRT) in pancreatic and bile duct malignancies

Background

To compare volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans with conventional radiation therapy (3D-CRT) plans in pancreatic and bile duct cancers, especially for bilateral kidney preservation.

Methods

A dosimetric analysis was performed in 21 patients who had undergone radiotherapy for pancreatic or bile duct carcinoma at our institution. We compared 4-field 3D-CRT and 2 arcs RapidArc (RA) plans. The treatment plan was designed to deliver a dose of 50.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) based on the gross disease in a 1.8 Gy daily fraction, 5 days a week. Planning objectives were 95% of the PTV receiving 95% of the prescribed dose and no more than 2% of the PTV receiving more than 107%. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for the target volume and the organs at risk (right and left kidneys, bowel tract, liver and healthy tissue) were compared. Monitor units and delivery treatment time were also reported.

Results

All plans achieved objectives, with 95% of the PTV receiving ≥ 95% of the dose (D95% for 3D-CRT = 48.9 Gy and for RA = 48.6 Gy). RapidArc was shown to be superior to 3D-CRT in terms of organ at risk sparing except for contralateral kidney: for bowel tract, the mean dose was reduced by RA compared to 3D-CRT (16.7 vs 20.8 Gy, p = 0.0001). Similar result was observed for homolateral kidney (mean dose of 4.7 Gy for RA vs 12.6 Gy for 3D-CRT, p < 0.0001), but 3D-CRT significantly reduced controlateral kidney dose with a mean dose of 1.8 Gy vs 3.9 Gy, p < 0.0007. Compared to 3D-CRT, mean MUs for each fraction was significantly increased with RapidArc: 207 vs 589, (p < 0.0001) but the treatment time was not significantly different (2 and 2.66 minutes, p = ns).

Conclusion

RapidArc allows significant dose reduction, in particular for homolateral kidney and bowel, while maintaining target coverage. This would have a promising impact on reducing toxicities.