Using Robust Optimization for Skin Flashing in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer Treatment: A Feasibility Study

An IMRT planning technique for treating whole breast or chest wall with regional lymph nodes on Halcyon and Ethos

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE

Field size limitations on Halcyon and Ethos treatment machines largely preclude use of the conventional monoisocentric three-field technique for breast/chest wall and regional lymph nodes. We present an alternative, IMRT-based planning approach that facilitates treatment on Halcyon and Ethos while preserving plan quality.

MATERIALS/METHODS

Eight breast and regional node cases (four left-sided, four right-sided) were planned for an Ethos machine using a 15-17 field IMRT technique. Institutional plan quality metrics for CTV and PTV coverage and OAR sparing were assessed. Five plans (four right-sided, one left-sided) were also planned using a hybrid 3D multisocenter technique. CTV coverage and OAR sparing were compared to the IMRT plans. Eclipse scripting tools were developed to aid in beam placement and plan evaluation through a set of dosimetric scorecards, and both are shared publicly.

RESULTS

On average, the IMRT plans achieved breast CTV and PTV coverage at 50 Gy of 97.9% and 95.7%, respectively. Supraclavicular CTV and PTV coverages at 45 Gy were 100% and 95.5%. Axillary lymph node CTV and PTV coverages at 45 Gy were 100% and 97.1%, and IMN CTV coverage at 45 Gy was 99.2%. Mean ipsilateral lung V20 Gy was 19.3%, and average mean heart dose was 1.6 Gy for right-sided cases and 3.0 Gy for left-sided. In comparison to the hybrid 3D plans, IMRT plans achieved higher breast and supraclavicular CTV coverage (99.9% vs. 98.6% and 99.9% vs. 93.4%), higher IMN coverage (99.6% vs. 78.2%), and lower ipsilateral lung V20 Gy (19.6% vs. 28.2%).

CONCLUSION

Institutional plan quality benchmarks were achieved for all eight cases using the IMRT-based planning approach. The IMRT-based planning approach offered superior conformity and OAR sparing than a competing hybrid 3D approach.

Quality assurance in a phase III, multicenter, randomized trial of POstmastectomy radioThErapy in Node posiTive breast cancer with or without Internal mAmmary nodaL irradiation (POTENTIAL): a planning benchmark case

PURPOSE

To report the planning benchmark case results of the POTENTIAL trial-a multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial-to evaluate the value of internal mammary nodal (IMN) irradiation for patients with high-risk breast cancer.

METHODS

All participating institutions were provided the outlines of one benchmark case, and they generated radiation therapy plans per protocol. The plans were evaluated by a quality assurance team, after which the institutions resubmitted their revised plans. The information on beams arrangement, skin flash, inhomogeneity corrections, and protocol compliance was assessed in the first and final submission.

RESULTS

The plans from 26 institutions were analyzed. Some major deviations were found in the first submission. The protocol compliance rates of dose coverage for the planning target volume of chest wall, supraclavicular fossa plus axilla, and IMN region (PTVim) were all significantly improved in the final submission, which were 96.2% vs. 69.2%, 100% vs. 76.9%, and 88.4% vs. 53.8%, respectively. For OARs, the compliance rates of heart Dmean, left anterior descending coronary artery V40Gy, ipsilateral lung V5Gy, and stomach V5Gy were significantly improved. In the first and final submission, the mean values of PTVim V100% were 79.9% vs. 92.7%; the mean values of heart Dmean were 11.5 Gy vs. 9.7 Gy for hypofractionated radiation therapy and 11.5 Gy vs. 11.0 Gy for conventional fractionated radiation therapy, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The major deviations were corrected and protocol compliance was significantly improved after revision, which highlighted the importance of planning benchmark case to guarantee the planning quality for multicenter trials.

Comparative Study of Plan Robustness for Breast Radiotherapy: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans with Robust Optimization versus Manual Flash Approach

A previous study investigated robustness of manual flash (MF) and robust optimized (RO) volumetric modulated arc therapy plans for breast radiotherapy based on five patients in 2020 and indicated that the RO was more robust than the MF, although the MF is still current standard practice. The purpose of this study was to compare their plan robustness in terms of dose variation to clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) based on a larger sample size. This was a retrospective study involving 34 female patients. Their plan robustness was evaluated based on measured volume/dose difference between nominal and worst scenarios (ΔV/ΔD) for each CTV and OARs parameter, with a smaller difference representing greater robustness. Paired sample t-test was used to compare their robustness values. All parameters (except CTV ΔD98%) of the RO approach had smaller ΔV/ΔD values than those of the MF. Also, the RO approach had statistically significantly smaller ΔV/ΔD values (p < 0.001-0.012) for all CTV parameters except the CTV ΔV95% and ΔD98% and heart ΔDmean. This study's results confirm that the RO approach was more robust than the MF in general. Although both techniques were able to generate clinically acceptable plans for breast radiotherapy, the RO could potentially improve workflow efficiency due to its simpler planning process.

Robustness of hypofractionated breast radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery with free breathing

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the robustness with respect to the positional variations of five planning strategies in free-breathing breast hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) for patients after breast-conserving surgery.

Methods

Twenty patients who received breast HFRT with 42.72 Gy in 16 fractions were retrospectively analyzed. Five treatment planning strategies were utilized for each patient, including 1) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning (IMRTpure); 2) IMRT planning with skin flash tool extending and filling the fluence outside the skin by 2 cm (IMRTflash); 3) IMRT planning with planning target volume (PTV) extended outside the skin by 2 cm in the computed tomography dataset (IMRTePTV); 4) hybrid planning, i.e., 2 Gy/fraction three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy combined with 0.67 Gy/fraction IMRT (IMRThybrid); and 5) hybrid planning with skin flash (IMRThybrid-flash). All plans were normalized to 95% PTV receiving 100% of the prescription dose. Six additional plans were created with different isocenter shifts for each plan, which were 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm, 7 mm, and 10 mm distally in the X (left-right) and Y (anterior-posterior) directions, namely, (X,Y), to assess their robustness, and the corresponding doses were recalculated. Variation of dosimetric parameters with increasing isocenter shift was evaluated.

Results

All plans were clinically acceptable. In terms of robustness to isocenter shifts, the five planning strategies followed the pattern IMRTePTV, IMRThybrid-flash, IMRTflash, IMRThybrid, and IMRTpure in descending order. V 95% of IMRTePTV maintained at 99.6% ± 0.3% with a (5,5) shift, which further reduced to 98.2% ± 2.0% with a (10,10) shift. IMRThybrid-flash yielded the robustness second to IMRTePTV with less risk from dose hotspots, and the corresponding V 95% maintained >95% up until (5,5).

Conclusion

Considering the dosimetric distribution and robustness in breast radiotherapy, IMRTePTV performed best at maintaining high target coverage with increasing isocenter shift, while IMRThybrid-flash would be adequate with positional uncertainty<5 mm.

Combined proton-photon treatment for breast cancer

Objective.Proton therapy remains a limited resource due to gantry size and its cost. Recently, a new design without a gantry has been suggested. It may enable combined proton-photon therapy (CPPT) in conventional bunkers and allow the widespread use of protons. In this work, we explore this concept for breast cancer.Methods.The treatment room consists of a LINAC for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), a fixed proton beamline (FBL) with beam scanning and a motorized couch for treatments in lying positions with accurate patient setup. Thereby, proton and photon beams are delivered in the same fraction. Treatment planning is performed by simultaneously optimizing IMRT and IMPT plans based on the cumulative dose. The concept is investigated for three breast cancers where the goal is to minimize mean dose to the heart and lung while delivering 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions to the PTV with a SIB of 48 Gy to the tumor bed. The probabilistic approach is applied to mitigate the sensitivity to range uncertainties.Results. CPPT is particularly advantageous for irradiating concave target volumes that wrap around a curved chest wall. There, protons may deliver dose to the peripheral and medial parts of the target volume including lymph nodes. Thereby, the mean dose in normal tissues is reduced compared to single-modality IMRT. However, tangential photon beams may treat parts of the target volume near the interface to the lung. To ensure target coverage for range undershoot in an IMPT plan, proton beams have to deliberately overshoot into the lung tissue-a problem that can be mitigated via the photon component which ensures plan conformity and robustness.Conclusion.CPPT using an FBL may represent a realistic approach to make protons available to more patients. In addition, CPPT may generally improve treatment quality compared to both single-modality proton and photon treatments.

Time of PTV is ending, robust optimization comes next

Continuous improvements have been made in the way to prescribe, record and report dose distributions since the therapeutic use of ionizing radiations. The international commission for radiation units and measurement (ICRU) has provided a common language for physicians and physicists to plan and evaluate their treatments. The PTV concept has been used for more than two decades but is becoming obsolete as the CTV-to-PTV margin creates a static dose cloud that does not properly recapitulate all planning vs. delivery uncertainties. The robust optimization concept has recently emerged to overcome the limitations of the PTV concept. This concept is integrated in the inverse planning process and minimizes deviations to planned dose distribution through integration of uncertainties in the planning objectives. It appears critical to account for the uncertainties that are specific to protons and should be accounted for to better exploit the clinical potential of proton therapy. It may also improve treatment quality particularly in hypofractionated photon plans of mobile tumors and more widely to photon radiotherapy. However, in contrast to the PTV concept, a posteriori evaluation of plan quality, called robust evaluation, using error-based scenarios is still warranted. Robust optimization metrics are warranted. These metrics are necessary to compare PTV-based photon and robustly optimized proton plans in general and in model-based NTCP approaches. Assessment of computational demand and approximations of robust optimization algorithms along with metrics to evaluate plan quality are needed but a step further to better prescribe radiotherapy may has been achieved.