Search

FLASH radiation therapy (FLASH-RT), delivered with ultrahigh dose rate (UHDR), may allow patients to be treated with less normal tissue toxicity for a given tumor dose compared with currently used conventional dose rate. Clinical trials are being carried out and are needed to test whether this improved therapeutic ratio can be achieved clinically. During the clinical trials, quality assurance and credentialing of equipment and participating sites, particularly pertaining to UHDR-specific aspects, will be crucial for the validity of the outcomes of such trials. This report represents an initial framework proposed by the NRG Oncology Center for Innovation in Radiation Oncology FLASH working group on quality assurance of potential UHDR clinical trials and reviews current technology gaps to overcome. An important but separate consideration is the appropriate design of trials to most effectively answer clinical and scientific questions about FLASH. This paper begins with an overview of UHDR RT delivery methods. UHDR beam delivery parameters are then covered, with a focus on electron and proton modalities. The definition and control of safe UHDR beam delivery and current and needed dosimetry technologies are reviewed and discussed. System and site credentialing for large, multi-institution trials are reviewed. Quality assurance is then discussed, and new requirements are presented for treatment system standard analysis, patient positioning, and treatment planning. The tables and figures in this paper are meant to serve as reference points as we move toward FLASH-RT clinical trial performance. Some major questions regarding FLASH-RT are discussed, and next steps in this field are proposed. FLASH-RT has potential but is associated with significant risks and complexities. We need to redefine optimization to focus not only on the dose but also on the dose rate in a manner that is robust and understandable and that can be prescribed, validated, and confirmed in real time. Robust patient safety systems and access to treatment data will be critical as FLASH-RT moves into the clinical trials.

Radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) continues to demonstrate tremendous potential in improving the therapeutic gains in radiation therapy by specifically delivering radiation to tumors that can be well assessed in terms of dosimetry and imaging. Dosimetry in external beam radiation therapy is standard practice. This is not the case, however, in RPT. This NRG (acronym formed from the first letter of the 3 original groups: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, and the Gynecologic Oncology Group)-National Cancer Institute Working Group review describes some of the challenges to improving RPT. The main priorities for advancing the field include (1) developing and adopting best practice guidelines for incorporating patient-specific dosimetry for RPT that can be used at both large clinics with substantial resources and more modest clinics that have limited resources, (2) establishing and improving strategies for introducing new radiopharmaceuticals for clinical investigation, (3) developing approaches to address the radiophobia that is associated with the administration of radioactivity for cancer therapy, and (4) solving the financial and logistical issues of expertise and training in the developing field of RPT.

Whether the nom de guerre is Mathematical Oncology, Computational or Systems Biology, Theoretical Biology, Evolutionary Oncology, Bioinformatics, or simply Basic Science, there is no denying that mathematics continues to play an increasingly prominent role in cancer research. Mathematical Oncology-defined here simply as the use of mathematics in cancer research-complements and overlaps with a number of other fields that rely on mathematics as a core methodology. As a result, Mathematical Oncology has a broad scope, ranging from theoretical studies to clinical trials designed with mathematical models. This Roadmap differentiates Mathematical Oncology from related fields and demonstrates specific areas of focus within this unique field of research. The dominant theme of this Roadmap is the personalization of medicine through mathematics, modelling, and simulation. This is achieved through the use of patient-specific clinical data to: develop individualized screening strategies to detect cancer earlier; make predictions of response to therapy; design adaptive, patient-specific treatment plans to overcome therapy resistance; and establish domain-specific standards to share model predictions and to make models and simulations reproducible. The cover art for this Roadmap was chosen as an apt metaphor for the beautiful, strange, and evolving relationship between mathematics and cancer.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is known for its accurate soft tissue delineation of tumors and normal tissues. This development has significantly impacted the imaging and treatment of cancers. Radiomics is the process of extracting high-dimensional features from medical images. Several studies have shown that these extracted features may be used to build machine-learning models for the prediction of treatment outcomes of cancer patients. Various feature selection techniques and machine models interrogate the relevant radiomics features for predicting cancer treatment outcomes. This study aims to provide an overview of MRI radiomics features used in predicting clinical treatment outcomes with machine learning techniques. The review includes examples from different disease sites. It will also discuss the impact of magnetic field strength, sample size, and other characteristics on outcome prediction performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A workflow/planning strategy delivering low‐dose radiation therapy (LDRT) (1 Gy) to all polymetastatic diseases using conventional planning/delivery (Raystation/Halcyon = "conventional") and the AI‐based Ethos online adaptive RT (oART) platform is developed/evaluated. Methods: Using retrospective data for ten polymetastatic non‐small cell lung cancer patients (5‐52 lesions each) with PET/CTs, gross tumor volumes (GTVs) were delineated using PET standardized‐uptake‐value (SUV) thresholding. A 1 cm uniform expansion of GTVs to account for setup/contour uncertainty and organ motion‐generated planning target volumes (PTVs). Dose optimization/calculation used the diagnostic CT from PET/CT. Dosimetric objectives were: Dmin,0.03cc ≥ 95% (acceptable variation (Δ) ≥ 90%), V100% ≥ 95% (Δ ≥ 90%), and D0.03cc ≤ 120% (Δ ≤ 125%). Additionally, online adaptation was simulated. When available, subsequent diagnostic CT was used to represent on‐treatment CBCT. Otherwise, the CT from PET/CT used for initial planning was deformed to simulate clinically representative changes. Results: All initial plans generated, both for Raystation and Ethos, achieved clinical goals within acceptable variation. For all patients, Dmin,0.03cc ≥ 95%, V100% ≥ 95%, and D0.03cc ≤ 120% goals were achieved for 84.8%/99.5%, 97.7%/98.7%, 97.4%/92.3%, in conventional/Ethos plans, respectively. The ratio of 50% isodose volume to PTV volume (R50%), maximum dose at 2 cm from PTV (D2cm), and the ratio of the 100% isodose volume to PTV volume (conformity index) in Raystation/Ethos plans were 7.9/5.9; 102.3%/88.44%; and 0.99/1.01, respectively. In Ethos, online adapted plans maintained PTV coverage whereas scheduled plans often resulted in geographic misses due to changes in tumor size, patient position, and body habitus. The average total duration of the oART workflow was 26:15 (min:sec) ranging from 6:43 to 57:30. The duration of each oART workflow step as a function of a number of targets showed a low correlation coefficient for influencer generation and editing (R2 = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively) and high correlation coefficient for target generation, target editing and plan generation (R2 = 0.68, 0.63 and 0.69, respectively). Conclusions: This study demonstrates feasibility of conventional planning/treatment with Raystation/Halcyon and highlights efficiency gains when utilizing semi‐automated planning/online‐adaptive treatment with Ethos for immunostimulatory LDRT conformally delivered to all sites of polymetastatic disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quality of organ at risk (OAR) autosegmentation is often judged by concordance metrics against the human-generated gold standard.However, the ultimate goal is the ability to use unedited autosegmented OARs in treatment planning,while maintaining the plan quality.We tested this approach with head and neck (HN) OARs generated by a prototype deep-learning (DL) model on patients previously treated for oropharyngeal and laryngeal cancer. Forty patients were selected, with all structures delineated by an experienced physician. For each patient, a set of 13 OARs were generated by the DL model. Each patient was re-planned based on original targets and unedited DL-produced OARs.The new dose distributions were then applied back to the manually delineated structures. The target coverage was evaluated with inhomogeneity index (II) and the relative volume of regret. For the OARs, Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of areas under the DVH curves, individual DVH objectives, and composite continuous plan quality metric (PQM) were compared. The nearly identical primary target coverage for the original and re-generated plans was achieved, with the same II and relative volume of regret values. The average DSC of the areas under the corresponding pairs of DVH curves was 0.97 ± 0.06. The number of critical DVH points which met the clinical objectives with the dose optimized on autosegmented structures but failed when evaluated on the manual ones was 5 of 896 (0.6%). The average OAR PQM score with the re-planned dose distributions was essentially the same when evaluated either on the autosegmented or manual OARs. Thus, rigorous HN treatment planning is possible with OARs segmented by a prototype DL algorithm with minimal, if any, manual editing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A planning strategy was developed and the utility of online‐adaptation with the Ethos CBCT‐guided ring‐gantry adaptive radiotherapy (ART) system was evaluated using retrospective data from Head‐and‐neck (H&N) patients that required clinical offline adaptation during treatment. Methods: Clinical data were used to re‐plan 20 H&N patients (10 sequential boost (SEQ) with separate base and boost plans plus 10 simultaneous integrated boost (SIB)). An optimal approach, robust to online adaptation, for Ethos‐initial plans using clinical goal prioritization was developed. Anatomically‐derived isodose‐shaping helper structures, air‐density override, goals for controlling hotspot location(s), and plan normalization were investigated. Online adaptation was simulated using clinical offline adaptive simulation‐CTs to represent an on‐treatment CBCT. Dosimetric comparisons were based on institutional guidelines for Clinical‐initial versus Ethos‐initial plans and Ethos‐scheduled versus Ethos‐adapted plans. Timing for five components of the online adaptive workflow was analyzed. Results: The Ethos H&N planning approach generated Ethos‐initial SEQ plans with clinically comparable PTV coverage (average PTVHigh V100% = 98.3%, Dmin,0.03cc = 97.9% and D0.03cc = 105.5%) and OAR sparing. However, Ethos‐initial SIB plans were clinically inferior (average PTVHigh V100% = 96.4%, Dmin,0.03cc = 93.7%, D0.03cc = 110.6%). Fixed‐field IMRT was superior to VMAT for 93.3% of plans. Online adaptation succeeded in achieving conformal coverage to the new anatomy in both SEQ and SIB plans that was even superior to that achieved in the initial plans (which was due to the changes in anatomy that simplified the optimization). The average adaptive workflow duration for SIB, SEQ base and SEQ boost was 30:14, 22.56, and 14:03 (min: sec), respectively. Conclusions: With an optimal planning approach, Ethos efficiently auto‐generated dosimetrically comparable and clinically acceptable initial SEQ plans for H&N patients. Initial SIB plans were inferior and clinically unacceptable, but adapted SIB plans became clinically acceptable. Online adapted plans optimized dose to new anatomy and maintained target coverage/homogeneity with improved OAR sparing in a time‐efficient manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]