1
|
Aznar MC, Carrasco de Fez P, Corradini S, Mast M, McNair H, Meattini I, Persson G, van Haaren P. ESTRO-ACROP guideline: Recommendations on implementation of breath-hold techniques in radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2023; 185:109734. [PMID: 37301263 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109734] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2023] [Accepted: 06/01/2023] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
The use of breath-hold techniques in radiotherapy, such as deep-inspiration breath hold, is increasing although guidelines for clinical implementation are lacking. In these recommendations, we aim to provide an overview of available technical solutions and guidance for best practice in the implementation phase. We will discuss specific challenges in different tumour sites including factors such as staff training and patient coaching, accuracy, and reproducibility. In addition, we aim to highlight the need for further research in specific patient groups. This report also reviews considerations for equipment, staff training and patient coaching, as well as image guidance for breath-hold treatments. Dedicated sections for specific indications, namely breast cancer, thoracic and abdominal tumours are also included.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marianne Camille Aznar
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
| | - Pablo Carrasco de Fez
- Servei de Radiofísica i Radioprotecció, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Stefanie Corradini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Germany
| | - Mirjam Mast
- Department of Radiotherapy, Haaglanden Medical Center, Leidschendam, The Netherlands
| | - Helen McNair
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, UK
| | - Icro Meattini
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy; Department of Clinical and Experimental Biomedical Sciences "M. Serio", University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Gitte Persson
- Department of Oncology, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Paul van Haaren
- Department of Radiotherapy, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
van den Ende RPJ, Peters FP, Harderwijk E, Rütten H, Bouwmans L, Berbee M, Canters RAM, Stoian G, Compagner K, Rozema T, de Smet M, Intven MPW, Tijssen RHN, Theuws J, van Haaren P, van Triest B, Eekhout D, Marijnen CAM, van der Heide UA, Kerkhof EM. Radiotherapy quality assurance for mesorectum treatment planning within the multi-center phase II STAR-TReC trial: Dutch results. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15:41. [PMID: 32070386 PMCID: PMC7027245 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-01487-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2019] [Accepted: 02/10/2020] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The STAR-TReC trial is an international multi-center, randomized, phase II study assessing the feasibility of short-course radiotherapy or long-course chemoradiotherapy as an alternative to total mesorectal excision surgery. A new target volume is used for both (chemo)radiotherapy arms which includes only the mesorectum. The treatment planning QA revealed substantial variation in dose to organs at risk (OAR) between centers. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the treatment plan variability in terms of dose to OAR and assess the effect of a national study group meeting on the quality and variability of treatment plans for mesorectum-only planning for rectal cancer. METHODS Eight centers produced 25 × 2 Gy treatment plans for five cases. The OAR were the bowel cavity, bladder and femoral heads. A study group meeting for the participating centers was organized to discuss the planning results. At the meeting, the values of the treatment plan DVH parameters were distributed among centers so that results could be compared. Subsequently, the centers were invited to perform replanning if they considered this to be necessary. RESULTS All treatment plans, both initial planning and replanning, fulfilled the target constraints. Dose to OAR varied considerably for the initial planning, especially for dose levels below 20 Gy, indicating that there was room for trade-offs between the defined OAR. Five centers performed replanning for all cases. One center did not perform replanning at all and two centers performed replanning on two and three cases, respectively. On average, replanning reduced the bowel cavity V20Gy by 12.6%, bowel cavity V10Gy by 22.0%, bladder V35Gy by 14.7% and bladder V10Gy by 10.8%. In 26/30 replanned cases the V10Gy of both the bowel cavity and bladder was lower, indicating an overall lower dose to these OAR instead of a different trade-off. In addition, the bowel cavity V10Gy and V20Gy showed more similarity between centers. CONCLUSIONS Dose to OAR varied considerably between centers, especially for dose levels below 20 Gy. The study group meeting and the distribution of the initial planning results among centers resulted in lower dose to the defined OAR and reduced variability between centers after replanning. TRIAL REGISTRATION The STAR-TReC trial, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02945566. Registered 26 October 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02945566).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roy P. J. van den Ende
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600 2300, RC, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Femke P. Peters
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600 2300, RC, Leiden, the Netherlands
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ernst Harderwijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600 2300, RC, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Heidi Rütten
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Liza Bouwmans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Maaike Berbee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Richard A. M. Canters
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Georgiana Stoian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, the Netherlands
| | - Kim Compagner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, the Netherlands
| | - Tom Rozema
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Verbeeten Institute, Tilburg, the Netherlands
| | - Mariska de Smet
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Verbeeten Institute, Tilburg, the Netherlands
| | - Martijn P. W. Intven
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Rob H. N. Tijssen
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Jacqueline Theuws
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Paul van Haaren
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Baukelien van Triest
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Dave Eekhout
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Corrie A. M. Marijnen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600 2300, RC, Leiden, the Netherlands
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Uulke A. van der Heide
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600 2300, RC, Leiden, the Netherlands
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Ellen M. Kerkhof
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600 2300, RC, Leiden, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Althof V, van Haaren P, Westendorp R, Nuver T, Kramer D, Ikink M, Bel A, Minken A. A quality assurance tool for helical tomotherapy using a step-wedge phantom and the on-board MVCT detector. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2012; 13:3585. [PMID: 22231210 PMCID: PMC5716125 DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v13i1.3585] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2011] [Revised: 08/25/2011] [Accepted: 08/19/2011] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate filmless quality assurance (QA) tools for helical tomotherapy by using the signals from the on-board megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) detector and applying a dedicated step-wedge phantom. The step-wedge phantom is a 15 cm long step-like aluminum block positioned on the couch. The phantom was moved through the slit beam and MVCT detector signals were analyzed. Two QA procedures were developed, with gantry fixed at 0°: 1) step-wedge procedure: to check beam energy consistency, field width, laser alignment with respect to the virtual isocenter, couch movement, and couch velocity; and 2) completion procedure: to check the accuracy of a field abutment made by the tomotherapy system after a treatment interruption. The procedures were designed as constancy tool and were validated by measurement of deliberately induced variations and comparison with a reference method. Two Hi-Art II machines were monitored over a period of three years using the step-wedge procedures. The data acquisition takes 5 minutes. The analysis is fully automated and results are available directly after acquisition. Couch speed deviations up to 2% were induced. The mean absolute difference between expected and measured couch speed was 0.2% ± 0.2% (1 standard deviation SD). Field width was varied around the 10 mm nominal size, between 9.7 and 11.1 mm, in steps of 0.2 mm. Mean difference between the step-wedge analysis and the reference method was < 0.01 mm ± 0.03 mm (1 SD). Laser (mis)alignment relative to a reference situation was detected with 0.3 mm precision (1SD). The step-wedge profile was fitted to a PDD in water. The PDD ratio D20/D10, measured at depths of 20 cm and 10 cm, was used to check beam energy consistency. Beam energy variations were induced. Mean difference between step-wedge and water PDD ratios was 0.2% ± 0.3% (1SD). The completion procedure was able to reveal abutment mismatches with a mean error of -0.6 mm ± 0.2 mm (1SD). The trending data over a period of three years showed a mean deviation of 0.4% ± 0.1% (1 SD) in couch speed. The spread in field width was 0.15 mm (1 SD). The sagittal and transverse lasers showed a variation of 0.5 mm (1 SD). Beam energy varied 1.0% (1 SD). A mean abutment mismatch was found of -0.4 mm ± 0.2 mm (1 SD) between interrupted treatments. The on-board MVCT detector, in combination with the step-wedge phantom, is a suitable tool for a QA program for helical tomotherapy. The method allowed frequent monitoring of machine behavior for the past three years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vincent Althof
- Radiotherapeutic Institute RISO, Deventer, The Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|