Immunogenicity after two and three doses of mRNA vaccine in patients with cancer treated with exclusive radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Data on immunoresponse after SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for patients treated with exclusive radiotherapy (RT) are scarce. Since RT may affect the immune system, we conducted the MORA trial (Antibody response and cell-mediated immunity of MOderna mRNA-1273 vaccine in patients treated with RAdiotherapy). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data regarding humoral and cellular immune response of patients treated with RT were prospectively collected after the second and third dose of mRNA vaccines. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were enrolled. With a median of 147 days after the second dose, the median SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer was 300 BAU/mL: six patients were seronegative (Spike IgG titer ≤ 40 BAU/mL), whereas 24, 46 and 16 were poor responders (Spike IgG titer:41-200 BAU/mL), responders (Spike IgG titer:201-800 BAU/mL) and ultraresponders (Spike IgG titer > 800 BAU/mL), respectively. Among seronegative patients, two patients were negative also for cell mediated response, as tested with IFN-γ release Assay (IGRA) test. With a median of 85 days after the third dose, the median SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer was 1632 BAU/mL in 81 patients: only two patients were seronegative, whereas 16 and 63 patients were responders and ultraresponders, respectively. Among the 2 persistently seronegative patients, IGRA test was negative in one who had previously received anti-CD20 therapy. Documented paucisymptomatic (n = 3) or asymptomatic (n = 4) infection occurred after the third dose, during the Omicron wave. CONCLUSION: In patients treated with exclusive RT, even during the Omicron breakthrough, robust humoral response and clinical protection from severe SARS-CoV-2 disease were achievable with three doses of mRNA vaccine.

The role of EPID in vivo dosimetry in the risk management of stereotactic lung treatments.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In this work we report our experience with the use of in vivo dosimetry (IVD) in the risk management of stereotactic lung treatments. METHODS: A commercial software based on the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) signal was used to reconstruct the actual planning target volume (PTV) dose of stereotactic lung treatments. The study was designed in two phases: i) in the observational phase, the IVD results of 41 consecutive patients were reviewed and out-of-tolerance cases were studied for root cause analysis; ii) in the active phase, the IVD results of 52 patients were analyzed and corrective actions were taken when needed. Moreover, proactive preventions were further introduced to reduce the risk of future failures. The error occurrence rate was analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of proactive actions. RESULTS: A total of 330 fractions were analyzed. In the first phase, 13 errors were identified. In the active phase, 12 errors were detected, 5 of which needed corrective actions; in 4 patients the actions taken corrected the error. Several preventions and barriers were introduced to reduce the risk of future failures: the planning checklist was updated, the procedure for vacuum pillows was improved, and use of the respiratory compression belt was optimized. A decrease in the failure rate was observed, showing the effectiveness of procedural adjustment. CONCLUSION: The use of IVD allowed the quality of lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatments to be improved. Patient-specific and procedural corrective actions were successfully taken as part of risk management, leading to an overall improvement in the dosimetric accuracy.

Clinical implementation of 3D in vivo dosimetry for abdominal and pelvic stereotactic treatments.

PURPOSE: To analyze results from three years of in vivo transit EPID dosimetry of abdominal and pelvic stereotactic radiotherapy and to establish tolerance levels for routine clinical use. MATERIAL: 80 stereotactic VMAT treatments (152 fractions) targeting the abdomen or pelvis were analyzed. In vivo 3D doses were reconstructed with an EPID commercial algorithm. Gamma Agreement Index (GAI) and DVH differences in Planning Target Volume (PTV) and Clinical Target Volume (CTV) were evaluated. Initial tolerance level was set to GAI > 85% in PTV. Fractions Over Tolerance Level (OTL) were deemed to be due to set-up errors, incorrect use of immobilization devices, 4D errors, transit EPID algorithm errors and unknown/unidentified errors. Statistical Process Control (SPC) was applied to determine local tolerance levels. RESULTS: Average GAI were (82.7 ± 20.9) % in PTV and (72.9 ± 29.7) % in CTV. 37.8% of fractions resulted OTL and were classified as: set-up errors (3.3%), incorrect use of immobilization devices (2.1%), 4D errors (2.1%), EPID transit algorithm errors (17.1%). OTL causes for the remaining 13.2% of fractions were not identified. The differences between PTV and CTV measured in vivo and calculated mean dose (average difference ± standard deviation) were (-3.3% ± 3.2%) and (-2.3% ± 3.0%). When tolerance levels based on SPC to PTV mean dose differences were applied, the percentage of OTL decreased to 7% and no EPID algorithm error occurred. One error was not identified. CONCLUSIONS: The application of local tolerance levels to EPID in vivo dosimetry proved to be useful for detecting extra-lung SBRT treatment errors.

Variability in axillary lymph node delineation for breast cancer radiotherapy in presence of guidelines on a multi-institutional platform.

AIM: To quantify the variability between radiation oncologists (ROs) when outlining axillary nodes in breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For each participating center, three ROs with different levels of expertise, i.e., junior (J), senior (S) and expert (E), contoured axillary nodal levels (L1, L2, L3 and L4) on the CT images of three different patients (P) of an increasing degree of anatomical complexity (from P1 to P2 to P3), according to contouring guidelines. Consensus contours were generated using the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) method. RESULTS: Fifteen centers and 42 ROs participated. Overall, the median Dice similarity coefficient was 0.66. Statistically significant differences were observed according to the level of expertise (better agreement for J and E, worse for S); the axillary level (better agreement for L1 and L4, worse for L3); the patient (better agreement for P1, worse for P3). Statistically significant differences in contouring were found in 18% of the inter-center comparison. Less than a half of the centers could claim to have a good agreement between the internal ROs. CONCLUSIONS: The overall intra-institute and inter-institute agreement was moderate. Central lymph-node levels were the most critical and variability increased as the complexity of the patient's anatomy increased. These findings might have an effect on the interpretation of results from multicenter and even mono-institute studies.