Jimm Grimm

Background: Since the inception of spinal radiosurgery decades ago, the factors influencing spinal cord recovery have remained unclear. Elucidating these factors would aid in reirradiation planning and delivery. We describe modeling reirradiation normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) from compiled published data, akin to the collaborative Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) and High Dose per Fraction, Hypofractionated Treatment Effects in the Clinic (HyTEC) projects. Purpose: Simple dose‐time recovery factors for the spinal cord serve as a basis to propose the Reirradiation Treatment Effects in the Clinic (ReTEC) project. ReTEC aims to define human organ recovery factors to convert the total composite dose to an equivalent physical dose compatible with the de novo therapy dose tolerance limits. Additionally, we present a system for automating analyses as well as clinical implementation of radiation dose‐time recovery. Methods: Published literature was queried for stereotactic voxel‐wise composite reirradiation plans involving the spinal cord, but none were found. Hence, minimum reporting criteria were used instead: spinal cord maximum dose (Dmax) of each course, time interval between courses, and number of fractions or biologically effective dose, per patient or in sufficiently homogeneous groups of patients. Recovery factors and logistic model parameters were fitted with maximum likelihood techniques. Results: An NTCP model was derived from 13 papers with data from 282 lesions, including six myelopathy cases. The model suggested spinal cord recovery of more than 50% in less than 1 year, which is faster and more complete than current clinical practice, but with wide confidence intervals (CI) (bootstrap 95% CI: 31%–95% when the time interval was 1 year). Conclusion: Due to limited data, we recommend remaining within current standard guidelines until more comprehensive analyses, optimally under the ReTEC initiative, refute or validate these estimates. ReTEC would require composite plans accounting for differing Dmax locations in each course. Nevertheless, this proof‐of‐concept Dmax model provides insight and serves as a basis to propose ReTEC.

Purpose: Utilization of breathhold scans with live tracking has a long track record of good published outcomes for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and is recommended by the manufacturer of the Synchrony tracking system. However, the popularity of four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) scans challenges the validity of the breathhold scan with live tracking technique. Although this study is not intended to prove the superiority of either method, we demonstrate the feasibility of using the breathhold scans with a phantom test and clinical examples. Methods: A 4DCT of a perfect sphere was scanned at 20 breaths per minute and compared to a 4DCT of a small lung tumor in one patient and a 4DCT of a larger renal tumor in another patient, as well as to fiducial matching in a patient with pancreatic cancer. Normal exhale and normal inhale breathhold CT scans were performed for the pancreatic cancer patient, combined with Synchrony tracking on CyberKnife (Sunnyvale, CA: Accuray) for treatment. Results: The 4DCT scan of the phantom exhibited considerable apparent deformation, which must be entirely due to imaging artifact since the perfect sphere in the phantom is known to be completely rigid. The 4DCT of the lung and renal tumors in patients had similar apparent deformation. Usually in patients, from 4DCT alone, it is difficult to determine how much was due to deformation and how much was due to artifact. Fiducial positions in the final normal exhale and normal inhale breathhold scans for Synchrony matched each other within 1mm for the pancreatic cancer patient. Conclusion: We demonstrated the feasibility of breathhold scans with Synchrony live tracking, as recommended by the manufacturer. More studies will be needed to determine whether this method is better than using a 4DCT.

Background: Brachial plexopathy is a potentially serious complication from stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) that has not been widely studied. Therefore, we compared datasets from two different institutions and generated a brachial plexus dose–response model, to quantify what dose constraints would be needed to minimize the effect on normal tissue while still enabling potent therapy for the tumor. Methods: Two published SBRT datasets were pooled and modeled from patients at Indiana University and the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Administration Medical Center from 1998 to 2007, as well as the Karolinska Institute from 2008 to 2013. All patients in both studies were treated with SBRT for apically located lung tumors localized superior to the aortic arch. Toxicities were graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and a probit dose response model was created with maximum likelihood parameter fitting. Results: This analysis includes a total of 89 brachial plexus maximum point dose (Dmax) values from both institutions. Among the 14 patients who developed brachial plexopathy, the most common complications were grade 2, comprising 7 patients. The median follow-up was 30 months (range 6.1–72.2) in the Karolinska dataset, and the Indiana dataset had a median of 13 months (range 1–71). Both studies had a median range of 3 fractions, but in the Indiana dataset, 9 patients were treated in 4 fractions, and the paper did not differentiate between the two, so our analysis is considered to be in 3–4 fractions, one of the main limitations. The probit model showed that the risk of brachial plexopathy with Dmax of 26 Gy in 3–4 fractions is 10%, and 50% with Dmax of 70 Gy in 3–4 fractions. Conclusions: This analysis is only a preliminary result because more details are needed as well as additional comprehensive datasets from a much broader cross-section of clinical practices. When more institutions join the QUANTEC and HyTEC methodology of reporting sufficient details to enable data pooling, our field will finally reach an improved understanding of human dose tolerance.

Objective: To determine the long-term normal tissue complication probability with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatments for targets that move with respiration and its relation with the type of respiratory motion management (tracking vs. compression or gating).Methods: A PubMed search was performed for identifying literature regarding dose, volume, fractionation, and toxicity (grade 3 or higher) for SBRT treatments for tumors which move with respiration. From the identified papers logistic or probit dose-response models were fitted to the data using the maximum-likelihood technique and confidence intervals were based on the profile-likelihood method in the dose-volume histogram (DVH) Evaluator.Results: Pooled logistic and probit models for grade 3 or higher toxicity for aorta, chest wall, duodenum, and small bowel suggest a significant difference when live motion tracking was used for targeting tumors with move with respiration which was on the average 10 times lower, in the high dose range.Conclusion: Live respiratory motion management appears to have a better toxicity outcome when treating targets which move with respiration with very steep peripheral dose gradients. This analysis is however limited by sparsity of rigorous data due to poor reporting in the literature.

Background: Brachial plexopathy (BP) is a potentially serious complication from stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) that has not been widely studied. Therefore, we compared datasets from two different institutions and generated a brachial plexus dose-response model, to quantify what dose constraints would be needed to minimize the effect on normal tissue while still enabling potent therapy for the tumor.Methods: Two published SBRT datasets were pooled and modeled from patients at Indiana University and the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Administration Medical Center from 1998 to 2007, as well as the Karolinska Institute from 2008 to 2013. All patients in both studies were treated with SBRT for apically located lung tumors localized superior to the aortic arch. Toxicities were graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and a probit dose response model was created with maximum likelihood parameter fitting.Results: This analysis includes a total of 89 brachial plexus Dmax values from both institutions. Among the 14 patients who developed BP, the most common complications were grade 2, comprising 7 patients. The median follow-up was 30 months (range 6.1-72.2) in the Karolinska dataset, and Indiana had a median of 13 months (range 1-71). Both studies had a median range of 3 fractions, but in the Indiana dataset 9 patients were treated in 4 fractions and the paper did not differentiate which ones were which, so our analysis is considered to be in 3-4 fractions, which is one of the main limitations. The probit model showed that the risk of BP with Dmax of 26 Gy in 3-4 fractions is 10%, and 50% with Dmax of 70 Gy in 3 -4 fractions.Conclusions: This analysis is only a preliminary result because more details are needed, and more comprehensive datasets are needed from a much broader cross-section of clinical practices. When more institutions join the QUANTEC and HyTEC methodology of reporting sufficient details to enable data pooling, our field will finally reach an improved understanding of human dose tolerance.

Purpose: Tumor treating fields (TTFields) is a novel antimitotic treatment that was first proven effective for glioblastoma multiforme, now with trials for several extracranial indications underway. Several studies focused on concurrent TTFields therapy with radiation in the same time period, but were not given simultaneously. This study evaluates the targeting accuracy of simultaneous radiation therapy while TTFields arrays are in place and powered on, ensuring that radiation does not interfere with TTFields and TTFields does not interfere with radiation. This is one of several options to enable TTFields to begin several weeks sooner, and opens potential for synergistic effects of combined therapy. Methods: TTFields arrays were attached to a warm saline water bath and salt was added until the TTFields generator reached the maximal 2000 mA peak-to-peak current. A ball cube phantom containing 2 orthogonal films surrounded by fiducials was placed in the water phantom, CT scanned, and a radiation treatment plan with 58 isocentric beams was created using a 3 cm circular collimator. Fiducial tracking was used to deliver radiation, the films were scanned, and end-to-end targeting error was measured with vendor-supplied software. In addition, radiation effects on electric fields generated by the TTFields system were assessed by examining logfiles generated from the field generator. Results: With TTFields arrays in place and powered on, the robotic radiosurgery system achieved a final targeting result of 0.47 mm, which was well within the submillimeter specification. No discernible effects on TTFields current output beyond 0.3% were observed in the logfiles when the radiation beam pulsed on and off. Conclusion: A robotic radiosurgery system was used to verify that radiation targeting was not adversely affected when the TTFields arrays were in place and the TTFields delivery device was powered on. In addition, this study verified that radiation delivered simultaneously with TTFields did not interfere with the generation of the electric fields.