Comparison of photon intensity modulated, hybrid and volumetric modulated arc radiation treatment techniques in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Background and purpose: There is no consensus on the best photon radiation technique for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study quantified the differences between commonly used treatment techniques in NSCLC to find the optimal technique. Materials and methods: Treatment plans were retrospectively generated according to clinical guidelines for 26 stage III NSCLC patients using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), hybrid, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMATC, and VMATV5 optimized for lower lung and heart dose). Plans were evaluated for target coverage, organs at risk dose (including heart substructures) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP). Results: The comparison showed significant and largest median differences (>1 Gy or >5%) in favor of IMRT for the mediastinal envelope and heart (maximum dose), in favor of the hybrid technique for the lungs (V5Gy of the total lungs and V5Gy of the contralateral lung) and in favor of VMATC for the heart (Dmean), most of the substructures of the heart, and the spinal cord (maximum dose). The VMATV5 technique had significantly lower heart dose compared to the hybrid technique and significantly lower lung dose compared to the VMATC, combining both advantages in one technique. The mean ΔNTCP did not exceed the 2 percent point (pp) for grade 5 (mortality), and 10 pp for grade ≥2 toxicities (radiation pneumonitis and acute esophageal toxicity), but ΔNTCP was mostly in favor of VMATC/V5 for individual patients. Conclusion: This planning study showed that VMATV5 was preferred as it achieved low lung and heart doses, as well as low NTCPs, simultaneously.

Comparative evaluation of autocontouring in clinical practice: A practical method using the Turing test.

PURPOSE: Automated techniques for estimating the contours of organs and structures in medical images have become more widespread and a variety of measures are available for assessing their quality. Quantitative measures of geometric agreement, for example, overlap with a gold-standard delineation, are popular but may not predict the level of clinical acceptance for the contouring method. Therefore, surrogate measures that relate more directly to the clinical judgment of contours, and to the way they are used in routine workflows, need to be developed. The purpose of this study is to propose a method (inspired by the Turing Test) for providing contour quality measures that directly draw upon practitioners' assessments of manual and automatic contours. This approach assumes that an inability to distinguish automatically produced contours from those of clinical experts would indicate that the contours are of sufficient quality for clinical use. In turn, it is anticipated that such contours would receive less manual editing prior to being accepted for clinical use. In this study, an initial assessment of this approach is performed with radiation oncologists and therapists. METHODS: Eight clinical observers were presented with thoracic organ-at-risk contours through a web interface and were asked to determine if they were automatically generated or manually delineated. The accuracy of the visual determination was assessed, and the proportion of contours for which the source was misclassified recorded. Contours of six different organs in a clinical workflow were for 20 patient cases. The time required to edit autocontours to a clinically acceptable standard was also measured, as a gold standard of clinical utility. Established quantitative measures of autocontouring performance, such as Dice similarity coefficient with respect to the original clinical contour and the misclassification rate accessed with the proposed framework, were evaluated as surrogates of the editing time measured. RESULTS: The misclassification rates for each organ were: esophagus 30.0%, heart 22.9%, left lung 51.2%, right lung 58.5%, mediastinum envelope 43.9%, and spinal cord 46.8%. The time savings resulting from editing the autocontours compared to the standard clinical workflow were 12%, 25%, 43%, 77%, 46%, and 50%, respectively, for these organs. The median Dice similarity coefficients between the clinical contours and the autocontours were 0.46, 0.90, 0.98, 0.98, 0.94, and 0.86, respectively, for these organs. CONCLUSIONS: A better correspondence with time saving was observed for the misclassification rate than the quantitative contour measures explored. From this, we conclude that the inability to accurately judge the source of a contour indicates a reduced need for editing and therefore a greater time saving overall. Hence, task-based assessments of contouring performance may be considered as an additional way of evaluating the clinical utility of autosegmentation methods.

The PET-boost randomised phase II dose-escalation trial in non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The local site of relapse in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is primarily located in the high FDG uptake region of the primary tumour prior to treatment. A phase II PET-boost trial (NCT01024829) randomises patients between dose-escalation of the entire primary tumour (arm A) or to the high FDG uptake region inside the primary tumour (>50% SUV(max)) (arm B), whilst giving 66 Gy in 24 fractions to involved lymph nodes. We analysed the planning results of the first 20 patients for which both arms A and B were planned. METHODS: Boost dose levels were escalated up to predefined normal tissue constraints with an equal mean lung dose in both arms. This also forces an equal mean PTV dose in both arms, hence testing pure dose-redistribution. Actual delivered treatment plans from the ongoing clinical trial were analysed. Patients were randomised between arms A and B if dose-escalation to the primary tumour in arm A of at least 72 Gy in 24 fractions could be safely planned. RESULTS: 15/20 patients could be escalated to at least 72 Gy. Average prescribed fraction dose was 3.27±0.31 Gy [3.01-4.28 Gy] and 3.63±0.54 Gy [3.20-5.40 Gy] for arms A and B, respectively. Average mean total dose inside the PTV of the primary tumour was comparable: 77.3±7.9 Gy vs. 77.5±10.1 Gy. For the boost region dose levels of on average 86.9±14.9 Gy were reached. No significant dose differences between both arms were observed for the organs at risk. Most frequent observed dose-limiting constraints were the mediastinal structures (13/15 and 14/15 for arms A and B, respectively), and the brachial plexus (3/15 for both arms). CONCLUSION: Dose-escalation using an integrated boost could be achieved to the primary tumour or high FDG uptake regions whilst keeping the pre-defined dose constraints.

Identification of residual metabolic-active areas within NSCLC tumours using a pre-radiotherapy FDG-PET-CT scan: a prospective validation.

It was recently described that high FDG-uptake areas pre-radiotherapy largely correspond with residual metabolic-active areas post-radiotherapy. Here, an independent prospective validation of these results was performed using an overlap-fraction (OF) calculation of various FDG-uptake based thresholds. Data from twelve patients treated at Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center with lung cancer were analyzed. All patients underwent two FDG-PET-CT scans, one pre-radiotherapy (pre-RT) and one approximately three months after treatment (post-RT). Of the twelve analyzed patients, eight patients showed residual FDG uptake on the post-RT scan and were included for analysis. One of these patients had a residue that was not clearly distinguishable from the surrounding tissue due to FDG avid inflammation. Therefore, seven patients remained for further analysis. The mean volume of the residual metabolic-active areas post-RT was 14.6±10.0% (mean±SD) of the mean volume of the gross tumour volume (GTV) pre-RT. The residual metabolic-active areas largely corresponded with the pre-RT GTV (OF=93.7±7.2%). The pre-RT-scan threshold delineations of 34%, 40% and 50% of the SUV(max) had a large OF with the residual region, 86.9±8.3%, 77.4±8.1% and 67.9±6.8%, respectively. In this independent dataset, we confirmed that the location of residual FDG-uptake areas after radiotherapy corresponds with the high FDG-uptake areas pre-radiotherapy. Therefore, a pre-radiotherapy FDG-PET-CT scan can potentially be used for radiotherapy dose redistribution.