Delivery Of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy Research Articles

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in the UK: current status and developments

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has developed from the principles and techniques used in the stereotactic radiosurgery treatment of brain metastases. Advances in computer technology, imaging, planning and treatment delivery and evidence from retrospective analysis of single- and multi-institutional early-phase studies have established SABR in the treatment of medically inoperable early lung cancer. Effective multidisciplinary team working is crucial to safe delivery of SABR. The variation in patient selection, radiotherapy planning and delivery techniques has led to a collective approach to SABR implementation across the UK. Centres developing the technique are represented in the UK SABR Consortium, which is supported by the relevant UK professional bodies and represents a platform to develop extracranial SABR across the UK. The uptake of SABR in the UK has been slowed by workforce issues, but at least 15 centres are currently delivering treatment with over 500 patients treated using UK SABR Consortium guidance. A mentoring program is being piloted helping new centres to develop their programs, and over 30 UK centres are expected to be offering SABR treatment by the end of 2014. The use of consistent guidance for patient selection, treatment planning and delivery in the UK gives the opportunity to collect and audit toxicity and outcome across the centres, contributing to the internationally reported SABR experience. Having established this service in the UK, the development of SABR through clinical research is a priority, and with input from the Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group, the UK is developing a national study program that includes participation in international trials.

Developments in early-stage NSCLC: advances in radiotherapy

An increase in the number of predominantly elderly patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer is anticipated in many Western populations. Patients often have major co-morbidities and are at increased risk for surgical morbidity and mortality. In the past decade, the use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has achieved excellent results, with only mild toxicity in such vulnerable patient groups, leading to SABR becoming accepted as a standard of care for unfit patients in several countries. The planning and delivery of SABR has rapidly improved in recent years, particularly with the use of 'on-board' imaging at treatment units, and shortened treatment delivery times. Increasingly, more central tumors are being treated using lower doses per fraction (so-called risk-adapted schemes). It is also becoming clear that long-term follow-up should take place at specialist centers in order to distinguish the evolving fibrosis that is frequently observed from the relatively infrequent local recurrences. Given the high local control rates and limited toxicity, increasing attention is being paid to the use of SABR in the subgroup of so-called borderline operable patients, and clinical trials comparing surgery and SABR in these patients are ongoing.

Implementation of Lung Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy at a Regional Cancer Centre

BackgroundFor patients with inoperable Stage I (T1-T2, N0, M0) non-small-cell lung cancer, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), also known as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), has demonstrated survival outcomes similar to surgery. Lung SABR is a technically challenging means of delivering precise, high-dose radiation to a small tumor volume. At many cancer centres, the widespread use of SABR is impeded by the complexity of the implementation process. This study will aim to provide a detailed guide to the steps involved in delivering lung SABR in a reliable and efficient manner. ProcessThe execution of this intricate treatment program at our cancer centre required the collaboration of a multidisciplinary team. Input from several professionals within radiation oncology was necessary, including medical physicists, dosimetrists, radiation therapists, nurses, and radiation oncologists. Expert guidelines have been developed which give careful consideration to each step of the process, including 1) reliable and reproducible patient immobilization, 2) a method to account for tumor and organ motion, 3) the use of multiple treatment fields to deliver highly conformal radiation dose with a rapid dose fall off, 4) daily imaging that allows for repositioning from simulation to treatment, 5) accurate and precise dose-calculation algorithms, and 6) a vigorous quality assurance program. Lung SABR was introduced at our centre in 2007 and thus far 92 patients have been treated. There are currently three treatment machines capable of performing this procedure. Benefits/ChallengesPatient immobilization through the use of body cushions, accurate tumor and organ delineation via the use of four-dimensional computed tomography simulation, development of firm treatment planning guidelines, treatment verification using cone beam computed tomography, and a robust quality assurance program have all been instrumental in ensuring the safe and effective delivery of lung SABR. However, the process was laden with challenges, from delineating the optimum immobilization technique that balances patient comfort and motion, to introducing ways of making novice staff comfortable with a new method for treatment verification. ConclusionsThere are outcome and toxicity data being collected on patients undergoing lung SABR at our cancer centre. This will serve as a self-assessment tool for our implementation process. Moreover, as future indications for SABR change, this initial implementation step will serve as a framework on which to continue building comprehensive guidelines.

Outcomes of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Centrally Located Early-Stage Lung Cancer

The use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in centrally located early-stage lung tumors has been associated with increased toxicity. We studied outcomes after delivery of risk-adapted SABR of central tumors. SABR was delivered in eight fractions of 7.5 Gy to 63 such patients between 2003 and 2009. Of these, 37 patients had a tumor at a central hilar location, whereas 26 patients had tumors abutting the pericardium or mediastinal structures. Survival outcomes were compared with patients with peripheral tumors treated during the same time period using fewer fractions of SABR. Median follow-up was 35 months. Late grade III toxicity was limited to chest wall pain (n = 2) and increased dyspnoea (n = 2). No grade IV/V toxicity was observed, but grade V toxicity could not be excluded with certainty in nine patients who died of cardiopulmonary causes. Distant metastases were the predominant cause of death; cardiovascular deaths were not associated with a paracardial tumor location. No significant differences in outcomes were observed between these 63 patients and 445 other SABR patients treated for peripheral early-stage lung tumors. Three-year local control rates were 92.6% and 90.2% (p = 0.9). Three-year overall survival rates were 64.3% and 51.1% with median survival rates of 47 and 36 months, in favor of the group of patients with central tumors (p = 0.09). Use of risk-adapted SABR delivered in eight fractions of 7.5 Gy did not result in excess toxicity for centrally located early-stage lung tumors, and clinical outcomes were comparable with those seen for peripheral lesions.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for stage I NSCLC: Recent advances and controversies.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a technique that has rapidly entered routine care for early-stage peripheral non-small cell lung cancer in many countries in the last decade. The adoption of SABR was partly stimulated by advances in the so-called 'image guided' radiotherapy delivery. In the last 2 years, a growing body of publications has reported on clinical outcomes, acute and late radiological changes after SABR, and sub-acute and late toxicity. The local control rates in many publications have exceeded 90% when tumors of up to 5 cm have been treated, with corresponding regional nodal failure rates of approximately 10%. However, these results are not universal: lower control rates reported by some authors serve to emphasize the importance of quality assurance in all steps of SABR treatment planning and delivery. High-grade toxicity is uncommon when so-called 'risk-adapted' fractionation schemes are applied; an approach which involves the use of lower daily doses and more fractions when critical normal organs are in the proximity of the tumor volume. This review will address the new data available on a number of controversial topics such as the treatment of patients without a tissue diagnosis of malignancy, data on SABR outcomes in patients with severe chronic obstructive airways disease, use of a classification system for late radiological changes post-SABR, late treatment-related toxicity, and the evidence to support a need for expert multi-disciplinary teams in the follow-up of such patients.

Solar energy systems will provide Tsunami Disaster Relief

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) has recently emerged as a favourable treatment option for prostate cancer patients. With higher doses delivered over fewer fractions, motion adaptation is a requirement for accurate delivery of SABR. This study compared the efficacy of multileaf collimator (MLC) tracking vs. gating as a real-time motion adaptation strategy for prostate SABR patients enrolled in a clinical trial.Forty-four prostate cancer patients treated over five fractions in the TROG 15.01 SPARK trial were analysed in this study. Forty-nine fractions were treated using MLC tracking and 166 fractions were treated using beam gating and couch shifts. A time-resolved motion-encoded dose reconstruction method was used to evaluate the dose delivered using each motion adaptation strategy and compared to an estimation of what would have been delivered with no motion adaptation strategy implemented.MLC tracking and gating both delivered doses closer to the plan compared to when no motion adaptation strategy was used. Differences between MLC tracking and gating were small with differences in the mean discrepancy from the plan of −0.3% (CTV D98%), 1.4% (CTV D2%), 0.4% (PTV D95%), 0.2% (rectum V30Gy) and 0.0% (bladder V30Gy). On average, 0.5 couch shifts were required per gated fractions with a mean interruption duration of 1.8 ± 2.6 min per fraction treated using gating.Both MLC tracking and gating were effective strategies at improving the accuracy of the dose delivered to the target and organs at risk. While dosimetric performance was comparable, gating resulted in interruptions to treatment.Clinical trial registration number: NCT02397317.