Explore the vast range of titles available.

To develop and validate fully automated generation of VMAT plan-libraries for plan-of-the-day adaptive radiotherapy in locally-advanced cervical cancer. Our framework for fully automated treatment plan generation (Erasmus-iCycle) was adapted to create dual-arc VMAT treatment plan libraries for cervical cancer patients. For each of 34 patients, automatically generated VMAT plans (autoVMAT) were compared to manually generated, clinically delivered 9-beam IMRT plans (CLINICAL), and to dual-arc VMAT plans generated manually by an expert planner (manVMAT). Furthermore, all plans were benchmarked against 20-beam equi-angular IMRT plans (autoIMRT). For all plans, a PTV coverage of 99.5% by at least 95% of the prescribed dose (46 Gy) had the highest planning priority, followed by minimization of V45Gy for small bowel (SB). Other OARs considered were bladder, rectum, and sigmoid. All plans had a highly similar PTV coverage, within the clinical constraints (above). After plan normalizations for exactly equal median PTV doses in corresponding plans, all evaluated OAR parameters in autoVMAT plans were on average lower than in the CLINICAL plans with an average reduction in SB V45Gy of 34.6% (p<0.001). For 41/44 autoVMAT plans, SB V45Gy was lower than for manVMAT (p<0.001, average reduction 30.3%), while SB V15Gy increased by 2.3% (p = 0.011). AutoIMRT reduced SB V45Gy by another 2.7% compared to autoVMAT, while also resulting in a 9.0% reduction in SB V15Gy (p<0.001), but with a prolonged delivery time. Differences between manVMAT and autoVMAT in bladder, rectal and sigmoid doses were ≤ 1%. Improvements in SB dose delivery with autoVMAT instead of manVMAT were higher for empty bladder PTVs compared to full bladder PTVs, due to differences in concavity of the PTVs. Quality of automatically generated VMAT plans was superior to manually generated plans. Automatic VMAT plan generation for cervical cancer has been implemented in our clinical routine. Due to the achieved workload reduction, extension of plan libraries has become feasible.

Studies have reported a low α/β ratio for prostate cancer, suggesting that hypofractionation could enhance the biological tumour dose without increasing genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. In the multicentre phase 3, HYpofractionated irradiation for PROstate cancer (HYPRO) trial, hypofractionated radiotherapy was compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for treatment of prostate cancer. We have previously reported acute and late incidence of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity; here we report protocol-defined 5-year relapse-free survival outcomes. We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at seven Dutch radiotherapy centres. We enrolled patients with intermediate-risk to high-risk T1b–T4NX–N0MX–M0 localised prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen concentration of 60 μg/L or less, and a WHO performance status of 0–2. We used a web-based application to randomly assign (1:1) patients to either hypofractionated radiotherapy of 64·6 Gy (19 fractions of 3·4 Gy, three fractions per week) or conventionally fractionated radiotherapy of 78·0 Gy (39 fractions of 2·0 Gy, five fractions per week). Based on an estimated α/β ratio for prostate cancer of 1·5 Gy, the equivalent total dose in fractions of 2·0 Gy was 90·4 Gy for hypofractionation compared with 78·0 Gy for conventional fractionation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis in all eligible patients. The HYPRO trial completed recruitment in 2010 and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN85138529. Between March 19, 2007, and Dec 3, 2010, 820 patients were enrolled, of whom 804 were eligible and assessable for intention-to-treat analyses. Of these, 407 were assigned hypofractionated radiotherapy and 397 were allocated conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. 537 (67%) of 804 patients received concomitant androgen deprivation therapy for a median duration of 32 months (IQR 10–44). Median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 51–69). Treatment failure was reported in 169 (21%) of 804 patients, 80 (20%) in the hypofractionation group and 89 (22%) in the conventional fractionation group. 5-year relapse-free survival was 80·5% (95% CI 75·7–84·4) for patients assigned hypofractionation and 77·1% (71·9–81·5) for those allocated conventional fractionation (adjusted hazard radio 0·86, 95% CI 0·63–1·16; log-rank p=0·36). There were no treatment-related deaths. Hypofractionated radiotherapy was not superior to conventional radiotherapy with respect to 5-year relapse-free survival. Our hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen cannot be regarded as the new standard of care for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer. Dutch Cancer Society.

Technology has a pivotal role in the continuous development of radiotherapy. The long road toward modern ‘high‐tech’ radiation oncology has been studded with discoveries and technological innovations that resulted from the interaction of various disciplines. In the last decades, a dramatic technology‐driven revolution has hugely improved the capability of accurately and safely delivering complex‐shaped dose distributions. This has contributed to many clinical improvements, such as the successful management of lung cancer and oligometastatic disease through stereotactic body radiotherapy. Technology‐driven research is an active and lively field with promising potential in several domains, including image guidance, adaptive radiotherapy, integration of artificial intelligence, heavy‐particle therapy, and ‘flash’ ultra‐high dose‐rate radiotherapy. The evolution toward personalized Oncology will deeply influence technology‐driven research, aiming to integrate predictive models and omics analyses into fast and efficient solutions to deliver the best treatment for each single patient. Personalized radiation oncology will need affordable technological solutions for middle‐/low‐income countries, as these are expected to experience the highest increase of cancer incidence and mortality. Moreover, technology solutions for automation of commissioning, quality assurance, safety tests, image segmentation, and plan optimization will be required. Although a large fraction of cancer patients receive radiotherapy, this is certainly not reflected in the worldwide budget for radiotherapy research. Differently from the pharmaceutical companies‐driven research, resources for research in radiotherapy are highly limited to equipment vendors, who can, in turn, initiate a limited number of collaborations with academic research centers. Thus, enhancement of investments in technology‐driven radiotherapy research via public funds, national governments, and the European Union would have a crucial societal impact. It would allow for radiotherapy to further strengthen its role as a highly effective and cost‐efficient cancer treatment modality, and it could facilitate a rapid and equalitarian large‐scale transfer of technology to clinic, with direct impact on patient care. Technology‐driven research has a pivotal role in the advancement of radiotherapy, still more in the current ‘high‐tech’ era. Larger efforts in developing efficient and affordable technology solutions to deliver personalized radiotherapy, even in middle‐/low‐income countries, are necessary. In order to facilitate a rapid and equalitarian large‐scale transfer of technology to clinic, increased investments in technology‐driven radiotherapy research are highly desirable.

Several studies have reported a low α to β ratio for prostate cancer, suggesting that hypofractionation could enhance the biological tumour dose without increasing genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. We tested this theory in the phase 3 HYPRO trial for patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer. We have previously reported acute incidence of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity; here we report data for late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. In this randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial, done in seven radiotherapy centres in the Netherlands, we enrolled intermediate-risk or high-risk patients aged between 44 and 85 years with histologically confirmed stage T1b–T4 NX–0MX–0 prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen concentration of 60 ng/mL or lower, and WHO performance status of 0–2. A web-based application was used to randomly assign (1:1) patients to receive either standard fractionation with 39 fractions of 2 Gy in 8 weeks (five fractions per week) or hypofractionation with 19 fractions of 3·4 Gy in 6·5 weeks (three fractions per week). Randomisation was done with the minimisation procedure, stratified by treatment centre and risk group. The primary endpoint was to detect a 10% enhancement in 5-year relapse-free survival with hypofractionation. A key additional endpoint was non-inferiority of hypofractionation in cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. We planned to reject inferiority of hypofractionation for late genitourinary toxicity if the estimated hazard ratio (HR) was less than 1·11 and for gastrointestinal toxicity was less than 1·13. We scored toxicity with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (RTOG/EORTC) criteria from both physicians' records (clinical record form) and patients' self-assessment questionnaires. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Patient recruitment for the HYPRO trial was completed in 2010. The trial was registered with www.controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN85138529. Between March 19, 2007, and Dec 3, 2010, 820 patients (410 in both groups) were randomly assigned. Analyses for late toxicity included 387 assessable patients in the standard fractionation group and 395 in the hypofractionation group. The median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 51·2–67·3). The database for all analyses (both groups and both genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities) was locked on March 26, 2015. The incidence of grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity at 3 years was 39·0% (95% CI 34·2–44·1) in the standard fractionation group and 41·3% (36·6–46·4) in the hypofractionation group. The estimated HR for the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse late genitourinary toxicity was 1·16 (90% CI 0·98–1·38), suggesting that non-inferiority could not be shown. The incidence of grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity at 3 years was 17·7% (14·1–21·9) in standard fractionation and 21·9% (18·1–26·4) hypofractionation. With an estimated HR of 1·19 (90% CI 0·93–1·52) for the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse late gastrointestinal toxicity, we could not confirm non-inferiority of hypofractionation for cumulative late gastrointestinal toxicity. Cumulative grade 3 or worse late genitourinary toxicity was significantly higher in the hypofractionation group than in the standard fractionation group (19·0% [95% CI 15·2–23·2] vs 12·9% [9·7–16·7], respectively; p=0·021), but there was no significant difference between cumulative grade 3 or worse late gastrointestinal toxicity (2·6% [95% CI 1·2–4·7]) in the standard fractionation group and 3·3% [1·7–5·6] in the hypofractionation group; p=0·55). Our data could not confirm that hypofractionation was non-inferior for cumulative late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity compared with standard fractionation. Before final conclusions can be made about the utility of hypofractionation, efficacy outcomes need to be reported. The Dutch Cancer Society.

Background/Objectives: Extracting spatial features (texture analysis) from dose distributions (dosiomics) for outcome prediction is a rapidly evolving field in radiotherapy. To account for fraction size differences, the biological effective dose (BED) is often calculated. We evaluated the impact and added value of the BED in the dosiomics prediction modelling of grade ≥ 2 late rectal bleeding (LRB) probability within 5 years after treatment in three parts. Methods: For N = 656 prostate cancer patients previously treated in a randomized trial with conventional (CF) or hypofractionated (HF) radiotherapy, 42 dosiomic features were extracted from the dose distributions of the delineated rectum in physical doses and from dose distributions converted to the BED. Part 1: To assess whether an HF BED dosiomics model is generalizable to CF and vice versa, multivariate logistic regression BED models were constructed for HF and CF separately and tested on the other fractionation scheme. Part 2: The BED models were fitted to combined HF and CF data together to test whether this resulted in better models. Part 3: Separate physical HF and CF models were constructed and compared to the BED models. Results: Part 1: Dosiomics related to large-zone and long-run high-dose levels were predictive for both HF and CF. Deviation from the mean gray level was only predictive for HF. The BED HF model calibrations with CF data and vice versa were generally poor. AUCs ranged from 0.55 to 0.65. Part 2: Compared to the separate models, the models fitted to the combined HF and CF data showed better discriminative ability in CF but not in HF. Part 3: The apparent performances of models for the BED and physical dose were similar. Conclusions: Using the BED in the predictive dosiomic modelling of late rectal bleeding after prostate cancer radiotherapy to account for differences in fraction doses was of limited value.

Purpose To develop a fully automated procedure for multicriterial volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning (autoVMAT) for stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with curative intent. Materials and methods After configuring the developed autoVMAT system for NSCLC, autoVMAT plans were compared with manually generated clinically delivered intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans for 41 patients. AutoVMAT plans were also compared to manually generated VMAT plans in the absence of time pressure. For 16 patients with reduced planning target volume (PTV) dose prescription in the clinical IMRT plan (to avoid violation of organs at risk tolerances), the potential for dose escalation with autoVMAT was explored. Results Two physicians evaluated 35/41 autoVMAT plans (85%) as clinically acceptable. Compared to the manually generated IMRT plans, autoVMAT plans showed statistically significant improved PTV coverage (V 95% increased by 1.1% ± 1.1%), higher dose conformity (R 50 reduced by 12.2% ± 12.7%), and reduced mean lung, heart, and esophagus doses (reductions of 0.9 Gy ± 1.0 Gy, 1.5 Gy ± 1.8 Gy, 3.6 Gy ± 2.8 Gy, respectively, all p  < 0.001). To render the six remaining autoVMAT plans clinically acceptable, a dosimetrist needed less than 10 min hands-on time for fine-tuning. AutoVMAT plans were also considered equivalent or better than manually optimized VMAT plans. For 6/16 patients, autoVMAT allowed tumor dose escalation of 5–10 Gy. Conclusion Clinically deliverable, high-quality autoVMAT plans can be generated fully automatically for the vast majority of advanced-stage NSCLC patients. For a subset of patients, autoVMAT allowed for tumor dose escalation.

BackgroundFor several tumor entities, automated treatment planning has improved plan quality and planning efficiency, and may enable adaptive treatment approaches. Whole-pelvic prostate radiotherapy (WPRT) involves large concave target volumes, which present a challenge for volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) optimization. This study evaluates automated VMAT planning for WPRT-VMAT and compares the results with manual expert planning.MethodsA system for fully automated multi-criterial plan generation was configured for each step of sequential-boost WPRT-VMAT, with final “autoVMAT” plans being automatically calculated by the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS; Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden). Configuration was based on manually generated VMAT plans (manualVMAT) of 5 test patients, the planning protocol, and discussions with the treating physician on wishes for plan improvements. AutoVMAT plans were then generated for another 30 evaluation patients and compared to manualVMAT plans. For all 35 patients, manualVMAT plans were optimized by expert planners using the Monaco TPS.ResultsAutoVMAT plans exhibited strongly improved organ sparing and higher conformity compared to manualVMAT. On average, mean doses (Dmean) of bladder and rectum were reduced by 10.7 and 4.5 Gy, respectively, by autoVMAT. Prostate target coverage (V95%) was slightly higher (+0.6%) with manualVMAT. In a blinded scoring session, the radiation oncologist preferred autoVMAT plans to manualVMAT plans for 27/30 patients. All treatment plans were considered clinically acceptable. The workload per patient was reduced by > 70 min.ConclusionAutomated VMAT planning for complex WPRT dose distributions is feasible and creates treatment plans that are generally dosimetrically superior to manually optimized plans.

In 2007, we began the randomised phase 3 multicentre HYPRO trial to investigate the effect of hypofractionated radiotherapy compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy on relapse-free survival in patients with prostate cancer. Here, we examine whether patients experience differences in acute gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse effects. In this randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial, done in seven radiotherapy centres in the Netherlands, we enrolled intermediate-risk or high-risk patients aged between 44 and 85 years with histologically confirmed stage T1b–T4 NX-0MX-0 prostate cancer, a PSA concentration of 60 ng/mL or lower, and WHO performance status of 0–2. A web-based application was used to randomly assign (1:1) patients to receive either standard fractionation with 39 fractions of 2 Gy in 8 weeks (five fractions per week) or hypofractionation with 19 fractions of 3·4 Gy in 6·5 weeks (three fractions per week). Randomisation was done with minimisation procedure, stratified by treatment centre and risk group. The primary endpoint is 5-year relapse-free survival. Here we report data for the acute toxicity outcomes: the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. Non-inferiority of hypofractionation was tested separately for genitourinary and gastrointestinal acute toxic effects, with a null hypothesis that cumulative incidences of each type of adverse event were not more than 8% higher in the hypofractionation group than in the standard fractionation group. We scored acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxic effects according to RTOG-EORTC criteria from both case report forms and patients' self-assessment questionnaires, at baseline, twice during radiotherapy, and 3 months after completion of radiotherapy. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Patient recruitment has been completed. This study is registered with www.controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN85138529. Between March 19, 2007, and Dec 3, 2010, 820 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with standard fractionation (n=410) or hypofractionation (n=410). 3 months after radiotherapy, 73 (22%) patients in the standard fractionation group and 75 (23%) patients in the hypofractionation group reported grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity; grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity was noted in 43 (13%) patients in the standard fractionation group and in 42 (13%) in the hypofractionation group. Grade 4 acute genitourinary toxicity was reported for two patients, one (<1%) in each group. No grade 4 acute gastrointestinal toxicities were observed. We noted no significant difference in cumulative incidence by 120 days after radiotherapy of grade 2 or worse acute genitourinary toxicity (57·8% [95% CI 52·9–62·7] in the standard fractionation group vs 60·5% (55·8–65·3) in the hypofractionation group; difference 2·7%, 90% CI −2·99 to 8·48; odds ratio [OR] 1·12, 95% CI 0·84–1·49; p=0·43). The cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute gastrointestinal toxicity by 120 days after radiotherapy was higher in patients given hypofractionation (31·2% [95% CI 26·6–35·8] in the standard fractionation group vs 42·0% [37·2–46·9] in the hypofractionation group; difference 10·8%, 90% CI 5·25–16·43; OR 1·6; p=0·0015; non-inferiority not confirmed). Hypofractionated radiotherapy was not non-inferior to standard fractionated radiotherapy in terms of acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity for men with intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer. In fact, the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute gastrointestinal toxicity was significantly higher in patients given hypofractionation than in those given standard fractionated radiotherapy. Patients remain in follow-up for efficacy endpoints. The Dutch Cancer Society.

Background Postoperative/adjuvant radiotherapy of advanced gastric cancer involves a large planning target volume (PTV) with multi-concave shapes which presents a challenge for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. This study investigates the advantages of automated VMAT planning for this site compared to manual VMAT planning by expert planners. Methods For 20 gastric cancer patients in the postoperative/adjuvant setting, dual-arc VMAT plans were generated using fully automated multi-criterial treatment planning (autoVMAT), and compared to manually generated VMAT plans (manVMAT). Both automated and manual plans were created to deliver a median dose of 45 Gy to the PTV using identical planning and segmentation parameters. Plans were evaluated by two expert radiation oncologists for clinical acceptability. AutoVMAT and manVMAT plans were also compared based on dose-volume histogram (DVH) and predicted normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) analysis. Results Both manVMAT and autoVMAT plans were considered clinically acceptable. Target coverage was similar (manVMAT: 96.6 ± 1.6%, autoVMAT: 97.4 ± 1.0%, p  = 0.085). With autoVMAT, median kidney dose was reduced on average by > 25%; (for left kidney from 11.3 ± 2.1 Gy to 8.9 ± 3.5 Gy ( p  = 0.002); for right kidney from 9.2 ± 2.2 Gy to 6.1 ± 1.3 Gy ( p  <  0.001)). Median dose to the liver was lower as well (18.8 ± 2.3 Gy vs. 17.1 ± 3.6 Gy, p  = 0.048). In addition, Dmax of the spinal cord was significantly reduced (38.3 ± 3.7 Gy vs. 31.6 ± 2.6 Gy, p  <  0.001). Substantial improvements in dose conformity and integral dose were achieved with autoVMAT plans (4.2% and 9.1%, respectively; p  <  0.001). Due to the better OAR sparing in the autoVMAT plans compared to manVMAT plans, the predicted NTCPs for the left and right kidney and the liver-PTV were significantly reduced by 11.3%, 12.8%, 7%, respectively ( p  ≤ 0.001). Delivery time and total number of monitor units were increased in autoVMAT plans (from 168 ± 19 s to 207 ± 26 s, p  = 0.006) and (from 781 ± 168 MU to 1001 ± 134 MU, p  = 0.003), respectively. Conclusions For postoperative/adjuvant radiotherapy of advanced gastric cancer, involving a complex target shape, automated VMAT planning is feasible and can substantially reduce the dose to the kidneys and the liver, without compromising the target dose delivery.

Recently, VOLO™ was introduced as a new optimizer for CyberKnife® planning. In this study, we investigated possibilities to improve treatment plans for MLC‐based prostate SBRT with enhanced peripheral zone dose while sparing the urethra, and central lung tumors, compared to existing Sequential Optimization (SO). The primary focus was on reducing OAR doses. For 25 prostate and 25 lung patients treated with SO plans, replanning with VOLO™ was performed with the same planning constraints. For equal PTV coverage, almost all OAR plan parameters were improved with VOLO™. For prostate patients, mean rectum and bladder doses were reduced by 34.2% (P < 0.001) and 23.5% (P < 0.001), with reductions in D0.03cc of 3.9%, 11.0% and 3.1% for rectum, mucosa and bladder (all P ≤ 0.01). Urethra D5% and D10% were 3.8% and 3.0% lower (P ≤ 0.002). For lung patients, esophagus, main bronchus, trachea, and spinal cord D0.03cc was reduced by 18.9%, 11.1%, 16.1%, and 13.2%, respectively (all P ≤ 0.01). Apart from the dosimetric advantages of VOLO™ planning, average reductions in MU, numbers of beams and nodes for prostate/lung were 48.7/32.8%, 26.5/7.9% and 13.4/7.9%, respectively (P ≤ 0.003). VOLO™ also resulted in reduced delivery times with mean/max reductions of: 27/43% (prostate) and 15/41% (lung), P  < 0.001. Planning times reduced from 6 h to 1.1 h and from 3 h to 1.7 h for prostate and lung, respectively. The new VOLO™ planning was highly superior to SO planning in terms of dosimetric plan quality, and planning and delivery times.