1
|
Pokhrel D, Misa J, McCarthy S, Yang ES. Two novel stereotactic radiotherapy methods for locally advanced, previously irradiated head and neck cancers patients. Med Dosim 2023; 49:114-120. [PMID: 37867087 DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2023.09.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2023] [Revised: 09/08/2023] [Accepted: 09/22/2023] [Indexed: 10/24/2023]
Abstract
To determine the feasibility and utility of conebeam CT-guided stereotactic radiotherapy for locally recurrent, previously irradiated head and neck cancer (HNC) patients on the Halcyon, a ring delivery system (RDS). This research aims to quantify plan quality, treatment delivery accuracy, and overall efficacy by comparing against novel clinical TrueBeam HyperArc method. Ten recurrent HNC patients who were treated at our institution on TrueBeam (6MV-FFF) for 30 to 40 Gy in 3 to 5 fractions with noncoplanar HyperArc plans were re-planned on Halcyon (6MV-FFF). These plans were re-planned with the same Acuros-based dose engine. Additionally, we used site-specific full/partial coplanar VMAT arcs. PTV coverage, mean dose to GTV, maximum dose to organs-at-risk (OAR), beam-on time (BOT), and quality assurance (QA) results were investigated and compared. Halcyon provided highly conformal HNC SRT plans with slightly superior mean PTVD99 coverage (96.7% vs 95.5%, p = 0.071), and slightly lower mean GTV dose (37.8 Gy vs 38.2 Gy, p = 0.241) when compared to the HyperArc plans. Differences in plan conformality and maximum dose to OARs were statistically insignificant. Due to Halcyon's coplanar geometry, D2cm was significantly higher (p = 0.001) but Halcyon did result in a reduced normal brain dose by 1 Gy on average and up to 5.2 Gy in some cases. Halcyon provided similar patient-specific QA pass rates with a 2%/2mm gamma criteria (98.2% vs 98.5%) and independent in-house Monte Carlo second check results (97.7% vs 98.2%), suggesting identical treatment delivery accuracy. Halcyon plans resulted in slightly longer beam-on time (3.16 vs 2.30 minutes, p = 0.010), however door-to-door patient time is expected to be <10 minutes. Compared to clinical TrueBeam HyperArc, Halcyon SRT plans provided similar plan quality and treatment delivery accuracy with a potentially faster overall treatment using fully automated patient setup and verification. Rapid delivery of recurrent HNC SRT may reduce intrafraction motion errors while also improving patient compliance and comfort. To provide high-quality of HNC SRT similar to HyperArc, we recommend Halcyon users consider commissioning this novel method. This method will be useful for remote and underserved patient cohorts including Halcyon-only clinics as well.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Damodar Pokhrel
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Medical Physics Graduate Program, Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY 40536, USA.
| | - Josh Misa
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Medical Physics Graduate Program, Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY 40536, USA
| | - Shane McCarthy
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Medical Physics Graduate Program, Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY 40536, USA
| | - Eddy S Yang
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Medical Physics Graduate Program, Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY 40536, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ward MC, Koyfman SA, Bakst RL, Margalit DN, Beadle BM, Beitler JJ, Chang SSW, Cooper JS, Galloway TJ, Ridge JA, Robbins JR, Sacco AG, Tsai CJ, Yom SS, Siddiqui F. Retreatment of Recurrent or Second Primary Head and Neck Cancer After Prior Radiation: Executive Summary of the American Radium Society® (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC): Expert Panel on Radiation Oncology - Head and Neck Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 113:759-786. [PMID: 35398456 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.03.034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2021] [Revised: 02/16/2022] [Accepted: 03/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Re-treatment of recurrent or second primary head and neck cancers occurring in a previously irradiated field is complex. Few guidelines exist to support practice. METHODS We performed an updated literature search of peer-reviewed journals in a systematic fashion. Search terms, key questions, and associated clinical case variants were formed by panel consensus. The literature search informed the committee during a blinded vote on the appropriateness of treatment options via the modified Delphi method. RESULTS The final number of citations retained for review was 274. These informed five key questions, which focused on patient selection, adjuvant re-irradiation, definitive re-irradiation, stereotactic body radiation (SBRT), and re-irradiation to treat non-squamous cancer. Results of the consensus voting are presented along with discussion of the most current evidence. CONCLUSIONS This provides updated evidence-based recommendations and guidelines for the re-treatment of recurrent or second primary cancer of the head and neck.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew C Ward
- Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina; Southeast Radiation Oncology Group, Charlotte, North Carolina.
| | | | | | - Danielle N Margalit
- Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Beth M Beadle
- Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | | | | | | | | | - John A Ridge
- Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Jared R Robbins
- University of Arizona College of Medicine Tucson, Tucson, Arizona
| | - Assuntina G Sacco
- University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, California
| | - C Jillian Tsai
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Sue S Yom
- University of California, San Francisco, California
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Pokhrel D, Bernard ME, Johnson J, Fabian D, Kudrimoti M. HyperArc VMAT stereotactic radiotherapy for locally recurrent previously‐irradiated head and neck cancers: Plan quality, treatment delivery accuracy, and efficiency. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2022; 23:e13561. [PMID: 35253992 PMCID: PMC9121031 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13561] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2021] [Revised: 01/20/2022] [Accepted: 02/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Materials/Methods Results Conclusion
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Damodar Pokhrel
- Medical Physics Graduate Program Department of Radiation Medicine University of Kentucky Lexington Kentucky USA
| | - Mark E Bernard
- Medical Physics Graduate Program Department of Radiation Medicine University of Kentucky Lexington Kentucky USA
| | - Jeremiah Johnson
- Medical Physics Graduate Program Department of Radiation Medicine University of Kentucky Lexington Kentucky USA
| | - Denise Fabian
- Medical Physics Graduate Program Department of Radiation Medicine University of Kentucky Lexington Kentucky USA
| | - Mahesh Kudrimoti
- Medical Physics Graduate Program Department of Radiation Medicine University of Kentucky Lexington Kentucky USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pérez P, Torres PR, Bruna A, Brunetto M, Aon E, Franco D, Mattea F, Figueroa R, Santibáñez M, Valente M. Fricke gel xylenol orange dosimeter layers for stereotactic radiosurgery: A preliminary approach. Appl Radiat Isot 2021; 178:109936. [PMID: 34592691 DOI: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2021.109936] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2021] [Revised: 08/31/2021] [Accepted: 09/01/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Investigations regarding the feasibility, reliability, and accuracy of Fricke gel dosimeter layers for stereotactic radiosurgery are presented. A representative radiosurgery plan consisting of two targets has been investigated. Absorbed dose distributions measured using radiochromic films and gelatin Fricke Gel dosimetry in layers have been compared with dose distributions calculated by using a treatment planning system and Monte Carlo simulations. The different dose distributions have been compared by means of the gamma index demonstrating that gelatin Fricke gel dosimeter layers showed agreements of 100%, 100%, and 93%, with dose and distance tolerances of 2% and 2 mm, with respect to film dosimetry, treatment planning system and Monte Carlo simulations, respectively. The capability of the developed system for three-dimensional dose mapping was shown, obtaining promising results when compared with well-established dosimetry methods. The obtained results support the viability of Fricke gel dosimeter layers analyzed by optical methods for stereotactic radiosurgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Pérez
- Laboratorio de Investigación e Instrumentación en Física Aplicada a la Medicina e Imágenes de Rayos X (LIIFAMIR(x)), Facultad de Matemática, Astronomía, Física y Computación, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina; Instituto de Física Enrique Gaviola (IFEG), CONICET, Córdoba, Argentina.
| | - P Rico Torres
- Laboratorio de Investigación e Instrumentación en Física Aplicada a la Medicina e Imágenes de Rayos X (LIIFAMIR(x)), Facultad de Matemática, Astronomía, Física y Computación, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina; Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Venezuela
| | - A Bruna
- FiMe - Física Médica SRL, Argentina
| | - M Brunetto
- Centro Médico Privado Deán Funes, Córdoba, Argentina
| | - E Aon
- Centro Médico Privado Deán Funes, Córdoba, Argentina
| | - D Franco
- Centro Médico Privado Deán Funes, Córdoba, Argentina
| | - F Mattea
- Laboratorio de Investigación e Instrumentación en Física Aplicada a la Medicina e Imágenes de Rayos X (LIIFAMIR(x)), Facultad de Matemática, Astronomía, Física y Computación, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina; Departamento de Química Orgánica, Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina; Instituto de Investigación y Desarrollo en Ingeniería de Procesos y Química Aplicada (IPQA), CONICET, Córdoba, Argentina
| | - R Figueroa
- Centro de excelencia de Física e Ingeniería en Salud (CFIS), Universidad de la Frontera, Temuco, Chile; Departamento de Ciencias Físicas, Universidad de la Frontera, Temuco, Chile
| | - M Santibáñez
- Departamento de Ciencias Físicas, Universidad de la Frontera, Temuco, Chile
| | - M Valente
- Laboratorio de Investigación e Instrumentación en Física Aplicada a la Medicina e Imágenes de Rayos X (LIIFAMIR(x)), Facultad de Matemática, Astronomía, Física y Computación, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina; Instituto de Física Enrique Gaviola (IFEG), CONICET, Córdoba, Argentina; Centro de excelencia de Física e Ingeniería en Salud (CFIS), Universidad de la Frontera, Temuco, Chile; Departamento de Ciencias Físicas, Universidad de la Frontera, Temuco, Chile.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Menon SV, Paramu R, Bhasi S, Gopalakrishnan Z, Bhaskaran S, Nair RK. Dosimetric comparison of iPlan Ⓡ Pencil Beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms in stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) plans of intracranial arteriovenous malformations. Med Dosim 2020; 45:225-234. [PMID: 32001069 DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2019.12.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2019] [Revised: 11/11/2019] [Accepted: 12/11/2019] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
Stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) is a hypofractionated treatment where accurate dose calculation is of prime importance. The accuracy of the dose calculation depends on the treatment planning algorithm. This study is a retrospective dosimetric comparison of iPlanⓇ Monte Carlo (MC) and Pencil Beam (PB) algorithms in SRS/SRT plans of cranial arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). PB plans of 60 AVM patients who were already treated using 6 MV photons from a linear accelerator were selected and divided into 2 groups. Group-I consists of 30 patients who have undergone embolization procedure with high density OnyxⓇ prior to radiosurgery whereas Group-II had 30 patients who did not have embolization. These plans were recalculated with MC algorithm while keeping parameters like beam orientation, multileaf collimator (MLC) positions, MLC margin, prescription dose, and monitor units constant. Several treatment coverage parameters, isodose volumes, plan quality metrics, dose to organs at risk, and integral dose were used for comparing the 2 algorithms. The isodose distribution generated by the 2 algorithms was also compared with gamma analysis using 1%/1 mm criterion. The difference between the 2 groups as well as the differences in dose calculation by PB and MC algorithms were tested for significance using independent t-test and paired t-test respectively at 5% level of significance. The results of the independent t-test showed that there is no significant difference between the Group-I and Group-II patients for PB as well as MC algorithm due to the presence of high density embolization material. However, results of the paired t-test showed that the differences between the PB and MC algorithms were significant for several parameters analyzed in both groups of patients. The gamma analysis results also showed differences in the dose calculated by the 2 algorithms especially in the low dose regions. The significant differences between the 2 algorithms are probably due to the incorrect representation of the loss of lateral charged particle equilibrium and lateral broadening of small photon beams by PB algorithm. MC algorithms are generally considered not essential for dose calculations for target volumes located in the brain. This study demonstrates PB algorithm may not be sufficiently accurate to predict dose distributions for small fields where there is loss of LCPE. The lateral broadening due to the loss of LCPE as predicted by the MC algorithm could be the main reason for significant differences in the parameters compared. Hence, an accurate MC algorithm if available may prove valuable for intracranial SRS treatment planning of such benign lesions where the long life expectancy of patients makes accurate dosimetry critical.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sharika Venugopal Menon
- Division of Radiation Physics, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695011, India.
| | - Raghukumar Paramu
- Division of Radiation Physics, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695011, India
| | - Saju Bhasi
- Division of Radiation Physics, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695011, India
| | - Zhenia Gopalakrishnan
- Division of Radiation Physics, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695011, India
| | - Sarin Bhaskaran
- Division of Radiation Physics, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695011, India
| | - Raghuram Kesavan Nair
- Division of Radiation Physics, Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695011, India
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Schreuder AN, Bridges DS, Rigsby L, Blakey M, Janson M, Hedrick SG, Wilkinson JB. Validation of the RayStation Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm using a realistic lung phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2019; 20:127-137. [PMID: 31763759 PMCID: PMC6909115 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12777] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2019] [Revised: 10/10/2019] [Accepted: 10/17/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Our purposes are to compare the accuracy of RaySearch's analytical pencil beam (APB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms for clinical proton therapy and to present clinical validation data using a novel animal tissue lung phantom. METHODS We constructed a realistic lung phantom composed of a rack of lamb resting on a stack of rectangular natural cork slabs simulating lung tissue. The tumor was simulated using 70% lean ground lamb meat inserted in a spherical hole with diameter 40 ± 5 mm carved into the cork slabs. A single-field plan using an anterior beam and a two-field plan using two anterior-oblique beams were delivered to the phantom. Ion chamber array measurements were taken medial and distal to the tumor. Measured doses were compared with calculated RayStation APB and MC calculated doses. RESULTS Our lung phantom enabled measurements with the MatriXX PT at multiple depths in the phantom. Using the MC calculations, the 3%/3 mm gamma index pass rates, comparing measured with calculated doses, for the distal planes were 74.5% and 85.3% for the APB and 99.1% and 92% for the MC algorithms. The measured data revealed up to 46% and 30% underdosing within the distal regions of the target volume for the single and the two field plans when APB calculations are used. These discrepancies reduced to less than 18% and 7% respectively using the MC calculations. CONCLUSIONS RaySearch Laboratories' Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm is superior to the pencil-beam algorithm for lung targets. Clinicians relying on the analytical pencil-beam algorithm should be aware of its pitfalls for this site and verify dose prior to delivery. We conclude that the RayStation MC algorithm is reliable and more accurate than the APB algorithm for lung targets and therefore should be used to plan proton therapy for patients with lung cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andries N. Schreuder
- Provision Center for Proton Therapy – Knoxville6450 Provision Cares WayKnoxvilleTN37909USA
| | - Daniel S. Bridges
- Provision Center for Proton Therapy – Knoxville6450 Provision Cares WayKnoxvilleTN37909USA
| | - Lauren Rigsby
- Provision Center for Proton Therapy – Knoxville6450 Provision Cares WayKnoxvilleTN37909USA
| | - Marc Blakey
- Provision Center for Proton Therapy – Knoxville6450 Provision Cares WayKnoxvilleTN37909USA
| | - Martin Janson
- RaySearch LaboratoriesSveavägen 44SE‐103 65StockholmSweden
| | - Samantha G. Hedrick
- Provision Center for Proton Therapy – Knoxville6450 Provision Cares WayKnoxvilleTN37909USA
| | - John B. Wilkinson
- Provision Center for Proton Therapy – Knoxville6450 Provision Cares WayKnoxvilleTN37909USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Barillot I, Antoni D, Bellec J, Biau J, Giraud P, Jenny C, Lacornerie T, Lisbona A, Marchesi V, Mornex F, Supiot S, Thureau S, Noel G. Bases référentielles de la radiothérapie en conditions stéréotaxiques pour les tumeurs ou métastases bronchopulmonaires, hépatiques, prostatiques, des voies aérodigestives supérieures, cérébrales et osseuses. Cancer Radiother 2018; 22:660-681. [DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2018.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2018] [Revised: 07/26/2018] [Accepted: 08/01/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
|
8
|
Pollard C, Nguyen TP, Ng SP, Frank SJ, Garden AS, Gunn GB, Fuller CD, Beadle BM, Morrison WH, Shah SJ, Wang H, Tung S, Wang C, Ginsberg LD, Zafereo ME, Sturgis EM, Su SY, Hanna EY, Rosenthal DI, Phan J. Clinical outcomes after local field conformal reirradiation of patients with retropharyngeal nodal metastasis. Head Neck 2017; 39:2079-2087. [PMID: 28741749 DOI: 10.1002/hed.24872] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2017] [Revised: 04/11/2017] [Accepted: 05/29/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to present our experience with retropharyngeal node reirradiation using highly conformal radiotherapy (RT). METHODS A retrospective screen of 2504 consecutively irradiated patients with head and neck malignancies between 2005 and 2015 identified 19 patients who underwent reirradiation for retropharyngeal node metastasis. Clinical and toxicity outcomes were assessed in these patients. RESULTS Thirteen patients (68%) had squamous cell carcinoma. Eleven patients (58%) received conventionally fractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or proton therapy, and 8 patients (42%) received single-fractionated or hypofractionated stereotactic RT. Fourteen patients (74%) received chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 14.7 months. The 1-year local control, locoregional control, overall survival, and progression-free survival rates were 100%, 94%, 92%, and 92%, respectively. Three patients (16%) experienced acute grade 3 toxicity and occurred in those treated with IMRT. There was no late grade ≥3 toxicity. CONCLUSION Retropharyngeal node reirradiation with conformal therapy is well tolerated and associated with excellent short-term disease control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Courtney Pollard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Theresa P Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Sweet Ping Ng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Adam S Garden
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Gary B Gunn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Clifton D Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Beth M Beadle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - William H Morrison
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Shah J Shah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - He Wang
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Sam Tung
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Conjun Wang
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Lawrence D Ginsberg
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mark E Zafereo
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Erich M Sturgis
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Shirley Y Su
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Ehab Y Hanna
- Department of Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - David I Rosenthal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jack Phan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|