Radiation Therapy for Stage IIA/B Seminoma: Modeling Secondary Cancer Risk for Protons and VMAT versus 3D Photons.

Radiation therapy (RT) is an effective treatment for stage IIA and select stage IIB seminomas. However, given the long life expectancy of seminoma patients, there are concerns about the risk of secondary cancers from RT. This study assessed differences in secondary cancer risk for stage II seminoma patients following proton pencil-beam scanning (PBS) and photon VMAT, compared to 3D conformal photon RT. Ten seminoma patients, five with a IIA staging who received 30 GyRBE and five with a IIB staging who received 36 GyRBE, had three RT plans generated. Doses to organs at risk (OAR) were evaluated, and secondary cancer risks were calculated as the Excess Absolute Risk (EAR) and Lifetime Attributable Risk (LAR). PBS reduced the mean OAR dose by 60% on average compared to 3D, and reduced the EAR and LAR for all OAR, with the greatest reductions seen for the bowel, liver, and stomach. VMAT reduced high doses but increased the low-dose bath, leading to an increased EAR and LAR for some OAR. PBS provided superior dosimetric sparing of OAR compared to 3D and VMAT in stage II seminoma cases, with models demonstrating that this may reduce secondary cancer risk. Therefore, proton therapy shows the potential to reduce acute and late side effects of RT for this population.

Characterization of an Iodinated Rectal Spacer for Prostate Photon and Proton Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Conventional rectal spacers (nonI-SPs) are low-contrast on computed tomography (CT), often necessitating magnetic resonance imaging for accurate delineation. A new formulation of spacers (I-SPs) incorporates iodine to improve radiopacity and CT visualization. We characterized placement, stability, and plan quality of I-SPs compared to nonI-SPs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with intact prostate cancer (n = 50) treated with I-SPs and photons were compared to randomly selected patients (n = 50) with nonI-SPs (photon or proton therapy). The I-SP was contoured on the planning CT and cone beam CTs at 3 timepoints: first, middle, and final treatment (n = 200 scans). I-SPs Hounsfield units (HU), volume, surface area (SA), centroid position relative to prostate centroid, and distance between prostate/rectum centroids were compared on the planning CTs between each cohort. I-SP changes were evaluated on cone beam CTs over courses of treatment. Dosimetric evaluations of plan quality and robustness were performed. I-SP was tested in a phantom to characterize its relative linear stopping power for protons. RESULTS: I-SPs yielded a distinct visible contrast on planning CTs compared to nonI-SPs (HU 138 vs 12, P < .001), allowing delineation on CT alone. The delineated volume and SA of I-SPs were smaller than nonI-SPs (volume 8.9 vs 10.6 mL, P < .001; SA 28 vs 35 cm2, P < .001), yet relative spacer position and prostate-rectal separation were similar (P = .79). No significant change in HU, volume, SA, or relative position of the I-SPs hydrogel occurred over courses of treatment (all P > .1). Dosimetric analysis concluded there were no significant changes in plan quality or robustness for I-SPs compared to nonI-SPs. The I-SP relative linear stopping power was 1.018, necessitating HU override for proton planning. CONCLUSIONS: I-SPs provide a manifest CT contrast, allowing for delineation on planning CT alone with no magnetic resonance imaging necessary. I-SPs radiopacity, size, and relative position remained stable over courses of treatment from 28 to 44 fractions. No changes in plan quality or robustness were seen comparing I-SPs and nonI-SPs.

Personalized Radiation Attenuating Materials for Gastrointestinal Mucosal Protection.

Cancer patients undergoing therapeutic radiation routinely develop injury of the adjacent gastrointestinal (GI) tract mucosa due to treatment. To reduce radiation dose to critical GI structures including the rectum and oral mucosa, 3D-printed GI radioprotective devices composed of high-Z materials are generated from patient CT scans. In a radiation proctitis rat model, a significant reduction in crypt injury is demonstrated with the device compared to without (p < 0.0087). Optimal device placement for radiation attenuation is further confirmed in a swine model. Dosimetric modeling in oral cavity cancer patients demonstrates a 30% radiation dose reduction to the normal buccal mucosa and a 15.2% dose reduction in the rectum for prostate cancer patients with the radioprotectant material in place compared to without. Finally, it is found that the rectal radioprotectant device is more cost-effective compared to a hydrogel rectal spacer. Taken together, these data suggest that personalized radioprotectant devices may be used to reduce GI tissue injury in cancer patients undergoing therapeutic radiation.

Evaluation of radiation-induced cardiac toxicity in breast cancer patients treated with Trastuzumab-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Patients with Her2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab have higher rates of cardiotoxicity (CT). Left-breast radiation might increase the risk for CT from cardiac exposure to radiation. The goal of our study is to evaluate the contribution of radiotherapy (RT) in the development of CT in breast cancer patients receiving trastuzumab. METHODS: Two hundred and two patients were treated with RT and trastuzumab from 2000 to 2014. The RT plans for left-side disease were recalled from archives. The heart, each chamber, and left anterior descending artery (LAD) were independently contoured. New dose-volume histograms (DVH) were generated. Their serial left-ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) were studied. CT for left and right side were compared using Fisher's exact test. The DVH data were correlated with the predefined cardiac events using actuarial Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Compared to the right sided, the left-side cases showed statistically significant development of arrhythmia (14.2%) versus (< 1%) (p < 0.001). Cardiac ischemia was found in 10 patients in left and one patient in right side (p = 0.011). The equivalent uniform dose (EUD) to the left ventricle (LV), right ventricle (RV), and LAD was significantly associated with decrease in LVEF by > 10% (p = 0.037, p = 0.023 and p = 0.049, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated for left-sided lesions, there were no significant differences in EF decline. However, there was a higher rate of ischemia and arrhythmia compared to those with right-sided disease. The EUD index of LV, RV, and LAD could be considered as a parameter to describe the risk of radiation-induced CT.

Liver reirradiation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and liver metastasis.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of administering liver reirradiation to patients with primary liver tumors or liver metastasis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 49 patients (with 64 individual tumors) who received liver reirradiation at our institution between June 2008 and December 2016 were identified for retrospective review. Patients were treated to the same, different, or a combination of previously treated liver tumors for recurrent primary (53%) or metastatic (47%) disease using photons or protons. Clinical and treatment-related factors were compiled and patients were monitored for toxicity and evidence of classic or nonclassic radiation-induced liver disease. Survival was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and cumulative incidence of local failure (LF) was used to estimate LF using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. RESULTS: The median age at the time of reirradiation was 72 years and the median interval between radiation courses was 9 months. At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, 36 patients (73%) had died, 9 patients (18%) were alive, and 4 patients (8%) were lost to follow-up. The median survival for the cohort was 14 months. The overall 1-year estimate of LF was 46.4%. The 1-year estimates of LF for liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma were 61.0% and 32.5%, respectively. The average prescription dose was similar between the reirradiation and initial courses (equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions EQD2: 65.0 vs 64.3 Gyα/ß = 10, respectively) but the average dose to the untreated liver was lower at the time of reirradiation (EQD2: 10.5 vs 13.9 Gyα/ß = 3, respectively, P = .01). Among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, the average normal liver dose was significantly larger for patients who exhibited a worsening of Child-Pugh score after reirradiation compared with those who did not (1210 cGy vs 759 cGy, P = .04). With regard to toxicity, 85.7% of patients experienced grade 1 to 2 toxicity, 4.1% developed grade 3, and only 2 patients (4.1%) met the criteria for radiation-induced liver disease after reirradiation. CONCLUSIONS: Liver reirradiation may be an effective and safe option for select patients; however, further prospective study is necessary to establish treatment guidelines and recommended dosing.

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy using multicriteria optimization for body and extremity sarcoma.

This study evaluates the implementation of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using multicriteria optimization (MCO) in the RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) for complex sites, namely extremity and body sarcoma. The VMAT-MCO algorithm implemented in RayStation is newly developed and requires an integrated, comprehensive analysis of plan generation, delivery, and treatment efficiency. Ten patients previously treated by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with MCO were randomly selected and replanned using VMAT-MCO. The plan quality was compared using homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume (PTV) and dose sparing of organs at risk (OARs). Given the diversity of the tumor location, the 10 plans did not have a common OAR except for skin. The skin D50 and Dmean was directly compared between VMAT-MCO and IMRT-MCO. Additional OAR dose points were compared on a plan-by-plan basis. The treatment efficiency was compared using plan monitor units (MU) and net beam-on time. Plan quality assurance was performed using the Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK phantom and a gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. No statistically significant differences were found between VMAT- and IMRT-MCO for HI and CI of the PTV or D50 and Dmean to the skin. The VMAT-MCO plans showed general improvements in sparing to OARs. The VMAT-MCO plan set showed statistically significant improvements over the IMRT-MCO set in treatment efficiency per plan MU (p < 0.05) and net beam-on time (p < 0.01). The VMAT-MCO plan deliverability was validated. Similar gamma passing rates were observed for the two modalities. This study verifies the suitability of VMAT-MCO for sarcoma cancer and highlighted the comparability in plan quality and improve-ment in treatment efficiency offered by VMAT-MCO as compared to IMRT-MCO.