Search

Closing the gap in cancer care within low- and middle-income countries and in indigenous and geographically isolated populations in high-income countries requires investment and innovation. This is particularly true for radiotherapy, for which the global disparity is one of the largest in healthcare today. New models and paradigms and non-traditional collaborations have been proposed to improve global equity in cancer control. We describe recent initiatives from within the radiation oncology community to increase access to treatment, build the low- and middle-income countries' radiation oncology workforce, mobilise more professionals from within high-income countries and raise awareness of the global need for equitable cancer care.

The Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) is a membership-based, non-governmental organization with a mandate to “…to unite the cancer community to reduce the global cancer burden, to promote greater equity, and to integrate cancer control into the world health and development agenda.” COMP is an associate member of the UICC. It is well recognized by the UICC that there are major gaps between high, and low and middle income countries, in terms of access to cancer services including access to radiation therapy. In this context, the UICC has developed a Global Task Force on Radiotherapy for Cancer Control with a charge to answer a single question: “What does it cost to close the gap between what exists today and reasonable access to radiotherapy globally?” The Task Force consists of leaders internationally recognized for their radiation treatment related expertise (radiation oncologists, medical physicists, radiation therapists) as well as those with global health and economics specialization. The Task Force has developed three working groups: (1) to look at the global burden of cancer; (2) to look at the infrastructure requirements (facilities, equipment, personnel); and (3) to consider outcomes in terms of numbers of lives saved and palliated patients. A report is due at the World Cancer Congress in December 2014. This presentation reviews the infrastructure considerations under analysis by the second work group. The infrastructure parameters being addressed include capital costs of buildings and equipment and operating costs, which include human resources, equipment servicing and quality control, and general overhead.

Medical Physicists have a general understanding of uncertainties in the radiation treatment process, both with respect to dosimetry and geometry. However, there is a desire to be more quantitative about uncertainty estimation. A recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report (about to be published) recommends that we should be as “accurate as reasonably achievable, technical and biological factors being taken into account”. Thus, a single recommendation as a goal for accuracy in radiation therapy is an oversimplification. That report also suggests that individual clinics should determine their own level of uncertainties for their specific treatment protocols. The question is “how do we implement this in clinical practice”? AAPM Monograph 35 (2011 AAPM Summer School) addressed many specific aspects of uncertainties in each of the steps of a course of radiation treatment. The intent of this symposium is: (1) to review uncertainty considerations in the entire radiation treatment process including uncertainty determination for each step and uncertainty propagation for the total process, (2) to consider aspects of robust optimization which optimizes treatment plans while protecting them against uncertainties, and (3) to describe various methods of displaying uncertainties and communicating uncertainties to the relevant professionals. While the theoretical and research aspects will also be described, the emphasis will be on the practical considerations for the medical physicist in clinical practice.Learning Objectives: 1. To review uncertainty determination in the overall radiation treatment process. 2. To consider uncertainty modeling and uncertainty propagation. 3. To highlight the basic ideas and clinical potential of robust optimization procedures to generate optimal treatment plans that are not severely affected by uncertainties. 4. To describe methods of uncertainty communication and display.

Welcome and Introduction - Lawrence N. Rothenberg This symposium is one a continuing series of presentations at AAPM Annual Meetings on the historical aspects of medical physics, radiology, and radiation oncology that have been organized by the AAPM History Committee. Information on previous presentations including “Early Developments in Teletherapy” (Indianapolis 2013), “Historical Aspects of Cross-Sectional Imaging” (Charlotte 2012), “Historical Aspects of Brachytherapy” (Vancouver 2011), “50 Years of Women in Medical Physics” (Houston 2008), and “Roentgen's Early Investigations” (Minneapolis 2007) can be found in the Education Section of the AAPM Website. The Austin 2014 History Symposium will be on “Evolution of Radiation Treatment Planning.” Overview - Radhe Mohan Treatment planning is one of the most critical components in the chain of radiation therapy of cancers. Treatment plans of today contain a wide variety of sophisticated information conveying the potential clinical effectiveness of the designed treatment to practitioners. Examples of such information include dose distributions superimposed on three- or even four-dimensional anatomic images; dose volume histograms, dose, dose-volume and dose-response indices for anatomic structures of interest; etc. These data are used for evaluating treatment plans and for making treatment decisions. The current state-of-the-art has evolved from the 1940s era when the dose more » to the tumor and normal tissues was estimated approximately by manual means. However, the symposium will cover the history of the field from the late-1950's, when computers were first introduced for treatment planning, to the present state involving the use of high performance computing and advanced multi-dimensional anatomic, functional and biological imaging, focusing only on external beam treatment planning. The symposium will start with a general overview of the treatment planning process including imaging, structure delineation, assignment of dose requirements, consideration of uncertainties, selection of beam configurations and shaping of beams, and calculations, optimization and evaluation of dose distributions. This will be followed by three presentations covering the evolution of treatment planning, which parallels the evolution of computers, availability of advanced volumetric imaging and the development of novel technologies such as dynamic multi-leaf collimators and online image guidance. This evolution will be divided over three distinct periods - prior to 1970's, the 2D era; from 1980 to the mid-1990's, the 3D era; and from the mid 1990's to today, the IMRT era. When the World was Flat: The Two-Dimensional Radiation Therapy Era” - Jacob Van Dyk In the 2D era, anatomy was defined with the aid of solder wires, special contouring devices and projection x-rays. Dose distributions were calculated manually from single field, flat surface isodoses on transparencies. Precalculated atlases of generic dose distributions were produced by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Massive time-shared main frames and mini-computers were used to compute doses at individual points or dose distributions in a single plane. Beam shapes were generally rectangular, with wedges, missing tissue compensators and occasional blocks to shield critical structures. Dose calculations were measurement-based or they used primary and scatter calculations based on scatter-air ratio methodologies. Dose distributions were displayed on line printers as alpha-numeric character maps or isodose patterns made with pen plotters. More than Pretty Pictures: 3D Treatment Planning and Conformal Therapy - Benedick A. Fraass The introduction of computed tomography allowed the delineation of anatomy three-dimensionally and, supported partly by contracts from the National Cancer Institute, made possible the introduction and clinical use of 3D treatment planning, leading to development and use of 3D conformal therapy in the 1980's. 3D computer graphics and 3D anatomical structure definitions made possible Beam's Eye View (BEV) displays, making conformal beam shaping and much more sophisticated beam arrangements possible. These conformal plans significantly improved target dose coverage as well as normal tissue sparing. The use of dose volume histograms, gross/clinical/planning target volumes, MRI and PET imaging, multileaf collimators, and computer-controlled treatment delivery made sophisticated planning approaches practical. The significant improvements in dose distributions and analysis achievable with 3D conformal therapy made possible formal dose escalation and normal tissue tolerance clinical studies that set new and improved expectations for improved local control and decreasing complications in many clinical sites. From the Art to the State of the Art: Inverse Planning and IMRT - Thomas R. Bortfeld While the potential of intensity modulation was recognized in the mid- 1980's, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) did not become a reality until the mid-1990's. Broad beams of photons could be sub-divided into narrow beamlets whose intensities could be determined using sophisticated optimization algorithms to appropriately balance tumor dose with normal tissue sparing. The development of dynamic multi-leaf collimators (on conventional linear accelerators as well as in helical delivery devices) enabled the efficient delivery of IMRT. The evolution of IMRT planning is continuing in the form of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and through advanced optimization tools, such as multi-criteria optimization, automated IMRT planning, and robust optimization to protect dose distributions against uncertainties. IMRT also facilitates “dose painting” in which different sub-volumes of the target are prescribed different doses. Clearly, these advancements are being made possible by the increasing power and lower cost of computers and developments in other fields such as imaging and operations research. Summary - Radhe Mohan The history does not end here. The advancement of treatment planning is expected to continue, leading to further automation and improvements in conformality and robustness of dose distributions, particularly in the area of particle therapy. Radiobiological modeling will gain emphasis as part of the planning process. Learning Objectives: The scope of changes in technology and the capabilities of radiation treatment planning The impact of these changes in the quality of treatment plans and optimality of dose distributions The impact of development in other fields (imaging, computers, operations research, etc.) on the evolution of radiation treatment planning. « less

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of reducing the number of image guidance sessions and patient-specific target margins on the dose distribution in the treatment of prostate cancer with helical tomotherapy. 20 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with helical tomotherapy using daily megavoltage CT (MVCT) imaging before treatment served as the study population. The average geometric shifts applied for set-up corrections, as a result of co-registration of MVCT and planning kilovoltage CT studies over an increasing number of image guidance sessions, were determined. Simulation of the consequences of various imaging scenarios on the dose distribution was performed for two patients with different patterns of interfraction changes in anatomy. Our analysis of the daily set-up correction shifts for 20 prostate cancer patients suggests that the use of four fractions would result in a population average shift that was within 1 mm of the average obtained from the data accumulated over all daily MVCT sessions. Simulation of a scenario in which imaging sessions are performed at a reduced frequency and the planning target volume margin is adapted provided significantly better sparing of organs at risk, with acceptable reproducibility of dose delivery to the clinical target volume. Our results indicate that four MVCT sessions on helical tomotherapy are sufficient to provide information for the creation of personalised target margins and the establishment of the new reference position that accounts for the systematic error. This simplified approach reduces overall treatment session time and decreases the imaging dose to the patient.

Currently, megavoltage CT studies in most centres with tomotherapy units are performed prior to every treatment for patient set-up verification and position correction. However, daily imaging adds to the total treatment time, which may cause patient discomfort as well as results in increased imaging dose. In this study, four alternative megavoltage CT imaging protocols (images obtained: during the first five fractions, once per week, alternating fractions and daily on alternative weeks) were evaluated retrospectively using the daily position correction data for 42 patients with lung cancer. The additional uncertainty introduced by using a specific protocol with respect to the daily imaging, or residual uncertainty, was analysed on a patient and population bases. The impact of less frequent imaging schedules on treatment margin calculation was also analysed. Systematic deviations were reduced with increased imaging frequency, while random deviations were largely unaffected. Mean population systematic errors were small for all protocols evaluated. In the protocol showing the greatest error, the treatment margins necessary to accommodate residual errors were 1.2, 1.3 and 1.7 mm larger in the left-right, superior-inferior and anterior-posterior directions, respectively, compared with the margins calculated using the daily imaging data. The increased uncertainty because of the use of less frequent imaging protocols may be acceptable when compared with other sources of uncertainty in lung cancer cases, such as target volume delineation and motion because of respiration. Further work needs to be carried out to establish the impact of increased residual errors on dose distribution.

In a recent clinical study, we have shown that computed tomography (CT) can provide a good qualitative endpoint for the presence of radiation-induced pulmonary damage. However, CT data are also potentially useful as a quantitative measure of lung damage. Changes in lung density were quantified by comparing CT images taken before and after radiotherapy for 54 patients. Lung densities were assessed separately in the irradiated and nonirradiated regions using both the average regional densities and density distributions. For the 36 patients demonstrating visible post-irradiation lung damage on CT, the mean relative increase in average lung density was 0.20 ± 0.10 in the irradiated regions. The mean change in the nonirradiated regions was 0.02 ± 0.09 for the same group. For 18 patients without visible damage, the mean relative changes were 0.00 ± 0.09 and −0.05 ± 0.07 for the irradiated and nonirradiated regions, respectively. The results suggest that an increase in average lung density of 5% or greater is associated with the visible detection of pulmonary damage. The dose-response relationship based on this quantitative criterion was comparable to that derived using the qualitative endpoint.