Background: In unresectable pCCA, the standard of care is palliative chemotherapy. We investigated the feasibility and safety of adding stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) after chemotherapy. Methods: Patients with unresectable pCCA, stage T1-T4N0-N1M0, ECOG 0-1, having finished 6–8 cycles of cisplatin and gemcitabine without disease progression were eligible. SBRT was planned in 15 fractions of 3.0–4.5 Gy. The primary endpoints were feasibility (defined as completing SBRT as planned) and toxicity, evaluated within 3 months after SBRT (CTCAE v4.03). A conventional “3 + 3” design was used, corresponding to a sample size of 6 patients. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as grade ≥ 4 hepatobiliary or grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal toxicity. The secondary endpoints, measured from the start of radiotherapy, were local control, progression-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life (QoL). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03307538. Results: Six patients were enrolled between November 2017 and March 2020. SBRT was delivered as planned. All patients were treated with 60Gy (15 × 4.0Gy). No SBRT-related DLT was observed. The most common grade ≥ 3 toxicity was cholangitis (n = 5). The median follow-up was 14 months. The 12-month local control rate was 80%. We observed no substantial changes in QoL. Conclusion: In patients with unresectable pCCA with stable disease after palliative chemotherapy, adding SBRT is feasible and safe. The observed local control merits an additional evaluation of effectiveness.

High plan quality for complex spinal radiosurgery was achieved among all systems and all participating centers in this planning challenge. This study concludes that simple IMAT techniques can generate significantly better plan quality compared to previous established CKRS benchmarks.

Recently, VOLO™ was introduced as a new optimizer for CyberKnife® planning. In this study, we investigated possibilities to improve treatment plans for MLC-based prostate SBRT with enhanced peripheral zone dose while sparing the urethra, and central lung tumors, compared to existing Sequential Optimization (SO). The primary focus was on reducing OAR doses. For 25 prostate and 25 lung patients treated with SO plans, replanning with VOLO™ was performed with the same planning constraints. For equal PTV coverage, almost all OAR plan parameters were improved with VOLO™. For prostate patients, mean rectum and bladder doses were reduced by 34.2% (P < 0.001) and 23.5% (P < 0.001), with reductions in D 0.03cc of 3.9%, 11.0% and 3.1% for rectum, mucosa and bladder (all P ≤ 0.01). Urethra D 5% and D 10% were 3.8% and 3.0% lower (P ≤ 0.002). For lung patients, esophagus, main bronchus, trachea, and spinal cord D 0.03cc was reduced by 18.9%, 11.1%, 16.1%, and 13.2%, respectively (all P ≤ 0.01). Apart from the dosimetric advantages of VOLO™ planning, average reductions in MU, numbers of beams and nodes for prostate/lung were 48.7/32.8%, 26.5/7.9% and 13.4/7.9%, respectively (P ≤ 0.003). VOLO™ also resulted in reduced delivery times with mean/max reductions of: 27/ 43% (prostate) and 15/41% (lung), P < 0.001. Planning times reduced from 6 h to 1.1 h and from 3 h to 1.7 h for prostate and lung, respectively. The new VOLO™ planning was highly superior to SO planning in terms of dosimetric plan quality, and planning and delivery times.

PurposeTo determine the dosimetric impact of using unedited autocontours in daily plan adaptation of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy using tumor tracking.Materials and MethodsThe study included 98 daily CT scans of 35 LAPC patients. All scans were manually contoured (MAN), and included the PTV and main organs-at-risk (OAR): stomach, duodenum and bowel. Precision and MIM deformable image registration (DIR) methods followed by contour propagation were used to generate autocontour sets on the daily CT scans. Autocontours remained unedited, and were compared to MAN on the whole organs and at 3, 1 and 0.5 cm from the PTV. Manual and autocontoured OAR were used to generate daily plans using the VOLO™ optimizer, and were compared to non-adapted plans. Resulting planned doses were compared based on PTV coverage and OAR dose-constraints.ResultsOverall, both algorithms reported a high agreement between unclipped MAN and autocontours, but showed worse results when being evaluated on the clipped structures at 1 cm and 0.5 cm from the PTV. Replanning with unedited autocontours resulted in better OAR sparing than non-adapted plans for 95% and 84% plans optimized using Precision and MIM autocontours, respectively, and obeyed OAR constraints in 64% and 56% of replans.ConclusionFor the majority of fractions, manual correction of autocontours could be avoided or be limited to the region closest to the PTV. This practice could further reduce the overall timings of adaptive radiotherapy workflows for patients with LAPC.

No abstract