Improving plan quality in cervical brachytherapy using a simple knowledge-based prediction tool for OAR dose (D2cm3).

PURPOSE: Toxicity from cervical brachytherapy has been demonstrated to correlate with the D2cm3 of the bladder, rectum, and bowel. This suggests a simplified version of knowledge-based planning investigating the relationship of the overlap distance for 2cm3 and the D2cm3 from planning may be possible. This work demonstrates the feasibility of simple knowledge-based planning to predict the D2cm3, detect suboptimal plans, and improve plan quality. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The overlap volume histogram (OVH) method was used to determine the distance for 2cm3 of overlap between the OAR and CTV_HR. Linear plots modeled the OAR D2cm3 and 2cm3 overlap distance. Two datasets of 20 patients (plans from 43 insertions in each dataset) were used to create two independent models, and the performance of each model was compared using cross-validation. Doses were scaled to ensure consistent CTV_HR D90 values. The predicted D2cm3 is entered as the maximum constraint in the inverse planning algorithm. RESULTS: Mean bladder D2cm3 decreased by 2.9% for the models from each dataset, mean rectal D2cm3 decreased 14.9% for the model from dataset 1 and 6.0% for the model from dataset 2, mean sigmoid D2cm3 decreased 10.7% for the model from dataset 1 and 6.1% for the model from dataset 2, mean bowel D2cm3 decreased 4.1% for the model from dataset 1 but no statistically significant difference was observed for the model from dataset 2. CONCLUSIONS: A simplified knowledge-based planning method was used to predict D2cm3 and was able to automate optimization of brachytherapy plans for locally advanced cervical cancer.

Quality improvement in paediatric radiation oncology through peer review.

INTRODUCTION: Around 300 children in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) undergo a course of radiation treatment (RT) each year. A fortnightly videoconference for radiation oncologists managing children started in 2013. We conducted an audit of the videoconference to assess its influence on the care of children who receive RT in ANZ. METHODS: De-identified data from minutes (August 2013-December 2019) were analysed retrospectively using three categories: meeting participation, case presentations and management decisions. RESULTS: There were 119 meetings and 334 children discussed over the six-year audit period with regular attendance from four of 11 centres treating children in ANZ. Most cases (80%) were discussed prior to RT. A change in the overall management plan was recommended for around one in eight patients (35/334, 13%). RT plan reviews were performed in 79 cases (23%). Adjustments were made to the target volume contours or treatment plan in 8% (6/79). CONCLUSION: Increasing the frequency of the meeting to weekly and compliant with the RANZCR Peer Review Audit Tool has the capacity to review all paediatric RT patients in ANZ prior to RT and initiate changes for as many as one in eight children treated by RT each year. The meeting should be considered a core component necessary to maintain expertise in paediatric RT in all centres providing RT for children in ANZ while also acting as a proton referral panel as more children are referred abroad for proton therapy before the Australian Bragg Centre for Proton Therapy opens in Adelaide in 2024.

Changes in Brain Metastasis During Radiosurgical Planning.

PURPOSE: To determine whether there are any changes in brain metastases or resection cavity volumes between planning magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and radiosurgery (RS) treatment and whether these led to a change in management or alteration in the RS plan. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients undergoing RS for brain metastasis or tumor resection cavities had a standardized planning MRI (MRI-1) performed and a repeat verification MRI (MRI-2) 24 hours before RS. Any change in management, including replanning based on MRI-2, was recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients with a total of 59 lesions (44 metastases and 15 tumor resection cavities) were assessed with a median time between MRI-1 and MRI-2 of 7 days. Seventeen patients (50%) required a change in management based on the changes seen on MRI-2. For patients with 7 days or less between scans, 41% (9 of 22) required a change in management; among patients with 8 days or more between scans, 78% (7 of 9) required a change in management. Per lesion, 32 out of 59 lesions required replanning, including 7 of 15 (47%) cavities and 25 of 44 (57%) metastases, with the most common reason (23 lesions) being an increase in gross target volume (tumor) or clinical target volume (tumor cavity). CONCLUSIONS: Measurable changes occur in brain metastasis over a short amount of time, with a change in management required in 41% of patients with 7 days between MRI-1 and MRI-2 and in 78% of patients when there is a delay longer than 7 days. We therefore recommend that the time between planning MRI and RS treatment be as short as possible.

Dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and linear accelerator-based radiosurgery for the treatment of one to four brain metastases.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and linear accelerator-based radiosurgery (Linac RS) for the treatment of one to four brain metastases. METHODS: Radiotherapy plans for 10 patients with 1 to 4 brain metastases that were planned and treated using conventional Linac RS were replanned using a mono-isocentric VMAT technique using two to four arcs. The same doses, target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) were used in both plans. The plans were evaluated for target volume coverage, dose conformity, homogeneity and dose to OAR. RESULTS: For VMAT plans, 18/19 brain metastases met acceptable Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) radiosurgery dose coverage, homogeneity and conformity criteria. There was no observed difference between the mean homogeneity indices for VMAT and Linac RS plans. VMAT plans had a lower mean RTOG conformity index compared with the Linac RS plans (1.10 ± 0.06 versus 2.06 ± 1.02). For the OAR, there was no difference in maximal doses to the brain stem, optic chiasm or optic nerves. The volume of normal brain receiving 12 Gy was lower in the VMAT plans (13.3 cm(3) versus 23.1 cm(3) ) compared with the Linac RS plans. The mean total number of monitor units (MUs) was 31.3% less in the VMAT plans (5231.2 MU versus 3593.5 MU). CONCLUSIONS: Mono-isocentric VMAT plans using two to four arcs meet RTOG radiosurgery quality criteria in patients with one to four brain metastases, with an improvement in conformity and 12-Gy normal brain volume when compared with patients treated with Linac RS at our institution.