Dummy Run of Quality Assurance Program before Prospective Study of Hippocampus-Sparing Whole-Brain Radiotherapy and Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Multiple Brain Metastases from Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Korean Radiation Oncology Group (KROG) 17-06 Study

Radiotherapy trial quality assurance processes: a systematic review

Quality assurance remains a neglected component of many trials, particularly for technical interventions, such as surgery and radiotherapy, for which quality of treatment is an important component in defining outcomes. We aimed to evaluate evidence for the processes used in radiotherapy quality assurance of clinical trials. A systematic review was undertaken focusing on use of a pre-trial outlining benchmark case and subsequent on-trial individual case reviews of outlining for recruited patients. These pre-trial and on-trial checks are used to ensure consistency and standardisation of treatment for each patient recruited to the trial by confirming protocol compliance. Non-adherence to the trial protocol has been shown to have a negative effect on trial outcomes. 29 studies published between January, 2000, and December, 2022, were identified that reported on either outlining benchmark case results or outlining individual case review results, or both. The trials identified varied in their use of radiotherapy quality assurance practices and reporting of outcomes was inconsistent. Deviations from trial protocols were frequent, particularly regarding outlining. Studies correlating benchmark case results with on-trial individual case reviews provided mixed results, meaning firm conclusions could not be drawn regarding the influence of the pre-trial benchmark case on subsequent on-trial performance. The optimal radiotherapy quality assurance processes were unclear, and there was little evidence available. Improved reporting of outcomes from radiotherapy quality assurance programmes is needed to develop an evidence base for the optimal approach to radiotherapy quality assurance in trials.

Region-Specific Effects of Fractionated Low-Dose Versus Single-Dose Radiation on Hippocampal Neurogenesis and Neuroinflammation

BACKGROUND

Despite technical advances in hippocampus-sparing radiotherapy, radiation-induced injury to neural stem cell compartments may affect neurocognitive functions. In pre-clinical mouse models with fractionated low-dose radiation (FLDR) and single-dose radiation (SDR), the accurate response to radiation-induced injury was analyzed in different hippocampal subregions.

METHODS

Adult and juvenile C57BL/6NCrl mice were exposed to FLDR (20 × 0.1 Gy, daily exposure from Monday to Friday for 4 weeks) or SDR (1 × 2 Gy). In addition, 72 h after the last exposure, neuroglia (astrocytes and microglia) and neuroprogenitor cells were characterized and quantified in the hippocampal cornu ammonis (CA) and dentate gyrus (DG) by immunofluorescence studies.

RESULTS

After analyzing different hippocampal subregions, it was observed that radiation responses varied between non-neurogenic CA, with no detectable inflammatory alterations, and neurogenic DG, characterized by impaired neurogenesis and subsequent neuroinflammation. Age-dependent differences in radiosensitivity appeared to depend on the varying proliferative potential of neural stem cell niches. Using the same overall dose for FLDR and SDR (2 Gy), both the cumulative dose over time and also the single dose fraction have decisive impacts on hippocampal damage.

CONCLUSION

Region-specific effects of radiation-induced hippocampal injury relies primarily on cell deaths of proliferating neuroprogenitors. Dose per fraction defines the extent of neuronal injury, and subsequently activated microglia and reactive astrocytes modulate dynamic processes of neuroinflammation. Thus, limiting both cumulative doses and dose fractions to hippocampal DG is an important issue of clinical radiotherapy to preserve neurocognitive functions.

Whole brain radiotherapy using four-field box technique with tilting baseplate for parotid gland sparing

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of four-field box whole brain radiotherapy (FB-WBRT) with tilting baseplate by comparing bilateral WBRT (B-WBRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between March 2016 and September 2018, 20 patients with brain metastases underwent WBRT using the four-field box technique. WBRT is performed with a dose of 30 Gy in 10 fractions daily. Two computed tomography simulations per person were performed. One was in the traditional supine position for B-WBRT and the other by applying the tilting acrylic supine baseplate to elevate the head by 40° for FB-WBRT. The B-WBRT used the field-in-field technique, which is the most commonly used method in our institution. The FB-WBRT comprised anterior, posterior, and bilateral beams. A wedge was applied in anterior and posterior fields to compensate for skull convexity.

RESULTS

The average of Dmean of both parotid glands was 10.2 Gy (range, 3.8 to 17.8 Gy) in B-WBRT and 5.4 Gy (range, 2.0 to 11.7 Gy) in FB-WBRT (p < 0.05). Compared to B-WBRT, FB-WBRT reduced the mean dose of the right and left parotid glands from 10.1 Gy to 4.9 Gy and from 10.4 Gy to 5.8 Gy, respectively (p < 0.05). Further, V5, V10, V15, V20, and V25 for the parotid gland decreased significantly in FB-WBRT (p < 0.05). The Dmax and Dmean of lens decreased according to the dose-volume histogram.

CONCLUSION

Compared to B-WBRT, FB-WBRT with a tilting baseplate is a simple and effective method that takes feature of noncoplanar beam to protect the parotid gland.

Non-coplanar whole brain radiotherapy is an effective modality for parotid sparing

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of non–coplanar whole brain radiotherapy (NC–WBRT) for parotid sparing.

Methods

Fifteen cases, previously treated with WBRT were selected. NC–WBRT plans were generated. The beam arrangement for the non–coplanar plans consisted of superior anterior, right, and left beams. After generation of the non–coplanar plans a field–in–field technique was applied to the bilateral parallel opposed beams in order to reduce maximum dose and increase dose homogeneity. The NC–WBRT plans were subsequently compared with the previously generated bilateral WBRT (B–WBRT) plans. A field–in–field technique was also used with the B–WBRT plans according to our departmental protocol. As per our institutional practice a total dose of 30 Gy in 10 fractions of WBRT was administered 5 days a week.

Results

The mean dose to the parotid gland for the two different plans were 16.2 Gy with B–WBRT and 13.7 Gy with NC–WBRT (p<0.05). In the NC–WBRT plan, the V_5Gy, V_10Gy, V_15Gy, V_20Gy, and V_25Gy of the parotid were significantly lower (p<0.05) than those of the B–WBRT plan. The D_max of the lens was also lower by 10% with NC–WBRT.

Conclusion

The use of NC–WBRT plans could be a simple and effective method to reduce irradiated volumes and improve the dose–volume parameters of the parotid gland.