Search

A novel quality assurance process for electroanatomical mapping (EAM)-to-radiotherapy planning imaging (RTPI) target transport was assessed within the multi-center multi-platform framework of the RAdiosurgery for VENtricular TAchycardia (RAVENTA) trial. A stand-alone software (CARDIO-RT) was developed to enable platform independent registration of EAM and RTPI of the left ventricle (LV), based on pre-generated radiotherapy contours (RTC). LV-RTC were automatically segmented into the American-Heart-Association 17-segment-model and a manual 3D-3D method based on EAM 3D-geometry data and a semi-automated 2D-3D method based on EAM screenshot projections were developed. The quality of substrate transfer was evaluated in five clinical cases and the structural analyses showed substantial differences between manual target transfer and target transport using CARDIO-RT.

Purpose: Cardiac radioablation is a novel treatment option for patients with refractory ventricular tachycardia unsuitable for catheter ablation. The quality of treatment planning depends on dose specifications, platform capabilities, and experience of the treating staff. To harmonize the treatment planning, benchmarking of this process is necessary for multicenter clinical studies such as the RAdiosurgery for VENtricular TAchycardia trial. Methods and Materials: Planning computed tomography data and consensus structures from 3 patients were sent to 5 academic centers for independent plan development using a variety of platforms and techniques with the RAdiosurgery for VENtricular TAchycardia study protocol serving as guideline. Three-dimensional dose distributions and treatment plan details were collected and analyzed. In addition, an objective relative plan quality ranking system for ventricular tachycardia treatments was established. Results: For each case, 3 coplanar volumetric modulated arc (VMAT) plans for C-arm linear accelerators (LINAC) and 3 non-coplanar treatment plans for robotic arm LINAC were generated. All plans were suitable for clinical applications with minor deviations from study guidelines in most centers. Eleven of 18 treatment plans showed maximal one minor deviation each for target and cardiac substructures. However, dose-volume histograms showed substantial differences: in one case, the planning target volume >= 30 Gy ranged from 0.0% to 79.9% and the ramus interventricularis anterior V-14Gy ranged from 4.0% to 45.4%. Overall, the VMAT plans had steeper dose gradients in the high-dose region, while the plans for the robotic arm LINAC had smaller low-dose regions. Thereby, VMAT plans required only about half as many monitor units, resulting in shorter delivery times, possibly an important factor in treatment outcome. Conclusions: Cardiac radioablation is feasible with robotic arm and C-arm LINAC systems with comparable plan quality. Although c

Purpose: Cardiac radioablation is a novel treatment option for therapy-refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) ineligible for catheter ablation. Three-dimensional clinical target volume (CTV) definition is a key step, and this complex interdisciplinary procedure includes VT-substrate identification based on electroanatomical mapping (EAM) and its transfer to the planning computed tomography (PCT). Benchmarking of this process is necessary for multicenter clinical studies such as the RAVENTA trial. Methods and Materials: For benchmarking of the RAVENTA trial, patient data (epicrisis, electrocardiogram, high-resolution EAM, contrast-enhanced cardiac computed tomography, PCT) of 3 cases were sent to 5 university centers for independent CTV generation, subsequent structure analysis, and consensus finding. VT substrates were first defined on multiple EAM screenshots/videos and manually transferred to the PCT. The generated structure characteristics were then independently analyzed (volume, localization, surface distance and conformity). After subsequent discussion, consensus structures were defined. Results: VT substrate on the EAM showed visible variability in extent and localization for cases 1 and 2 and only minor variability for case 3. CTVs ranged from 6.7 to 22.9 cm(3), 5.9 to 79.9 cm(3), and 9.4 to 34.3 cm(3); surface area varied from 1087 to 3285 mm(2), 1077 to 9500 mm(2), and 1620 to 4179 mm(2), with a Hausdorff-distance of 15.7 to 39.5 mm, 23.1 to 43.5 mm, and 15.9 to 43.9 mm for cases 1 to 3, respectively. The absolute 3-dimensional center-of-mass difference was 5.8 to 28.0 mm, 8.4 to 26 mm, and 3.8 to 35.1 mm for cases 1 to 3, respectively. The entire process resulted in CTV structures with a conformity index of 0.2 to 0.83, 0.02 to 0.85, and 0.02 to 0.88 (ideal 1) with the consensus CTV as reference. Conclusions: Multicenter efficacy endpoint assessment of cardiac radioablation for therapy-refractory VT requires consistent CTV transfer methods from the EAM t