PurposeNon-melanomatous skin cancer (NMSC) is the single most common cancer in the US. Radiation therapy is an excellent treatment alternative to surgery. High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) are commonly used radiation treatment modalities but little data is published comparing these modalities. We present our institution's experience and outcomes with these therapeutic options.Material and methodsFrom June 2005 to March 2013, 61 patients were treated with HDR brachytherapy (n = 9), hypofractionated EBRT (n = 30), or standard fractionation EBRT (n = 22) for NMSC. The primary outcome measure was local control at most remote follow-up and secondary outcome measures were overall survival, cosmetic outcome, and toxicity. Univariate analysis was performed to compare outcomes between treatment modalities. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test were used to compare overall survival.ResultsMedian follow-up was 30 months. The most common histologies were BCC (47%) and SCC (44%); mean patient age was 83.3 years. Local control was 81% and 2-year actuarial overall survival was 89%. There was no statistical difference in local control or overall survival between treatment modalities. There was no statistical difference in cosmetic outcome or toxicity between treatment modalities, although five of six “poor” cosmetic outcomes and the only grade 3 toxic events were found in the standard fractionation EBRT group.ConclusionsAll modalities investigated represent effective treatments for NMSC and have good cosmetic outcomes and acceptable toxicity profiles. The finding of higher grade toxicity and a greater portion of patients experiencing toxicity among standard fractionation therapy is counter to expectations. There was no statistical significance to the finding and it is not likely to be meaningful.

94 Background: Prostate radiotherapy can be delivered using daily image-guided helical tomotherapy. Previous work has shown that contouring the rectum on the kV planning CT scan has a Jaccard conformity index (JCI) of 0.78 for different oncologists (inter-observer variability) and 0.82 for a single oncologist (intra-observer variability) (Lutgendorf-Caucig C et al. Feasibility of CBCT-based target and normal structure delineation in prostate cancer radiotherapy: multi-observer and image multi-modality study. Radiother Oncol. 2011;98(2):154-61.). Using the daily image guidance MV CT scan we have developed automated methods to contour the rectum in order to investigate the dose delivered over a course of treatment. We sought to quantify the accuracy of MV manual and automated contours. Methods: A single oncologist (JES) contoured the rectum on 370 MV scans for 10 participants treated with helical tomotherapy to prostate and pelvic lymph nodes. Accuracy of MV manual contours was tested using a scalar algorithm to enlarge and reduce the contours and intra-observer re-contouring at a 3-month interval. Automated contouring, incorporating the Chan-Vese algorithm, was developed and outputs were compared with manual contours. Results: JES could identify differences in MV manual contour size at the level of ±2.2 mm, equivalent to 1.7 pixels. The median JCI for MV re-contouring was 0.87 with inter-quartile range (IQR) 0.78 to 0.90. When compared with manual contours, automated outputs had a median JCI of 0.79 (IQR 0.74 to 0.79). These results were obtained after 3 iterations, each taking less than 10 seconds. Conclusions: Manual contouring using MV scans was accurate, at a level of approximately 2 mm, and reproducible, with JCI of 0.87. The time taken to contour was approximately 20 minutes per scan. Automated contouring was also reproducible with JCI of 0.79 and, in contrast, took less than a minute per scan. Both manual and automated methods produced results comparable to those for contouring using kV scans. We plan to use auto-contouring to calculate accumulated dose to the rectum in an initial cohort of 100 participants. These doses will be correlated with toxicity as part of the VoxTox Study.