Hania A Al-Hallaq1, Steven J Chmura2, Joseph K Salama3, Jessica R Lowenstein4, Susan McNulty5, James M Galvin5, David S Followill4, Clifford G Robinson6, Thomas M Pisansky7, Kathryn A Winter8, Julia R White9, Ying Xiao10, Martha M Matuszak11. 1. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: halhallaq@radonc.uchicago.edu. 2. Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Group (IROC) Houston, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Group (IROC) PHILADELPHIA RT, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, St Louis, Missouri. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester, Minnesota. 8. NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Columbus, Ohio. 10. Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Group (IROC) PHILADELPHIA RT, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Radiation Oncology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The NRG-BR001 trial is the first National Cancer Institute-sponsored trial to treat multiple (range 2-4) extracranial metastases with stereotactic body radiation therapy. Benchmark credentialing is required to ensure adherence to this complex protocol, in particular, for metastases in close proximity. The present report summarizes the dosimetric results and approval rates. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The benchmark used anonymized data from a patient with bilateral adrenal metastases, separated by <5 cm of normal tissue. Because the planning target volume (PTV) overlaps with organs at risk (OARs), institutions must use the planning priority guidelines to balance PTV coverage (45 Gy in 3 fractions) against OAR sparing. Submitted plans were processed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core and assessed by the protocol co-chairs by comparing the doses to targets, OARs, and conformity metrics using nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Of 63 benchmarks submitted through October 2015, 94% were approved, with 51% approved at the first attempt. Most used volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) (78%), a single plan for both PTVs (90%), and prioritized the PTV over the stomach (75%). The median dose to 95% of the volume was 44.8 ± 1.0 Gy and 44.9 ± 1.0 Gy for the right and left PTV, respectively. The median dose to 0.03 cm3 was 14.2 ± 2.2 Gy to the spinal cord and 46.5 ± 3.1 Gy to the stomach. Plans that spared the stomach significantly reduced the dose to the left PTV and stomach. Conformity metrics were significantly better for single plans that simultaneously treated both PTVs with VMAT, intensity modulated radiation therapy, or 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy compared with separate plans. No significant differences existed in the dose at 2 cm from the PTVs. CONCLUSIONS: Although most plans used VMAT, the range of conformity and dose falloff was large. The decision to prioritize either OARs or PTV coverage varied considerably, suggesting that the toxicity outcomes in the trial could be affected. Several benchmarks met the dose-volume histogram metrics but produced unacceptable plans owing to low conformity. Dissemination of a frequently-asked-questions document improved the approval rate at the first attempt. Benchmark credentialing was found to be a valuable tool for educating institutions about the protocol requirements.
PURPOSE: The NRG-BR001 trial is the first National Cancer Institute-sponsored trial to treat multiple (range 2-4) extracranial metastases with stereotactic body radiation therapy. Benchmark credentialing is required to ensure adherence to this complex protocol, in particular, for metastases in close proximity. The present report summarizes the dosimetric results and approval rates. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The benchmark used anonymized data from a patient with bilateral adrenal metastases, separated by <5 cm of normal tissue. Because the planning target volume (PTV) overlaps with organs at risk (OARs), institutions must use the planning priority guidelines to balance PTV coverage (45 Gy in 3 fractions) against OAR sparing. Submitted plans were processed by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core and assessed by the protocol co-chairs by comparing the doses to targets, OARs, and conformity metrics using nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Of 63 benchmarks submitted through October 2015, 94% were approved, with 51% approved at the first attempt. Most used volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) (78%), a single plan for both PTVs (90%), and prioritized the PTV over the stomach (75%). The median dose to 95% of the volume was 44.8 ± 1.0 Gy and 44.9 ± 1.0 Gy for the right and left PTV, respectively. The median dose to 0.03 cm3 was 14.2 ± 2.2 Gy to the spinal cord and 46.5 ± 3.1 Gy to the stomach. Plans that spared the stomach significantly reduced the dose to the left PTV and stomach. Conformity metrics were significantly better for single plans that simultaneously treated both PTVs with VMAT, intensity modulated radiation therapy, or 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy compared with separate plans. No significant differences existed in the dose at 2 cm from the PTVs. CONCLUSIONS: Although most plans used VMAT, the range of conformity and dose falloff was large. The decision to prioritize either OARs or PTV coverage varied considerably, suggesting that the toxicity outcomes in the trial could be affected. Several benchmarks met the dose-volume histogram metrics but produced unacceptable plans owing to low conformity. Dissemination of a frequently-asked-questions document improved the approval rate at the first attempt. Benchmark credentialing was found to be a valuable tool for educating institutions about the protocol requirements.
Authors: Stanley H Benedict; Kamil M Yenice; David Followill; James M Galvin; William Hinson; Brian Kavanagh; Paul Keall; Michael Lovelock; Sanford Meeks; Lech Papiez; Thomas Purdie; Ramaswamy Sadagopan; Michael C Schell; Bill Salter; David J Schlesinger; Almon S Shiu; Timothy Solberg; Danny Y Song; Volker Stieber; Robert Timmerman; Wolfgang A Tomé; Dirk Verellen; Lu Wang; Fang-Fang Yin Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Vinai Gondi; Yunfeng Cui; Minesh P Mehta; Denise Manfredi; Ying Xiao; James M Galvin; Howard Rowley; Wolfgang A Tome Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-01-10 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Puneeth Iyengar; Brian D Kavanagh; Zabi Wardak; Irma Smith; Chul Ahn; David E Gerber; Jonathan Dowell; Randall Hughes; Ramzi Abdulrahman; D Ross Camidge; Laurie E Gaspar; Robert C Doebele; Paul A Bunn; Hak Choy; Robert Timmerman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-10-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tracey E Schefter; Brian D Kavanagh; Robert D Timmerman; Higinia R Cardenes; Anna Baron; Laurie E Gaspar Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jialu Yu; William Straube; Charles Mayo; Tawfik Giaddui; Walter Bosch; Kenneth Ulin; Stephen F Kry; James Galvin; Ying Xiao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kristin Plichta; Nathan Camden; Muhammed Furqan; Taher Abu Hejleh; Gerald H Clamon; Jun Zhang; Ryan T Flynn; Sudershan K Bhatia; Mark C Smith; John M Buatti; Bryan G Allen Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-08-04