Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (33)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (33)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Journal article (33)
Language
- English (33)
Keywords
- radiotherapy (8)
- prostate cancer (6)
- DNA damage (3)
- IGRT (3)
- hypofractionation (3)
- long-term outcome (3)
- rectal cancer (3)
- toxicity (3)
- DNA repair (2)
- Glioblastoma (2)
Institute
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie (32)
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Mainfranken (3)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin (3)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenkrankheiten, plastische und ästhetische Operationen (2)
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I (2)
- Pathologisches Institut (2)
- Theodor-Boveri-Institut für Biowissenschaften (2)
- Frauenklinik und Poliklinik (1)
- Institut für Klinische Epidemiologie und Biometrie (1)
- Institut für Medizinische Strahlenkunde und Zellforschung (1)
Background:
The aim of this work is to validate the Dynamic Planning Module in terms of usability and acceptance in the treatment planning workflow.
Methods:
The Dynamic Planning Module was used for decision making whether a plan adaptation was necessary within one course of radiation therapy. The Module was also used for patients scheduled for re-irradiation to estimate the dose in the pretreated region and calculate the accumulated dose to critical organs at risk. During one year, 370 patients were scheduled for plan adaptation or re-irradiation. All patient cases were classified according to their treated body region. For a sub-group of 20 patients treated with RT for lung cancer, the dosimetric effect of plan adaptation during the main treatment course was evaluated in detail. Changes in tumor volume, frequency of re-planning and the time interval between treatment start and plan adaptation were assessed.
Results:
The Dynamic Planning Tool was used in 20% of treated patients per year for both approaches nearly equally (42% plan adaptation and 58% re-irradiation). Most cases were assessed for the thoracic body region (51%) followed by pelvis (21%) and head and neck cases (10%). The sub-group evaluation showed that unintended plan adaptation was performed in 38% of the scheduled cases. A median time span between first day of treatment and necessity of adaptation of 17 days (range 4–35 days) was observed. PTV changed by 12 ± 12% on average (maximum change 42%). PTV decreased in 18 of 20 cases due to tumor shrinkage and increased in 2 of 20 cases. Re-planning resulted in a reduction of the mean lung dose of the ipsilateral side in 15 of 20 cases.
Conclusion:
The experience of one year showed high acceptance of the Dynamic Planning Module in our department for both physicians and medical physicists. The re-planning can potentially reduce the accumulated dose to the organs at risk and ensure a better target volume coverage. In the re-irradiation situation, the Dynamic Planning Tool was used to consider the pretreatment dose, to adapt the actual treatment schema more specifically and to review the accumulated dose.
Background:
Concomitant radiation with BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) therapy may increase radiation-induced side effects but also potentially improve tumour control in melanoma patients.
Methods:
A total of 155 patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma from 17 European skin cancer centres were retrospectively analysed. Out of these, 87 patients received concomitant radiotherapy and BRAFi (59 vemurafenib, 28 dabrafenib), while in 68 patients BRAFi therapy was interrupted during radiation (51 vemurafenib, 17 dabrafenib). Overall survival was calculated from the first radiation (OSRT) and from start of BRAFi therapy (OSBRAFi).
Results:
The median duration of BRAFi treatment interruption prior to radiotherapy was 4 days and lasted for 17 days. Median OSRT and OSBRAFi in the entire cohort were 9.8 and 12.6 months in the interrupted group and 7.3 and 11.5 months in the concomitant group (P=0.075/P=0.217), respectively. Interrupted vemurafenib treatment with a median OSRT and OSBRAFi of 10.1 and 13.1 months, respectively, was superior to concomitant vemurafenib treatment with a median OSRT and OSBRAFi of 6.6 and 10.9 months (P=0.004/P=0.067). Interrupted dabrafenib treatment with a median OSRT and OSBRAFi of 7.7 and 9.8 months, respectively, did not differ from concomitant dabrafenib treatment with a median OSRT and OSBRAFi of 9.9 and 11.6 months (P=0.132/P=0.404). Median local control of the irradiated area did not differ in the interrupted and concomitant BRAFi treatment groups (P=0.619). Skin toxicity of grade ≥2 (CTCAE) was significantly increased in patients with concomitant vemurafenib compared to the group with treatment interruption (P=0.002).
Conclusions:
Interruption of vemurafenib treatment during radiation was associated with better survival and less toxicity compared to concomitant treatment. Due to lower number of patients, the relevance of treatment interruption in dabrafenib treated patients should be further investigated. The results of this analysis indicate that treatment with the BRAFi vemurafenib should be interrupted during radiotherapy. Prospective studies are desperately needed.
Purpose
To characterize the static properties of the anisotropy of dose contributions for different treatment techniques on real patient data (prostate cases). From this, we aim to define a class of treatment techniques with invariant anisotropy distribution carrying information of target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing. The anisotropy presumably is a helpful quantity for plan adaptation problems.
Methods
The anisotropy field is analyzed for different intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques for a total of ten planning CTs of prostate cases. Primary irradiation directions ranged from 5 to 15. The uniqueness of anisotropy was explored: In particular, the anisotropy distribution inside the planning treatment volume (PTV) and in its vicinity was investigated. Furthermore, deviations of the anisotropy under beam rotations were explored by direct plan comparison as an indicating the susceptibility of each planned technique to changes in the geometric plan configuration. In addition, plan comparisons enabled the categorization of treatment techniques in terms of their anisotropy distribution.
Results
The anisotropy profile inside the PTV and in the transition between OAR and PTV is independent of the treatment technique as long as a sufficient number of beams contribute to the dose distribution. Techniques with multiple beams constitute a class of almost identical and technique-independent anisotropy distribution. For this class of techniques, substructures of the anisotropy are particularly pronounced in the PTV, thus offering good options for applying adaptation rules. Additionally, the techniques forming the mentioned class fortunately allow a better OAR sparing at constant PTV coverage. Besides the characterization of the distribution, a pairwise plan comparison reveals each technique's susceptibility to deviations which decreases for an increasing number of primary irradiation directions.
Conclusions
Techniques using many irradiation directions form a class of almost identical anisotropy distributions which are assumed to provide a basis for improved adaptation procedures. Encouragingly, these techniques deliver quite invariant anisotropy distributions with respect to rotations correlated with good plan qualities than techniques using few gantry angles. The following will be the next steps toward anisotropy-based adaptation: first, the quantification of anisotropy regarding organ deformations; and second, establishing the interrelation between the anisotropy and beam shaping.