Search

Purpose: Our purpose was to investigate whether liver stereotactic body radiation therapy treatment planning can be harmonized across different treatment planning systems, delivery techniques, and institutions by using a specific prescription method and to minimize the knowledge gap concerning intersystem and interuser differences. We provide best practice guidelines for all used techniques. Methods and Materials: A multiparametric specification of target dose (gross target volume [GTV](D50%), GTV(D0.1cc), GTV(V90%), planning target volume [PTV](V70%)) with a prescription dose of GTV(D50% )= 3 x 20 Gy and organ-at-risk (OAR) limits were distributed with computed tomography and structure sets from 3 patients with liver metastases. Thirty-five institutions provided 132 treatment plans using different irradiation techniques. These plans were first analyzed for target and OAR doses. Four different renormalization methods were performed (PTVDmin, PTVD98%, PTVD2% , PTVDmax). The resulting 660 treatments plans were evaluated regarding target doses to study the effect of dose renormalization to different prescription methods. A relative scoring system was used for comparisons. Results: GTV(D50%) prescription can be performed in all systems. Treatment plan harmonization was overall successful, with standard deviations for Dmax, PTVD98%, GTV(D98%), and PTVDmean of 1.6, 3.3, 1.9, and 1.5 Gy, respectively. Primary analysis showed 55 major deviations from clinical goals in 132 plans, whereas in only <20% of deviations GTV/PTV dose was traded for meeting OAR limits. GTV(D50%) prescription produced the smallest deviation from target planning objectives and between techniques, followed by the PTVDmax, PTVD98%, PTVD2%, and PTV(Dmin )prescription. Deviations were significant for all combinations but for the PTVDmax prescription compared with GTV(D50%) and PTVD98%. Based on the various dose prescription methods, all systems significantly differed from each other, whereas GTV(D50%) and

This review details and discusses the technological quality requirements to ensure the desired quality for stereotactic radiotherapy using photon external beam radiotherapy as defined by the DEGRO Working Group Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Radiotherapy and the DGMP Working Group for Physics and Technology in Stereotactic Radiotherapy. The covered aspects of this review are 1) imaging for target volume definition, 2) patient positioning and target volume localization, 3) motion management, 4) collimation of the irradiation and beam directions, 5) dose calculation, 6) treatment unit accuracy, and 7) dedicated quality assurance measures. For each part, an expert review for current state-of-the-art techniques and their particular technological quality requirement to reach the necessary accuracy for stereotactic radiotherapy divided into intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery in one single fraction (SRS), intracranial fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT), and extracranial stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is presented. All recommendations and suggestions for all mentioned aspects of stereotactic radiotherapy are formulated and related uncertainties and potential sources of error discussed. Additionally, further research and development needs in terms of insufficient data and unsolved problems for stereotactic radiotherapy are identified, which will serve as a basis for the future assignments of the DGMP Working Group for Physics and Technology in Stereotactic Radiotherapy. The review was group peer-reviewed, and consensus was obtained through multiple working group meetings.

Purpose: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an established primary treatment for newly diagnosed brain metastases with high local control rates. However, data about local re-irradiation in case of local failure after SRS (re-SRS) are rare. We evaluated the feasibility, efficacy and patient selection characteristics in treating locally recurrent metastases with a second course of SRS. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with brain metastases treated with re-SRS for local tumor progression between 2011 and 2017. Patient and treatment characteristics as well as rates of tumor control, survival and toxicity were analyzed. Results: Overall, 32 locally recurrent brain metastases in 31 patients were irradiated with re-SRS. Median age at re-SRS was 64.9 years. The primary histology was breast cancer and non-small-cellular lung cancer (NSCLC) in respectively 10 cases (31.3%), in 5 cases malignant melanoma (15.6%). In the first SRS-course 19 metastases (59.4%) and in the re-SRS-course 29 metastases (90.6%) were treated with CyberKnife® and the others with Gamma Knife. Median planning target volume (PTV) for re-SRS was 2.5 cm3 (range, 0.1–37.5 cm3) and median dose prescribed to the PTV was 19 Gy (range, 12–28 Gy) in 1–5 fractions to the median 69% isodose (range, 53–80%). The 1-year overall survival rate was 61.7% and the 1-year local control rate was 79.5%. The overall rate of radiological radio-necrosis was 16.1% and four patients (12.9%) experienced grade ≥ 3 toxicities. Conclusions: A second course of SRS for locally recurrent brain metastases after prior local SRS appears to be feasible with acceptable toxicity and can be considered as salvage treatment option for selected patients with high performance status. Furthermore, this is the first study utilizing robotic radiosurgery for this indication, as an additional option for frameless fractionated treatment.