Dosimetric Comparison Between Helical Tomotherapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

AIMS: To carry out a dosimetric comparison and constraints feasibility proof of adjuvant radiotherapy through helical tomotherapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for malignant pleural mesothelioma patients after pleurectomy/decortication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective calculations were carried out on previously acquired simulations. A whole-pleura volume with 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions was prescribed, simulating a no residual tumour situation. Calculations were carried out using an anisotropic analytical algorithm with a 2.0 mm grid. Beam-on time, planning target volume (PTV) coverage, homogeneity index and organ at risk exposure were compared. RESULTS: Sixteen patient plans were calculated per device. Constraints were met overall by both modalities. For helical tomotherapy and VMAT plans, median beam-on times were 13.8 (11.6-16.1) min and 6.4 (6.1-7.0) min; P = 0.006. The median left-sided radiotherapy PTV D98 were 48.1 (48.0-48.8) Gy and 47.6 (46.5-48.3) Gy; P = 0.023. No significant difference for right-sided radiotherapy was found. PTV D2 for left-sided radiotherapy was higher with VMAT (P = 0.014). For right-sided radiotherapy, helical tomotherapy showed higher doses (P = 0.039). No homogeneity index differences for left-sided radiotherapy (P = 1.00) and right-sided radiotherapy (P = 0.598) were seen. Significant organ at risk exposure differences were found on left-sided radiotherapy whole-lung V20, as well as D50 (both P = 0.008). Higher contralateral lung and ipsilateral kidney exposures were found with VMAT plans for both treatment sides. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant radiotherapy after pleurectomy/decortication in malignant pleural mesothelioma patients, with a VMAT- or helical tomotherapy-based platform, is dosimetrically feasible. Lung sparing was mostly improved with helical tomotherapy. Technique selection must be carried out according to availability and clinical criteria.

MRI during radiotherapy of glioblastoma : Does MRI allow for prognostic stratification?

AIM: To evaluate the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a predictor for the clinical course in patients with glioblastoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 64 patients with glioblastoma undergoing (chemo)radiotherapy MRI studies were obtained before radiation, after 30 gray (Gy), after 60 Gy and during follow-up. MRI findings were assigned to categories: definite progression, questionable progression, no change. Patients were followed clinically. RESULTS: At 30 Gy, 23 of 64 patients (36 %) demonstrated definite (dp; n = 15) or questionable (qp; n = 8) progression; in 41/64 (64 %) no change was found compared with preradiation MRI. After radiotherapy at 60 Gy, 26 of 64 (41 %) patients showed dp (n = 18) or qp (n = 8). In 2 cases with qp at the 30 Gy MRI, progress was unquestionable in the 60 Gy MRI study. In the 64 patients, 5 of the 60 Gy MRIs showed dp/qp after being classified as no change at the 30 Gy MRI, 2 of the 30 Gy MRIs showed qp, while the 60 Gy MRI showed tumour regression and 3 fulfilled the criteria for pseudoprogression during ongoing radiotherapy. The 30 Gy study allowed for prognostic stratification: dp/qp compared to stable patients showed median survival of 10.5 versus 20 months. CONCLUSION: MR follow-up after 30 Gy in patients undergoing (chemo)radiotherapy for glioblastoma allows prognostic appraisal. Pseudoprogression has to be taken into account, though rare in our setting. Based on these findings, early discussion of treatment modification is possible.

[Change of Taste during and after IM- /IG-Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer Patients]. / Veränderungen des Schmeckvermögens durch IM-/IG-Strahlentherapie bei Kopf-Hals-Tumorpatienten.

OBJECTIVE: Taste dysfunction is a common side effect during irradiation of head and neck. Our aim was to determine the time-dependent course and a possible dependency of this side effect to the radiation-dose during irradiation with helical tomotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 31 patients with malignant tumours in the region of head and neck received an IG-/IM-radiotherapy (helical tomotherapy).The median total dose was 63 Gy (range 30-66 Gy). For all patients the subjective taste dysfunction was documented and correlated to the median (D50) tongue dose. RESULTS: A subjective taste dysfunction was registered by the patients themselves after 9 BT (days of radiotherapy) (median). This correlates to a mean dose (D50) of 15.3 Gy (back third of tongue (back ZD)), 11.3 Gy (middle ZD), 8.2 Gy (front ZD). A subjective ageusia occurred after 15 BT (median) (28.9 Gy (back ZD), 22.2 Gy (middle ZD), 17.7 Gy (front ZD)). A starting recovery was registered by 77% of the patients in the first 6-8 weeks after the end of radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: The time-dependent course of taste dysfunction during radiotherapy and the following recovery is predictable. A dependency of taste dysfunction to radiation-dose exists. Based on the collected data a targeted dose reduction to the tongue with a view to minimize the taste dysfunction is thinkable and aim of further studies.

Quality of patient positioning during cerebral tomotherapy irradiation using different mask systems.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patient immobilization during brain tumor radiotherapy is achieved by employing different mask systems. Two innovative mask systems were developed to minimize the problems of claustrophobic patients. Our aim was to evaluate whether the quality of patient immobilization using the new mask systems was equivalent to the standard mask system currently in use. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-three patients with cerebral target volumes were irradiated using the Hi-Art II tomotherapy system between 2010 and 2012. Each group of 11 patients was fitted with one of the two new mask systems (Crystal® or Open Face® mask, Orfit) or the standard three-point mask (Raycast®-HP, Orfit) and a total of 557 radiotherapy fractions were evaluated. After positioning was checked by MV-CT, the necessary table adjustments were noted. Data were analyzed by comparing the groups, and safety margins were calculated for nonimage-guided irradiation. RESULTS: The mean values of the table adjustments were: (a) lateral (mm): - 0.22 (mask 1, standard deviation (σ): 2.15); 1.1 (mask 2, σ: 2.4); - 0.64 (mask 3, σ: 2.9); (b) longitudinal (mm): - 1 (mask 1, σ: 2.57); - 0.5 (mask 2, σ: 4.7); - 1.22 (mask 3, σ: 2.52); (c) vertical (mm): 0.62 (mask 1, σ: 0.63); 1.2 (mask 2, σ: 1.0); 0.57 (mask 3, σ: 0.28); (d) roll: 0.35° (mask 1, σ: 0.75); 0° (mask 2, σ: 0.8); 0.02° (mask 3, σ: 1.12). The outcomes suggest necessary safety margins of 5.49-7.38 mm (lateral), 5.4-6.56 mm (longitudinal), 0.82-3.9 mm (vertical), and 1.93-4.5° (roll). There were no significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The new mask systems improve patient comfort while providing consistent patient positioning.