Effect of Supine vs Prone Breast Radiotherapy on Acute Toxic Effects of the Skin Among Women With Large Breast Size: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Women with large breast size treated with adjuvant breast radiotherapy (RT) have a high rate of acute toxic effects of the skin. Breast RT in the prone position is one strategy that may decrease these toxic effects. Objective: To determine if breast RT in the prone position reduces acute toxic effects of the skin when compared with treatment in the supine position. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 3, multicenter, single-blind randomized clinical trial accrued patients from 5 centers across Canada from April 2013 to March 2018 to compare acute toxic effects of breast RT for women with large breast size (bra band ≥40 in and/or ≥D cup) in the prone vs supine positions. A total of 378 patients were referred for adjuvant RT and underwent randomization. Seven patients randomized to supine position were excluded (5 declined treatment and 2 withdrew consent), and 14 patients randomized to prone position were excluded (4 declined treatment, 3 had unacceptable cardiac dose, and 7 were unable to tolerate being prone). Data were analyzed from April 2019 through September 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized to RT in the supine or prone position. From April 2013 until June 2016, all patients (n = 167) received 50 Gy in 25 fractions (extended fractionation) with or without boost (range, 10-16 Gy). After trial amendment in June 2016, the majority of patients (177 of 190 [93.2%]) received the hypofractionation regimen of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcome was moist desquamation (desquamation). Results: Of the 357 women (mean [SD] age, 61 [9.9] years) included in the analysis, 182 (51.0%) were treated in the supine position and 175 (49.0%) in prone. There was statistically significantly more desquamation in patients treated in the supine position compared with prone (72 of 182 [39.6%] patients vs 47 of 175 [26.9%] patients; OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.24-2.56; P = .002), which was confirmed on multivariable analysis (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.48-2.66; P < .001), along with other independent factors: use of boost (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.95-3.77; P < .001), extended fractionation (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.41-5.79; P = .004), and bra size (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.50-4.37; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial confirms that treatment in the prone position decreases desquamation in women with large breast size receiving adjuvant RT. It also shows increased toxic effects using an RT boost and conventional fractionation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01815476.

Medical physics external beam plan review: What contributes to the variability?

PURPOSE: In this article we report on the results of a survey of physics plan review practices conducted by the Cancer Care Ontario Communities of Practice and the variations in practice between and within centers. METHODS: The medical physicists at each center worked together to complete the survey and submit a single response for that center. A 4-point Likert scale, used to report the variation in practice at each center, was quantified into two parameters: "Intra-center variation", the distribution of responses within the center, and "Variation between centers", the difference between the center's response and the provincial mean. These metrics were correlated with center characteristics to identify factors that impacted on variations in practice. RESULTS: Bolus and heterogeneity correction were the only two items checked by all physicists in all centers. In more than half of the centers, image registration and DVH binning are not likely checked by physics. A significant difference in the variation between centers is observed for centers that used a single vendor's products. Centers that used an official checklist indicated higher levels and a wider range of Intra-center variation. Higher workload did not affect the variation in checking patterns between physicists in the same center. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of a center's resources on their checking practice suggest that local environment and workflow be accounted for when implementing TG275 guidelines. The observation that standardized checklists did not reduce checking variability point to the importance of following the checklist development guidelines in MPPG4 to avoid ineffective checklists.

Clinical Evaluation of Deep Learning and Atlas-Based Auto-Contouring of Bladder and Rectum for Prostate Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Auto-contouring may reduce workload, interobserver variation, and time associated with manual contouring of organs at risk. Manual contouring remains the standard due in part to uncertainty around the time and workload savings after accounting for the review and editing of auto-contours. This preliminary study compares a standard manual contouring workflow with 2 auto-contouring workflows (atlas and deep learning) for contouring the bladder and rectum in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three contouring workflows were defined based on the initial contour-generation method including manual (MAN), atlas-based auto-contour (ATLAS), and deep-learning auto-contour (DEEP). For each workflow, initial contour generation was retrospectively performed on 15 patients with prostate cancer. Then, radiation oncologists (ROs) edited each contour while blinded to the manner in which the initial contour was generated. Workflows were compared by time (both in initial contour generation and in RO editing), contour similarity, and dosimetric evaluation. RESULTS: Mean durations for initial contour generation were 10.9 min, 1.4 min, and 1.2 min for MAN, DEEP, and ATLAS, respectively. Initial DEEP contours were more geometrically similar to initial MAN contours. Mean durations of the RO editing steps for MAN, DEEP, and ATLAS contours were 4.1 min, 4.7 min, and 10.2 min, respectively. The geometric extent of RO edits was consistently larger for ATLAS contours compared with MAN and DEEP. No differences in clinically relevant dose-volume metrics were observed between workflows. CONCLUSION: Auto-contouring software affords time savings for initial contour generation; however, it is important to also quantify workload changes at the RO editing step. Using deep-learning auto-contouring for bladder and rectum contour generation reduced contouring time without negatively affecting RO editing times, contour geometry, or clinically relevant dose-volume metrics. This work contributes to growing evidence that deep-learning methods are a clinically viable solution for organ-at-risk contouring in radiation therapy.

The influence of a novel transmission detector on 6 MV x-ray beam characteristics.

The purpose of this work was to investigate the influence of a new transmission detector on 6 MV x-ray beam properties. The device, COMPASS (IBA Dosimetry, Germany), contains 1600 plane parallel ionization chambers with a detector spacing of 6.5 mm and an active volume of 0.02 cm3. Surface dose measurements were carried out using a Markus chamber and radiochromic film for a range of field sizes and source-to-surface distances (SSDs). The surface dose and dose in the build-up region for COMPASS fields were compared to open fields. For moderately narrow beam geometric conditions, the increase in surface dose was small. For the largest field size investigated (20x20 cm2) at a 90 cm SSD, the surface dose with the detector was 34.9% versus 26.8% in the open field. However, the increase in surface dose in COMPASS fields was less than that observed with a standard block tray in the field (38.7% in the above example). It was found that beyond dmax, the difference in relative dose (profiles and PDDs) between open and COMPASS fields was insignificant. The mean transmission factor of the detector was 0.967 (standard deviation=0.002) measured over a range of field sizes from 3x3 to 20x20 cm2 at SSDs from 70 cm to 90 cm. In summary, the transmission detector was found to increase the relative dose in the buildup region but had a negligible effect on the beam parameters beyond dmax.