Analyzing changes in radiotherapy treatment planning error reporting during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has affected medical physics and radiation oncology departments and the delivery of radiation therapy. Among the changes implemented in response to the onset of the pandemic was a shift to remote treatment planning by health care institutions. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the overall frequency of errors changed after the implementation of remote radiation therapy treatment planning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reported incidents were obtained from an incident reporting database operated by a multisite cancer care facility in the Northeast. Researchers compared the frequency of reported events in a period prior to the start of the pandemic (March 2019 to February 2020) with a period after the onset of the pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021). No significant increase in reported incidents was detected suggesting the efficiency and safety of remote radiotherapy treatment planning.

Can bronchoscopically implanted anchored electromagnetic transponders be used to monitor tumor position and lung inflation during deep inspiration breath-hold lung radiotherapy?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of using bronchoscopically implanted anchored electromagnetic transponders (EMTs) as surrogates for 1) tumor position and 2) repeatability of lung inflation during deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) lung radiotherapy. METHODS: Forty-one patients treated with either hypofractionated (HF) or conventional (CF) lung radiotherapy on an IRB-approved prospective protocol using coached DIBH were evaluated for this study. Three anchored EMTs were bronchoscopically implanted into small airways near or within the tumor. DIBH treatment was gated by tracking the EMT positions. Breath-hold cone-beam-CTs (CBCTs) were acquired prior to every HF treatment or weekly for CF patients. Retrospectively, rigid registrations between each CBCT and the breath-hold planning CT were performed to match to 1) spine, 2) EMTs and 3) tumor. Absolute differences in registration between EMTs and spine were analyzed to determine surrogacy of EMTs for lung inflation. Differences in registration between EMTs and the tumor were analyzed to determine surrogacy of EMTs for tumor position. The stability of the EMTs was evaluated by analyzing the difference between inter-EMT displacements recorded at treatment from that of the plan for the CF patients, as well as the geometric residual (GR) recorded at the time of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 219 CBCTs were analyzed. The average differences between EMT centroid and spine registration among all CBCTs were 0.45±0.42 cm, 0.29±0.28 cm, and 0.18±0.15 cm in superior-inferior (SI), anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral directions, respectively. Only 59% of CBCTs had differences in registration < 0.5 cm for EMT centroid compared to spine, indicating that lung inflation is not reproducible from simulation to treatment. The average differences between EMT centroid and tumor registration among all CBCTs were 0.13±0.13 cm, 0.14±0.13 cm and 0.12±0.12 cm in SI, AP and lateral directions, respectively. Ninety-five percent of CBCTs resulted in a < 0.5 cm change between EMT centroid and tumor registration, indicating that EMT positions correspond well with tumor position during treatments. Six out of the seven recorded CF patients had average differences in inter-EMT displacements ≤0.26 cm and average GR ≤0.22 cm, indicating that the EMTs are stable throughout treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Bronchoscopically implanted anchored EMTs are good surrogates for tumor position and are reliable for maintaining tumor position when tracked during DIBH treatment, as long as the tumor size and shape are stable. Large differences in registration between EMTs and spine for many treatments suggest that lung inflation achieved at simulation is often not reproduced.

Four-Dimensional Computed Tomography-Based Correlation of Respiratory Motion of Lung Tumors With Implanted Fiducials and an External Surrogate.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to assess the suitability of airway-implanted internal fiducial markers and an external surrogate of respiratory motion for motion management during radiation therapy of lung tumors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We analyzed 4-dimensional computed tomography scans acquired during radiation therapy simulation for 28 patients with lung tumors who had anchored fiducial markers bronchoscopically implanted inside small airways in or near the tumor in a prospective trial. We used a linear mixed model to build population-based correlative models of tumor and surrogate motion. The first 24 of the 28 patients were used to build correlative models, and 4 of the 28 consecutive patients were excluded and used as an internal validation cohort. Of the 24 patients from the model building cohort, all were used for the models based on the internal fiducial. The external surrogate was completely visualized in 11 patients from the model building cohort, so only those were used for the models based on the external surrogate. Furthermore, we determined the predicted residual error sum of squares for our correlative models, which may serve as benchmarks for future research. RESULTS: The motion of the internal fiducials was significantly associated with the tumor motion in the anterior-posterior (P < .0001) and superior-inferior (SI) directions (P < .0001). We also observed a strong correlation of the external surrogate anterior-posterior motion to the tumor dominant SI motion (P < .0001). In the validation cohort, the internal fiducial SI motion was the only reliable predictor of lung tumor motion. CONCLUSIONS: The internal fiducials appear to be more reliable predictors of lung tumor motion than the external surrogate. The suitability of such airway-implanted internal fiducial markers for advanced motion management techniques should be further investigated. Although the external surrogate seems to be less reliable, its wide availability and noninvasive application support its clinical utility, albeit the greater uncertainty will need to be compensated for.

A Planning Comparison of IMRT vs. Pencil Beam Scanning for Deep Inspiration Breath Hold Lung Cancers.

Deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) has dosimetric advantages for lung cancer patients treated with external beam therapy, but is difficult for many patients to perform. Proton therapy permits sparing of the downstream organs at risk (OAR). We compared conventionally fractionated proton (p) and photon(x) plans on both free breathing (FB) and DIBH planning CTs to determine the effect of DIBH with proton therapy. We evaluated 24 plans from 6 lung cancer patients treated with photon DIBH on a prospective protocol. All patients were re-planned using pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy. New plans were generated for FB datasets with both modalities. All plans were renormalized to 60 Gy. We evaluated dosimetric parameters for heart, lung and esophagus. We also compared FBp to DIBHx parameters to quantify how FBp plans compare to DIBHx plans. Significant differences were found for lung metrics V20 and mean lung dose between FB and DIBH plans regardless of treatment modality. Furthermore, lung metrics for FBp were comparable or superior to DIBHx, suggesting that FB protons may be a viable alternative for those patients that cannot perform DIBH with IMRT. The heart dose metrics were significantly different for the 5 out of 6 patients where the PTV overlapped the heart as DIBH moved heart out of the high dose volume. Heart dose metrics were further reduced by proton therapy. DIBH offers similar relative advantages for lung sparing for PBS as it does for IMRT but the magnitude of the DIBH related gains in OAR sparing were smaller for PBS than IMRT. FBp plans offer similar or better lung and heart sparing compared to DIBHx plans. For IMRT patients who have difficulty performing DIBH, FB protons may offer an alternative.

Technical Note: Scintillation well counters and particle counting digital autoradiography devices can be used to detect activities associated with genomic profiling adequacy of biopsy specimens obtained after a low activity 18 F-FDG injection.

PURPOSE: Genomic profiling of biopsied tissue is the basis for precision cancer therapy. However, biopsied materials may not contain sufficient amounts of tumor deoxyribonucleonic acid needed for the analysis. We propose a method to determine the adequacy of specimens for performing genomic profiling by quantifying their metabolic activity. METHODS: We estimated the average density of tumor cells in biopsy specimens needed to successfully perform genomic analysis following the Memorial Sloan Kettering Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets (MSK-IMPACT) protocol from the minimum amount of deoxyribonucleonic acid needed and the volume of tissue typically used for analysis. The average 18 F-FDG uptake per cell was assessed by incubating HT-29 adenocarcinoma tumor cells in 18 F-FDG containing solution and then measuring their activity with a scintillation well counter. Consequently, we evaluated the response of two devices around the minimum expected activities which would indicate genomic profiling adequacy of biopsy specimens obtained under 18 F-FDG PET/CT guidance. Surrogate samples obtained using 18G core needle biopsies of gels containing either 18 F-FDG-loaded cells in the expected concentrations or the corresponding activity were measured using autoradiography and a scintillation well counter. Autoradiography was performed using a CCD-based device with real-time image display as well as with digital autoradiography imaging plates following a 30-min off-line protocol for specimen activity determination against previously established calibration. RESULTS: Cell incubation experiments and estimates obtained from quantitative autoradiography of biopsy specimens (QABS) indicate that specimens acquired under 18 F-FDG PET/CT guidance that contained the minimum amount of cells needed for genomic profiling would have an average activity concentration in the range of about 3 to about 9 kBq/mL. When exposed to specimens with similar activity concentration, both a CCD-based autoradiography device and a scintillation well counter produced signals with sufficient signal-to-background ratio for specimen genomic adequacy identification in less than 10 min, which is short enough to allow procedure guidance. CONCLUSION: Scintillation well counter measurements and CCD-based autoradiography have adequate sensitivity to detect the tumor burden needed for genomic profiling during 18 F-FDG PET/CT-guided 18G core needle biopsies of liver adenocarcinoma metastases.