Search

Surgery (radical cystectomy) is the standard treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Radiochemotherapy has risen as an alternative treatment option to surgery as part as organ-sparing combined modality treatment or for patients unfit for surgery. Radiochemotherapy achieves 5-year bladder intact survival of 40 to 65% and 5-year overall survival of 40 to 50% with excellent quality of life. This article introduces the French recommendations for radiotherapy of bladder cancer: indications, exams, technique, dosimetry, delivery and image guidance., (Copyright © 2016 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To verify the accuracy of volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) using the RapidArc™ device when switching patients from one single linear accelerator (linac) to a paired energy and mechanics "twin" linac without reoptimization of the original treatment plan., Patients and Methods: Four centers using 8 linacs were involved in this study. Seventy-four patients previously treated with the 6MV photon RapidArc™ technique were selected for analysis, using 242 measurements. In each institution, all patients were planned on linac A, and their plans were verified both on linac A and on the twin linac B. Verifications were done using the amorphous silicium electronic portal imager (EPID) of the linacs and were analyzed with the EpiQa software (Epidos, Bratislavia, Slovakia). The gamma index formalism was used for validation with a double threshold of 3 % and 3 mm with a measurement resolution of 0.39 mm/pixel, and a smoothed resolution of approximately 2.5 mm., Results: The number of points passing the gamma criteria between the measured and computed doses was 94.79 ± 2.57 % for linac A and 94.61 ± 2.46 % for linac B. Concerning the smoothed measurement analysis, 98.67 ± 1.26 % and 98.59 ± 1.20 % points passing the threshold were obtained for linacs A and B, respectively. The difference between the 2 dose matrices acquired on the EPID was very small, with 99.92 ± 0.06 % of the points passing the criteria., Conclusion: For linacs sharing the same mechanical and energy parameters, this study tends to indicate that patients may be safely switched from treatment with one linac to treatment with its twin linac using the same VMAT plan.

Background: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is an option for adjuvant radiotherapy according to ASTRO and ESTRO recommendations. Among the available techniques, volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is attractive but has not been extensively studied for APBI. This study assessed its feasibility, tolerance and early oncological outcomes., Methods: We analysed the data of nine patients (median age 74 years) with ten lesions (one bilateral cancer) treated from May 2011 to July 2012 with APBI using VMAT. The radiation oncologist delineated the surgical tumour bed, and added an 18 mm isotropic margin to obtain the planning target volume (PTV). The dose was 40 Gy prescribed in 4 Gy fractions given twice a day over five days. Patients were regularly followed for toxicities and oncological outcomes., Results: Mean PTV was 100.0 cm(3) and 95 % of the PTV received a mean dose of 99.7 % of the prescribed dose. Hot spots represented 0.3 % of the PTV. 6.2 %, 1.6 % and 0.3 % of the ipsilateral lung volume received 5 Gy (V5Gy), 10 Gy (V10Gy) and 20 Gy (V20Gy), respectively. Regarding the contralateral lung, V5Gy was 0.3 %, and V10Gy and V20Gy were nil. V5Gy accounted for 3.1 % of the heart. An average 580 monitor units were delivered. No acute or late grade ≥ 2 toxicities were observed. With a median follow-up of 26 months, no relapses occurred., Conclusion: In our study, VMAT allowed optimal dosimetry with consequential high therapeutic ratio in elderly and frail patients.

The ultimate goal in radiation oncology is to offer a personalized treatment to all patients indicated for radiotherapy. Radiomics is a tool that reinforces a deep analysis of tumors at the molecular aspect taking into account intrinsic susceptibility in a long-term follow-up. Radiomics allow qualitative and quantitative performance analyses with high throughput extraction of numeric radiologic data to obtain predictive or prognostic information from patients treated for cancer. A second approach is to define biological or constitutional that could change the practice. This technique included normal tissue individual susceptibility but also potential response of tumors under ionizing radiation treatment. These "omics" are biological and technical techniques leading to simultaneous novel identification and exploration a set of genes, lipids, proteins., (Copyright © 2015 Société française de radiothérapie oncologique (SFRO). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)

Concurrent radiotherapy to the pelvis plus a prostate boost with long-term androgen deprivation is a standard of care for locally advanced prostate cancer. IMRT has the ability to deliver highly conformal dose to the target while lowering irradiation of critical organs around the prostate. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy is able to reduce treatment time, but its impact on organ sparing is still controversial when compared to static gantry IMRT. We compared the two techniques in simultaneous integrated boost plans. Ten patients with locally advanced prostate cancer were included. The planning target volume (PTV) 1 was defined as the pelvic lymph nodes, the prostate, and the seminal vesicles plus setup margins. The PTV2 consisted of the prostate with setup margins. The prescribed doses to PTV1 and PTV2 were 54 Gy in 37 fractions and 74 Gy in 37 fractions, respectively. We compared simultaneous integrated boost plans by means of either a seven coplanar static split fields IMRT, or a one-arc (RA1) and a two-arc (RA2) RapidArc planning. All three techniques allowed acceptable homogeneity and PTV coverage. Static IMRT enabled a better homogeneity for PTV2 than RapidArc techniques. Sliding window IMRT and VMAT permitted to maintain doses to OAR within acceptable levels with a low risk of side effects for each organ. VMAT plans resulted in a clinically and statistically significant reduction in doses to bladder (mean dose IMRT: 50.1 ± 4.6Gy vs. mean dose RA2: 47.1 ± 3.9 Gy, p = 0.037), rectum (mean dose IMRT: 44± 4.5 vs. mean dose RA2: 41.6 ± 5.5 Gy, p = 0.006), and small bowel (V30 IMRT: 76.47 ± 14.91% vs. V30 RA2: 47.49 ± 16.91%, p = 0.002). Doses to femoral heads were higher with VMAT but within accepted constraints. Our findings suggest that simultaneous integrated boost plans using VMAT and sliding window IMRT allow good OAR sparing while maintaining PTV coverage within acceptable levels.

Salvage intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to the prostate bed has hardly been studied so far. We present here a feasibility study and early clinical results for 10 patients. These patients were selected on the basis of having either a biochemical relapse or high risk histology after prostatectomy. They were treated using "sliding-window" IMRT to 68 Gy in 34 fractions. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) plans were generated using the same planning computed tomography data set. Dose coverage of planning target volumes (PTVs) and of organs-at-risk (OAR, namely: rectum, bladder, and femoral heads) were compared. Acute toxicity and chronic toxicity were measured using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 scale. IMRT significantly reduces the dose above the prescription dose given to the PTV1 (mean dose: IMRT 67.2 Gy vs 3D-CRT 67.7 Gy (p = 0.0137)), without altering dose coverage for PTV2 (mean dose: IMRT 68.1 Gy vs 3D-CRT 68.0 Gy (p = 0.3750)). Doses to OAR were lower with IMRT and differences were statistically significant (mean dose: IMRT 51.4 Gy vs 3D-CRT 56.6 Gy for rectum (p = 0.002), IMRT 45.1 Gy vs 3D-CRT 53.1 Gy for bladder (p = 0.002), and IMRT 26.1 Gy vs 3D-CRT 28.4 Gy for femoral heads (p = 0.0059)). There was no acute or chronic genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity >1 with a median follow-up of 38 months. IMRT to the prostatic fossa is feasible and reduces dose to OAR, with consequential limited toxicity., (Copyright © 2013 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess outcomes of patients with carcinoma of the anal canal (CAC) treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)., Method and Materials: From August 2007 to January 2011, seventy-two patients suffering from CAC were treated with IMRT. Concurrent chemotherapy was added in case of locally advanced tumors. Radiation course consisted in delivering an initial plan to the PTV1 defined as the primary tumor and the risk area including pelvic and inguinal nodes. Forty-five Gy in daily 1.8 Gy-daily fractions were delivered five days a week. A second plan of 14.4-20 Gy to the primary tumor (PTV2) was administered in 1.8-2 Gy-daily fractions, 5 days a week. We present here the results of dosimetry, toxicities, and clinical outcome of the first 39 patients with a median follow-up of 24 months., Results: Thirty-one women and eight men were included in the present analysis. Tumors were classified as stages I, II, III and IV in 2, 7, 27 and 2 patients, respectively. Median age was 59 years (range, 38-85). Radiotherapy alone (RT) or combined with chemotherapy (RCT) were delivered in 6 (15%) and 33 (85%) patients, respectively.Six patients (15%) required a treatment break ≥ 3 days, and median time for treatment break was 8 days (range, 3-14 days). Acute grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were seen in 10 and 5% of patients, respectively. Grade 4 toxicity was only hematologic and occurred in 12% patients receiving RCT. With a median follow-up of 24 months, no patient experienced any late grade 4 toxicity. The 2-year overall survival rate was 89%, the 2-year local relapse free survival was 77% and the 2-year colostomy-free survival rate was 85%., Conclusion: IMRT is well tolerated with acceptable treatment interruption allowing dose escalation.

Background: To compare volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans with conventional radiation therapy (3D-CRT) plans in pancreatic and bile duct cancers, especially for bilateral kidney preservation., Methods: A dosimetric analysis was performed in 21 patients who had undergone radiotherapy for pancreatic or bile duct carcinoma at our institution. We compared 4-field 3D-CRT and 2 arcs RapidArc (RA) plans. The treatment plan was designed to deliver a dose of 50.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) based on the gross disease in a 1.8 Gy daily fraction, 5 days a week. Planning objectives were 95% of the PTV receiving 95% of the prescribed dose and no more than 2% of the PTV receiving more than 107%. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for the target volume and the organs at risk (right and left kidneys, bowel tract, liver and healthy tissue) were compared. Monitor units and delivery treatment time were also reported., Results: All plans achieved objectives, with 95% of the PTV receiving ≥ 95% of the dose (D95% for 3D-CRT = 48.9 Gy and for RA = 48.6 Gy). RapidArc was shown to be superior to 3D-CRT in terms of organ at risk sparing except for contralateral kidney: for bowel tract, the mean dose was reduced by RA compared to 3D-CRT (16.7 vs 20.8 Gy, p = 0.0001). Similar result was observed for homolateral kidney (mean dose of 4.7 Gy for RA vs 12.6 Gy for 3D-CRT, p < 0.0001), but 3D-CRT significantly reduced controlateral kidney dose with a mean dose of 1.8 Gy vs 3.9 Gy, p < 0.0007. Compared to 3D-CRT, mean MUs for each fraction was significantly increased with RapidArc: 207 vs 589, (p < 0.0001) but the treatment time was not significantly different (2 and 2.66 minutes, p = ns)., Conclusion: RapidArc allows significant dose reduction, in particular for homolateral kidney and bowel, while maintaining target coverage. This would have a promising impact on reducing toxicities.

Background: To present the results of quality assurance (QA) in IMRT of film dosimetry and ionization chambers measurements with an eight year follow-up., Methods: All treatment plans were validated under the linear accelerator by absolute and relative measures obtained with ionization chambers (IC) and with XomatV and EDR2 films (Kodak)., Results: The average difference between IC measured and computed dose at isocenter with the gantry angle of 0° was 0.07 ± 1.22% (average ± 1 SD) for 2316 prostate, 1.33 ± 3.22% for 808 head and neck (h&n), and 0.37 ± 0.62% for 108 measurements of prostate bed fields. Pelvic treatment showed differences of 0.49 ± 1.86% in 26 fields for prostate cases and 2.07 ± 2.83% in 109 fields of anal canal.Composite measurement at isocenter for each patient showed an average difference with computed dose of 0.05 ± 0.87% for 386 prostate, 1.49 ± 1.86% for 158 h&n, 0.37 ± 0.34% for 23 prostate bed, 0.80 ± 0.28% for 4 pelvis, and 2.31 ± 0.56% for 17 anal canal cases. On the first 250 h&n analyzed by film in absolute dose, the average of the points crossing a gamma index 3% and 3 mm was 93%. This value reached 99% for the prostate fields., Conclusion: More than 3500 beams were found to be within the limits defined as validated for treatment between 2001 and 2008.

Background: To compare volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) plans with conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans in anal canal cancers., Methods: Ten patients with anal canal carcinoma previously treated with IMRT in our institution were selected for this study. For each patient, three plans were generated with the planning CT scan: one using a fixed beam IMRT, and two plans using the RapidArc technique: a single (RA1) and a double (RA2) modulated arc therapy. The treatment plan was designed to deliver in one process with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) a dose of 59.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV2) based on the gross disease in a 1.8 Gy-daily fraction, 5 days a week. At the same time, the subclinical disease (PTV1) was planned to receive 49.5 Gy in a 1.5 Gy-daily fraction. Plans were normalized to 99% of the PTV2 that received 95% of the prescribed dose. Planning objectives were 95% of the PTV1 will receive 95% of the prescribed dose and no more than 2% of the PTV will receive more than 107%. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) for the target volume and the organs at risk (bowel tract, bladder, iliac crests, femoral heads, genitalia/perineum, and healthy tissue) were compared for these different techniques. Monitor units (MU) and delivery treatment time were also reported., Results: All plans achieved fulfilled objectives. Both IMRT and RA2 resulted in superior coverage of PTV than RA1 that was slightly inferior for conformity and homogeneity (p < 0.05).Conformity index (CI95%) for the PTV2 was 1.15 ± 0.15 (RA2), 1.28 ± 0.22 (IMRT), and 1.79 ± 0.5 (RA1). Homogeneity (D5% - D95%) for PTV2 was 3.21 ± 1.16 Gy (RA2), 2.98 ± 0.7 Gy (IMRT), and 4.3 ± 1.3 Gy (RA1). RapidArc showed to be superior to IMRT in terms of organ at risk sparing. For bowel tract, the mean dose was reduced of 4 Gy by RA2 compared to IMRT. Similar trends were observed for bladder, femoral heads, and genitalia. The DVH of iliac crests and healthy tissue resulted in comparable sparing for the low doses (V10 and V20). Compared to IMRT, mean MUs for each fraction was significantly reduced with RapidArc (p = 0.0002) and the treatment time was reduced by a 6-fold extent., Conclusion: For patients suffering from anal canal cancer, RapidArc with 2 arcs was able to deliver equivalent treatment plan to IMRT in terms of PTV coverage. It provided a better organ at risk sparing and significant reductions of MU and treatment time per fraction.

Radiation therapy is now widely accepted as an efficacious treatment of localized prostate cancer. Recent advances, namely with the development of conformal radiotherapy, allowed to increase the total dose in the target volumes with greater local control. A forward step achieved with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in terms of therapeutic ratio between target volumes and critical organs. IMRT offers an inverse planning dosimetry and a modulation of the fields during irradiation. This article presents recent technical and clinical advances in IMRT focused on prostate cancer.

Background: To compare the dosimetric advantage of three different intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans to a three dimensional (3D) conventional radiation treatment for anal cancer with regards to organs-at-risk (OAR) avoidance, including iliac bone marrow., Methods: Five patients with T1-3 N0-1 anal cancer and five with T4 and/or N2-3 tumors were selected. Clinical tumor volume (CTV) included tumor, anal canal and inguinal, peri-rectal, and internal/external iliac nodes (plus pre-sacral nodes for T4/N2-3 tumors). Four plans were generated: (A) AP/PA with 3D conformal boost, (B) pelvic IMRT with conformal boost (C) pelvic IMRT with IMRT boost and (D) IMRT with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB). The dose for plans (A) to (C) was 45 Gy/25 followed by a 14.4 Gy/8 boost, and the total dose for plan (D) (SIB) was 59.4 Gy/33. Coverage of both PTV and the volume of OAR (small bowel, genitalia, iliac crest and femoral heads) receiving more than 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy (V10, V20, V30, V40) were compared using non parametric statistics., Results: Compared to plan (A), IMRT plans (B) to (D) significantly reduced the V30 and V40 of small bowel, bladder and genitalia for all patients. The V10 and V20 of iliac crests were similar for the N0-1 group but were significantly reduced with IMRT for the N2-3/T4 group (V20 for A = 50.2% compared to B = 33%, C = 32.8%, D = 34.3%). There was no statistical difference between 2-phase (arm C) and single-phase (SIB, arm D) IMRT plans., Conclusion: IMRT is superior to 3D conformal radiation treatment for anal carcinoma with respect to OAR sparing, including bone marrow sparing.