Radiotherapy of salivary gland tumours.

Primary tumours of the salivary glands account for about 5 to 10% of tumours of the head and neck. These tumours represent a multitude of situations and histologies, where surgery is the mainstay of treatment and radiotherapy is frequently needed for malignant tumours (in case of stage T3-T4, nodal involvement, extraparotid invasion, positive or close resection margins, histological high-grade tumour, lymphovascular or perineural invasion, bone involvement postoperatively, or unresectable tumours). The diagnosis relies on anatomic and functional MRI and ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnostic of benign or malignant tumors. In addition to patient characteristics, the determination of primary and nodal target volumes depends on tumor extensions and stage, histology and grade. Therefore, radiotherapy of salivary gland tumors requires a certain degree of personalization, which has been codified in the recommendations of the French multidisciplinary network of expertise for rare ENT cancers (Refcor) and may justify a specialised multidisciplinary discussion. Although radiotherapy is usually recommended for malignant tumours only, recurrent pleomorphic adenomas may sometimes require radiotherapy based on multidisciplinary discussion. An update of indications and recommendations for radiotherapy for salivary gland tumours in terms of techniques, doses, target volumes and dose constraints to organs at risk of the French society for radiotherapy and oncology (SFRO) was reported in this article.

Radiotherapy of sinonasal cancers.

We present the update of the recommendations of the French society of radiotherapy and oncology on the indications and the technical methods of carrying out radiotherapy of sinonasal cancers. Sinonasal cancers (nasal fossae and sinus) account for 3 to 5% of all cancers of the head and neck. They include carcinomas, mucosal melanomas, sarcomas and lymphomas. The management of sinonasal cancers is multidisciplinary but less standardized than that of squamous cell carcinomas of the upper aerodigestive tract. As such, patients with sinonasal tumors can benefit from the expertise of the French expertise network for rare ENT cancers (Refcor). Knowledge of sinonasal tumour characteristics (histology, grade, risk of lymph node involvement, molecular characterization, type of surgery) is critical to the determination of target volumes. An update of multidisciplinary indications and recommendations for radiotherapy in terms of techniques, target volumes and radiotherapy fractionation of the French society of radiotherapy and oncology (SFRO) was reported in this manuscript.

Radiotherapy for hypopharynx cancers.

We present the update of the recommendations of the French society of oncological radiotherapy on radiotherapy for hypopharynx. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy is the gold standard treatment for hypopharynx cancers. Early T1 and T2 tumors could be treated by exclusive radiotherapy or surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy in case of high recurrence risk. For locally advanced tumours requiring total pharyngolaryngectomy (T2 or T3) or with significant lymph nodes involvement, induction chemotherapy followed by exclusive radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy were possible. For T4 tumour, surgery must be proposed. The treatment of lymph nodes is based on initial primary tumour treatment. In non-surgical procedure, for 35 fractions, curative dose is 70Gy (2Gy per fraction) and prophylactic dose are 50 to 56Gy (2Gy per fraction in case of sequential radiotherapy or 1.6Gy in case of integrated simultaneous boost) radiotherapy; for 33 fractions, curative dose is 69.96Gy (2.12Gy per fraction) and prophylactic dose is 52.8Gy (1.6Gy per fraction in integrated simultaneous boost radiotherapy or 54Gy in 1.64Gy per fraction); for 30 fractions, curative dose is 66Gy (2.2Gy per fraction) and prophylactic dose is 54Gy (1.8Gy per fraction in integrated simultaneous boost radiotherapy). Doses over 2Gy per fraction could be done when chemotherapy is not used regarding potential larynx toxicity. Postoperatively, radiotherapy is used in locally advanced cancer with dose levels based on pathologic criteria, 60 to 66Gy for R1 resection and 54 to 60Gy for complete resection in bed tumour; 50 to 66Gy in lymph nodes areas regarding extracapsular spread. Volume delineation were based on guidelines cited in this article.

Implementation of an optimization method for parotid gland sparing during inverse planning for head and neck cancer radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To guide parotid gland (PG) sparing at the dose planning step, a specific model based on overlap between PTV and organ at risk (Moore et al.) was developed and evaluated for VMAT in head-and-neck (H&N) cancer radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty patients treated for locally advanced H&N cancer were included. A model optimization was first performed (20 patients) before a model evaluation (110 patients). Thirty cases were planned with and without the model to quantify the PG dose sparing. The inter-operator variability was evaluated on one case, planned by 12 operators with and without the model. The endpoints were PG mean dose (Dmean), PTV homogeneity and number of monitor units (MU). RESULTS: The PG Dmean predicted by the model was reached in 89% of cases. Using the model significantly reduced the PG Dmean: -6.1±4.3Gy. Plans with the model showed lower PTV dose homogeneity and more MUs (+10.5% on average). For the inter-operator variability, PG dose volume histograms without the optimized model were significantly different compared to those with the model; the Dmean standard deviation for the ipsilateral PG decreased from 2.2Gy to 1.2Gy. For the contralateral PG, this value decreased from 2.9Gy to 0.8Gy. CONCLUSION: During the H&N inverse planning, the optimized model guides to the lowest PG achievable mean dose, allowing a significant PG mean dose reduction of -6.1Gy. Integrating this method at the treatment-planning step significantly reduced the inter-patient and inter-operator variabilities.

[Overview of adaptive radiotherapy in 2019: From implementation to clinical use]. / État des lieux de la radiothérapie adaptative en 2019 : de la mise en place à l'utilisation clinique.

Intensity modulated radiotherapy combined with image guided radiotherapy has led to increase the precision of external beam radiotherapy. However, intra or inter-fraction anatomical variations are frequent during the treatment course and can cause under-dosing of the target volume and/or over-dosing of the organs at risk. Several adaptive radiotherapy (ART) strategies can be defined to compensate these anatomical variations. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of available ART strategies: offline, online, hybrid (library of treatment plans) or in real-time, while considering the arrival of MR-Linac devices in radiotherapy departments. The tools required to these ART strategies such as auto-segmentation, deformable image registration, calculation of the daily dose or dose accumulation, are also described. Implementing an ART strategy requires a rigorous quality assurance process, at each stage and on the entire workflow, as well as prior organization and training from of all the trades. A strong multidisciplinary involvement is finally required in order to ensure ART treatments.

Plan delivery quality assurance for CyberKnife: Statistical process control analysis of 350 film-based patient-specific QAs.

PURPOSE: Robotic radiosurgery requires plan delivery quality assurance (DQA) but there has never been a published comprehensive analysis of a patient-specific DQA process in a clinic. We proposed to evaluate 350 consecutive film-based patient-specific DQAs using statistical process control. We evaluated the performance of the process to propose achievable tolerance criteria for DQA validation and we sought to identify suboptimal DQA using control charts. METHODS AND MATERIAL: DQAs were performed on a CyberKnife-M6 using Gafchromic-EBT3 films. The signal-to-dose conversion was performed using a multichannel-correction and a scanning protocol that combined measurement and calibration in a single scan. The DQA analysis comprised a gamma-index analysis at 3%/1.5mm and a separate evaluation of spatial and dosimetric accuracy of the plan delivery. Each parameter was plotted on a control chart and control limits were calculated. A capability index (Cpm) was calculated to evaluate the ability of the process to produce results within specifications. RESULTS: The analysis of capability showed that a gamma pass rate of 85% at 3%/1.5mm was highly achievable as acceptance criteria for DQA validation using a film-based protocol (Cpm>1.33). 3.4% of DQA were outside a control limit of 88% for gamma pass-rate. The analysis of the out-of-control DQA helped identify a dosimetric error in our institute for a specific treatment type. CONCLUSION: We have defined initial tolerance criteria for DQA validations. We have shown that the implementation of a film-based patient-specific DQA protocol with the use of control charts is an effective method to improve patient treatment safety on CyberKnife.

CyberKnife® M6™: Peripheral dose evaluation for brain treatments.

PURPOSE: This study evaluates the peripheral dose (PD) delivered to healthy tissues for brain stereotactic radiotherapy treatments (SRT) performed with a CyberKnife M6™ Robotic Radiosurgery System and proposes a model to estimate PD before treatment. METHOD: PD was measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters. Measurements were performed to evaluate the influence of distance, collimator type (fixed or Iris™) and aperture size on PD for typical brain treatment plans simulated on an anthropomorphic phantom. A model to estimate PD was defined by fitting functions to these measurements. In vivo measurements were subsequently performed on 30 patients and compared to the model-predicted PD. RESULTS: PD (in cGy) was about 0.06% of MU at 15cm for a 20mm fixed collimator and 0.04% of MU for the same aperture with Iris™ collimator. In vivo measurements showed an average thyroid dose of 55mGy (σ=18.8mGy). Computed dose for thyroid, breast, umbilicus and gonads showed on average a relative difference of 3.4% with the in vivo dose (σ=12.4%). CONCLUSION: PD at the thyroid with Iris™ was about a third lower than with a fixed collimator in case of brain SRT. Despite uncertainties (use of anthropomorphic PD to estimate patient specific PD, surface PD to estimate OAR PD) the model allows PD to be estimated without in vivo measurements. This method could be used to optimise PD with different planning strategies.