Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is a non-invasive alternative to surgery to control primary renal cell cancer (RCC) in patients that are medically inoperable or at high-risk of post-surgical dialysis. The objective of the FASTRACK II clinical trial is to investigate the efficacy of SABR for primary RCC. Methods FASTRACK II is a single arm, multi-institutional phase II study. Seventy patients will be recruited over 3 years and followed for a total of 5 years. Eligible patients must have a biopsy confirmed diagnosis of primary RCC with a single lesion within a kidney, have ECOG performance ≤2 and be medically inoperable, high risk or decline surgery. Radiotherapy treatment planning is undertaken using four dimensional CT scanning to incorporate the impact of respiratory motion. Treatment must be delivered using a conformal or intensity modulated technique including IMRT, VMAT, Cyberknife or Tomotherapy. The trial includes two alternate fractionation schedules based on tumour size: for tumours ≤4 cm in maximum diameter a single fraction of 26Gy is delivered; and for tumours > 4 cm in maximum diameter 42Gy in three fractions is delivered. The primary outcome of the study is to estimate the efficacy of SABR for primary RCC. Secondary objectives include estimating tolerability, characterising overall survival and cancer specific survival, estimating the distant failure rate, describing toxicity and renal function changes after SABR, and assessment of cost-effectiveness of SABR compared with current therapies. Discussion The present study design allows for multicentre prospective validation of the efficacy of SABR for primary RCC that has been observed from prior single institutional and retrospective series. The study also allows assessment of treatment related toxicity, overall survival, cancer specific survival, freedom from distant failure and renal function post therapy. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02613819 , registered Nov 25th 2015.

Background Bone metastases cause significant pain and functional limitation. Conventional external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) provides effective symptom relief, but local progression remains frequent. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) offers improved local control but is often resource-intensive and associated with higher vertebral compression fracture (VCF) rates. Integrating a simultaneous gross tumour volume (GTV) boost within a conventional EBRT regimen may provide a feasible and safe alternative. Methods This is a prospective, multicentre, multinational, single-arm study enrolling 100 adults with painful bone metastases from solid tumours. Eligible patients receive 20 Gy in 5 fractions with a 5 Gy “stereotactic-lite” GTV boost (total 25 Gy) or 30 Gy in 10 fractions with a 6 Gy boost (total 36 Gy), delivered using intensity modulated radiotherapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy. The primary endpoints are feasibility (commencement of radiotherapy within 10 working days of computed tomography simulation in at least 80% of patients) and safety (incidence of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 grade ≥ 2 acute toxicity within 3 months). Secondary endpoints include pain response, radiation site-specific progression-free survival, rates of VCF and long bone fracture, skeletal-related events, quality of life changes via EORTC QLQ-C30 and BM22, and overall survival. Discussion This protocol evaluates a hybrid EBRT approach with a simultaneous integrated boost as a practical strategy to enhance local tumour control and symptom relief without delaying palliation. If feasible and safe, this approach may bridge the gap between conventional EBRT and SBRT. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12625000615482).

In recent years, we have seen the integration of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulators into radiotherapy centres and the emergence MR linear accelerators (MR‐linac). Currently, there are limited studies to demonstrate the clinical effectiveness of MRI guided radiotherapy (MRIgRT) treatment for breast cancer patients. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and map the existing evidence surrounding the clinical implementation of MRIgRT for breast cancer patients. We also identified the challenges and knowledge gaps in the literature. The scoping review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. Titles and s were screened by two independent reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted and summarised using thematically organised tables. Results identify that accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is the most common form of treatment for MRIgRT. The presence of the magnet does not affect target coverage or violate organ at risk (OAR) constraints compared to standard radiotherapy methods. Consideration is advised for skin and chest wall (CW) due to the electron return effect (ERE) and areas such as armpit and chin due to the electron stream effect (ESE). Clinically, bolus has been used to protect and prevent unwanted dose in these areas. Overall treatment for APBI on the MR‐linac is feasible. Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is the most common form of treatment for MRIgRT. The presence of the magnet does not affect target coverage or violate organ at risk (OAR) constraints compared to standard RT methods. Consideration is advised for skin and chestwall (CW) due to the electron return effect (ERE) and areas such as armpit and chin due to the electron stream effect (ESE).

Introduction Systematic and random errors in radiation dose delivery necessitate the use of planning target volume (PTV) margins to ensure adequate clinical target volume (CTV) treatment. Advances in magnetic resonance‐guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) have enabled improved imaging with possible margin reduction; however, the optimal PTV margins remain uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the adaptive radiotherapy component of intra‐fractional prostate movement in MRgRT for prostate cancer (PCa) patients and determine appropriate PTV margins. Methods This study retrospectively analyzed 18 PCa patients treated using a 1.5 T MR‐Linac. The initial fusion MR and verification MR scans were registered offline to assess prostate displacement between the two scans in the anterior–posterior (AP), left‐right (LR) and superior‐inferior (SI) directions. Random and systematic errors were calculated, and the PTV margins were determined using the Van Herk formula. Results The average time between MR scans was 22 min (range 9–54 min) compared to an average beam‐on time of 6 min (range 2–11 min). Mean and standard deviation of translational displacement was 1.2 ± 0.9 mm in the AP, 0.6 ± 0.5 mm in the LR, and 1.1 ± 0.8 mm in the SI directions. The calculated PTV margin was 3.2 mm in AP, 1.7 mm in LR, and 3.2 mm in SI directions. There was an observed trend of increased prostate motion with increased treatment duration. Conclusion MRgRT facilitates PTV margin reduction for PCa; however, our findings suggest that increased on‐couch time may be associated with greater prostate motion. Future studies with larger patient cohorts and real‐time motion monitoring are recommended to optimise margin strategies. This study evaluated intra‐fractional prostate motion during MR‐guided radiotherapy to determine appropriate PTV margins for prostate cancer. Analysis of 18 patients resulted in calculated margins of 3.2 mm (AP), 1.7 mm (LR), and 3.2 mm (SI), supporting the potential for margin reduction with MRgRT.

Background Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is an accepted treatment option for early breast cancer. Treatment delivered on the Magnetic Resonance integrated Linear Accelerator (MRL) provides the added assurance of improved soft tissue visibility, important in the delivery of APBI. This technique can be delivered in both the supine and prone positions, however current literature suggests that prone treatment on the MRL is infeasible due to physical limitations with bore size. This study aims to investigate the feasibility of positioning patients on a custom designed prone breast board compared with supine positioning on a personalised vacuum bag. Geometric distortion, the relative position of Organs at Risk (OAR) to the tumour bed and breathing motion (intrafraction motion) will be compared between the supine and prone positions. The study will also investigate the positional impact on dosimetry, patient experience, and position preference. Methods Up to 30 patients will be recruited over a 12-month period for participation in this Human Research Ethics Committee approved exploratory cohort study. Patients will be scanned on the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Simulator in both the supine and prone positions as per current standard of care for APBI simulation. Supine and prone positioning comparisons will all be assessed on de-identified MRI image pairs, acquired using appropriate software. Patient experience will be explored through completion of a short, anonymous electronic survey. Descriptive statistics will be used for reporting of results with categorical, parametric/non-parametric tests applied (data format dependent). Survey results will be interpreted by comparison of percentage frequencies across the Likert scales. Thematic content analysis will be used to interpret qualitative data from the open-ended survey questions. Discussion The results of this study will be used to assess the feasibility of treating patients with APBI in the prone position on a custom designed board on the MRL. It may also be used to assist with identification of patients who would benefit from this position over supine without the need to perform both scans. Patient experience and technical considerations will be utilised to develop a tool to assist in this process. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN1262400067583. Registered 28th of May 2024. https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12624000679583.aspx

IntroductionDaily radiotherapy delivered with radiosensitisation offers patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) comparable outcomes to cystectomy with functional organ preservation. Most recurrences following radiotherapy occur within the bladder. Increasing the delivered radiotherapy dose to the tumour may further improve local control. Developments in image-guided radiotherapy have allowed bladder tumour-focused ‘plan of the day’ radiotherapy delivery. We aim to test within a randomised multicentre phase II trial whether this technique will enable dose escalation with acceptable rates of toxicity.Methods and analysisPatients with T2-T4aN0M0 unifocal MIBC will be randomised (1:1:2) between standard/control whole bladder single plan radiotherapy, standard dose adaptive tumour-focused radiotherapy or dose-escalated adaptive tumour-focused radiotherapy (DART). Adaptive tumour-focused radiotherapy will use a library of three plans (small, medium and large) for treatment. A cone beam CT taken prior to each treatment will be used to visualise the anatomy and inform selection of the most appropriate plan for treatment.Two radiotherapy fractionation schedules (32f and 20f) are permitted. A minimum of 120 participants will be randomised in each fractionation cohort (to ensure 57 evaluable DART patients per cohort).A comprehensive radiotherapy quality assurance programme including pretrial and on-trial components is instituted to ensure standardisation of radiotherapy planning and delivery.The trial has a two-stage non-comparative design. The primary end point of stage I is the proportion of patients meeting predefined normal tissue constraints in the DART group. The primary end point of stage II is late Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or worse toxicity aiming to exclude a rate of >20% (80% power and 5% alpha, one sided) in each DART fractionation cohort. Secondary end points include locoregional MIBC control, progression-free survival overall survival and patient-reported outcomes.Ethics and disseminationThis clinical trial is approved by the London-Surrey Borders Research Ethics Committee (15/LO/0539). The results when available will be disseminated via peer-reviewed scientific journals, conference presentations and submission to regulatory authorities.Trial registration number NCT02447549; Pre-results

Introduction Quality assurance (QA) of treatment plans in clinical trials improves protocol compliance and patient outcomes. Retrospective use of knowledge-based-planning (KBP) in clinical trials has demonstrated improved treatment plan quality and consistency. We report the results of prospective use of KBP for real-time QA of treatment plan quality in the TROG 15.03 FASTRACK II trial, which evaluates efficacy of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for kidney cancer. Methods A KBP model was generated based on single institution data. For each patient in the KBP phase (open to the last 31 patients in the trial), the treating centre submitted treatment plans 7 days prior to treatment. A treatment plan was created by using the KBP model, which was compared with the submitted plan for each organ-at-risk (OAR) dose constraint. A report comparing each plan for each OAR constraint was provided to the submitting centre within 24 h of receiving the plan. The centre could then modify the plan based on the KBP report, or continue with the existing plan. Results Real-time feedback using KBP was provided in 24/31 cases. Consistent plan quality was in general achieved between KBP and the submitted plan. KBP review resulted in replan and improvement of OAR dosimetry in two patients. All centres indicated that the feedback was a useful QA check of their treatment plan. Conclusion KBP for real-time treatment plan review was feasible for 24/31 cases, and demonstrated ability to improve treatment plan quality in two cases. Challenges include integration of KBP feedback into clinical timelines, interpretation of KBP results with respect to clinical trade-offs, and determination of appropriate plan quality improvement criteria.

To assess visibility and artifact characteristics of polymer fiducials compared to standard gold fiducials for radiotherapy CT and MRI simulation. Three gold and three polymer fiducials were inserted into a CT and MRI tissue-equivalent phantom that approximated the prostate cancer radiotherapy configuration. The phantom and fiducials were imaged on CT and MRI. Images were assessed in terms of fiducial visibility and artifact. ImageJ was employed to quantify the pixel gray-scale of each fiducial and artifact. Fiducial gray-scale histograms and profiles were generated for analysis. Objective measurements of the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and artifact index (AI) were calculated. The CT images showed that the gold fiducials are visually brighter, with greater contrast than the polymer. The higher peak values illustrate this in the line profiles. However, they produce bright radiating and dark shadowing artifacts. This is depicted by the greater width of line profiles and the disruption of phantom area profiles. Quantitatively this results in greater percentile ranges of the histograms. Furthermore, for CT, gold had a higher CNR than polymer, relative to the phantom. However, the gold CNR and SNR were degraded by the greater artifact and thus AI. Both fiducials were visible on MRI and had similar histograms and profiles that were also reflected in comparable CNR, SNR and AI. Polymer fiducials were well visualized in a phantom on CT and MR and produce less artifact than the gold fiducials. Polymer markers could enhance the quality and accuracy of radiotherapy co-registration and planning but require clinical confirmation.

Background Radiation therapy to upper abdominal sites is technically challenging due to motion of tumors and surrounding organs resulting from normal respiration. Breath-hold, using an Active Breathing Coordinator is one strategy used to reduce motion in these tumor sites. Though widely used, no studies have prospectively compared the different breath-hold techniques (inspiration, deep-inspiration and expiration) using ABC in the same patient cohort. Methods Patients planned for radiation therapy to upper abdominal tumors are invited to participate in this prospective study. Participants attempt three breath hold techniques: inspiration, deep-inspiration and expiration breath-hold, in random order. kV fluoroscopy images of the dome of diaphragm are taken of five consecutive breath-holds in each technique. Reproducibility and stability of tumour position are measured, and used to select the technique with which to proceed to planning and treatment. Reproducibility at planning and each treatment fraction is measured, along with breath hold time, treatment efficiency and patient experience. Discussion The screening method was validated after the first three participants. This screening process may be able to select the best breath-hold technique for an individual, which may lead to improved reproducibility. The screening process is being piloted as a prospective clinical trial. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): 12618001691235. Registered 12th October 2018. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=376109&isReview=true .

IntroductionGlioblastoma is the most common aggressive primary central nervous system cancer in adults characterised by uniformly poor survival. Despite maximal safe resection and postoperative radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide-based chemotherapy, tumours inevitably recur. Imaging with O-(2-[18F]-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) positron emission tomography (PET) has the potential to impact adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) planning, distinguish between treatment-induced pseudoprogression versus tumour progression as well as prognostication.Methods and analysisThe FET-PET in Glioblastoma (FIG) study is a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, phase II study across 10 Australian sites and will enrol up to 210 adults aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. FET-PET will be performed at up to three time points: (1) following initial surgery and prior to commencement of chemoradiation (FET-PET1); (2) 4 weeks following concurrent chemoradiation (FET-PET2); and (3) within 14 days of suspected clinical and/or radiological progression on MRI (performed at the time of clinical suspicion of tumour recurrence) (FET-PET3). The co-primary outcomes are: (1) to investigate how FET-PET versus standard MRI impacts RT volume delineation and (2) to determine the accuracy and management impact of FET-PET in distinguishing pseudoprogression from true tumour progression. The secondary outcomes are: (1) to investigate the relationships between FET-PET parameters (including dynamic uptake, tumour to background ratio, metabolic tumour volume) and progression-free survival and overall survival; (2) to assess the change in blood and tissue biomarkers determined by serum assay when comparing FET-PET data acquired prior to chemoradiation with other prognostic markers, looking at the relationships of FET-PET versus MRI-determined site/s of progressive disease post chemotherapy treatment with MRI and FET-PET imaging; and (3) to estimate the health economic impact of incorporating FET-PET into glioblastoma management and in the assessment of post-treatment pseudoprogression or recurrence/true progression. Exploratory outcomes include the correlation of multimodal imaging, blood and tumour biomarker analyses with patterns of failure and survival.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol V.2.0 dated 20 November 2020 has been approved by a lead Human Research Ethics Committee (Austin Health, Victoria). Other clinical sites will provide oversight through local governance processes, including obtaining informed consent from suitable participants. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Results of the FIG study (TROG 18.06) will be disseminated via relevant scientific and consumer forums and peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberANZCTR ACTRN12619001735145