No abstract

Purpose Our purpose was to report outcomes of a novel palliative radiation therapy protocol that omits computed tomography simulation and prospectively collects electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs). Methods and Materials Patients receiving extracranial, nonstereotactic, linear accelerator-based palliative radiation therapy who met inclusion criteria (no mask-based immobilization and a diagnostic computed tomography within 4 weeks) were eligible. Global pain was scored with the 11-point numerical pain rating scale (NPRS). Patients were coded as having osseous or soft tissue metastases and no/mild versus severe baseline pain (NPRS ≥ 5). Pain response at 4 weeks was measured according to the international consensus (no analgesia adjustment). Transition to ePRO questionnaires was completed in 3 phases. Initially, pain assessments were collected on paper for 11 months, then pilot ePROs for 1 month and then, after adjustments, revised ePROs from 1 year onwards. ePRO feasibility criteria were established with reference to the paper-based process and published evidence. Results Between May 2018 and November 2019, 542 consecutive patients were screened, of whom 163 were eligible (30%), and 160 patients were successfully treated. The proportion of patients eligible for the study improved from approximately 20% to 50% by study end. Routine care pain monitoring via ePROs was feasible. One hundred twenty-seven patients had a baseline NPRS recording. Ninety-five patients had osseous (61% severe pain) and 32 had soft tissue (25% severe pain) metastases. Eighty-four patients (66%) were assessable for pain response at 4 weeks. In the 41 patients with severe osseous pain, overall and complete pain response was 78% and 22%, respectively. Conclusions By study completion, 50% of patients receiving palliative extracranial radiation therapy avoided simulation, streamlining the treatment process and maximizing patient convenience. Pain response for patients with severe pain from osseous lesions was equivalent to published evidence.

IntroductionThis quality improvement study tested three methods of tattoo alignment and isocentre definition to investigate if aligning lateral tattoos to minimise pitch, roll and yaw decreased set-up error, and if defining the isocentre using the lateral tattoos for cranio-caudal (CC) position improved isocentre reproducibility. The study population was patients receiving curative external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer. The results are applicable to all supine pelvic EBRT patients.MethodsThe three sequential cohorts recruited 11, 11 and 10 patients respectively. A data set of 20 orthogonal pairs of electronic portal images (EPI) was acquired for each patient. EPIs were matched offline to digitally reconstructed radiographs. In cohort 1, lateral tattoos were adjusted to minimise roll. The anterior tattoo was used to define the isocentre. In cohort 2, lateral tattoos were aligned to minimise roll and yaw. Isocentre was defined as per cohort 1. In cohort 3, lateral tattoos were aligned as per cohort 2 and the anterior tattoo was adjusted to minimise pitch. Isocentre was defined by the lateral tattoos for CC position and the anterior tattoo for the left–right position.ResultsCohort 3 results were superior as CC systematic and random set-up errors reduced from −1.3 mm to −0.5 mm, and 3.1 mm to 1.4 mm respectively, from cohort 1 to cohort 3. Isocentre reproducibility also improved from 86.7% to 92.1% of treatment isocentres within 5 mm of the planned isocentre.ConclusionThe methods of tattoo alignment and isocentre definition in cohort 3 reduced set-up errors and improved isocentre reproducibility.

Background To evaluate the initial experience and clinical utility of first-line adjuvant intensity-modulated whole abdominal radiation therapy (WART) in women with ovarian clear cell cancer (OCCC) referred to an academic center. Methods Progression-free and overall survival was analyzed in a pragmatic observational cohort study of histologically pure OCCC patients over-expressing HNF-1ß treated between 2013 and end-December 2018. An in-house intensity-modulated WART program was developed from a published pre-clinical model. Radiation dose-volume data was curated to American Association of Physics in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 263 recommendations. A dedicated database prospectively recorded presenting characteristics and outcomes in a standardized fashion. Results Five women with FIGO (2018) stage IA to IIIA2 OCCC were treated with first-line WART. Median age was 58 years (range 47–68 years). At diagnosis CA-125 was elevated in 4 cases (median 56 kU/L: range 18.4–370 kU/L) before primary de-bulking surgery. Severe premorbid endometriosis was documented in 3 patients. At a median follow-up of 77 months (range 16–83 mo.), all patients remain alive and progression-free on clinical, biochemical (CA-125), and 18Fluoro-deoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT re-evaluation. Late radiation toxicity was significant (G3) in 1 case who required a limited bowel resection and chronic nutritional support at 9 months post-WART; 2 further patients had asymptomatic (G2) osteoporotic fragility fractures of axial skeleton at 12 months post-radiation treated with anti-resorptive agents (denosumab). Conclusions The clinical utility of intensity-modulated WART in OCCC over-expressing HNF-1β was suggested in this small observational cohort study. The hypothesis that HNF-1β is a portent of platinum-resistance and an important predictive biomarker in OCCC needs further confirmation. Curating multi-institutional cohort studies utilizing WART by means of “Big Data” may improve OCCC care standards in the future.

Purpose For patients with locally advanced cancer, multiple targets are treated simultaneously with radiotherapy. Differential motion between targets can compromise the treatment accuracy, yet there are currently no methods able to adapt to independent target motion. This study developed a multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking algorithm for differential motion adaptation and evaluated it in simulated treatments of locally advanced prostate cancer. Methods A multi‐target MLC tracking algorithm was developed that consisted of three steps: (a) dividing the MLC aperture into two possibly overlapping sections assigned to the prostate and lymph nodes, (b) calculating the ideally shaped MLC aperture as a union of the individually translated sections, and (c) fitting the MLC positions to the ideal aperture shape within the physical constraints of the MLC leaves. The multi‐target tracking method was evaluated and compared with two existing motion management methods: single‐target tracking and no tracking. Treatment simulations of six locally advanced prostate cancer patients with three prostate motion traces were performed for all three motion adaptation methods. The geometric error for each motion adaptation method was calculated using the area of overexposure and underexposure of each field. The dosimetric error was estimated by calculating the dose delivered to the prostate, lymph nodes, bladder, rectum, and small bowel using a motion‐encoded dose reconstruction method. Results Multi‐target MLC tracking showed an average improvement in geometric error of 84% compared to single‐target tracking, and 83% compared to no tracking. Multi‐target tracking maintained dose coverage to the prostate clinical target volume (CTV) D98% and planning target volume (PTV) D95% to within 4.8% and 3.9% of the planned values, compared to 1.4% and 0.7% with single‐target tracking, and 20.4% and 31.8% with no tracking. With multi‐target tracking, the node CTV D95%, PTV D90%, and gross tumor volume (GTV) D95% were within 0.3%, 0.6%, and 0.3% of the planned values, compared to 9.1%, 11.2%, and 21.1% for single‐target tracking, and 0.8%, 2.0%, and 3.2% with no tracking. The small bowel V57% was maintained within 0.2% to the plan using multi‐target tracking, compared to 8% and 3.5% for single‐target tracking and no tracking, respectively. Meanwhile, the bladder and rectum V50% increased by up to 13.6% and 5.2%, respectively, using multi‐target tracking, compared to 2.7% and 1.9% for single‐target tracking, and 11.2% and 11.5% for no tracking. Conclusions A multi‐target tracking algorithm was developed and tracked the prostate and lymph nodes independently during simulated treatments. As the algorithm optimizes for target coverage, tracking both targets simultaneously may increase the dose delivered to the organs at risk.