Planning on a static dataset that reflects the simulation day anatomy is routine for SBRT. We hypothesize the quality of on-table adaptive plans is similar to the baseline plan when delivering stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy (SMART) for pancreatic cancer (PCa). Sixty-seven inoperable PCa patients were prescribed 50 Gy/5-fraction SMART. Baseline planning included: 3-5 mm gastrointestinal (GI) PRV, 50 Gy optimization target (PTV_opt) based on GI PRV, conformality rings, and contracted GTV to guide the hotspot. For each adaptation, GI anatomy was re-contoured, followed by re-optimization. Plan quality was evaluated for target coverage (TC = PTV_opt V_100%/volume), PTV D_90% and D_80%, homogeneity index (HI = PTV_opt D_2%/D_98%), prescription isodose/target volume (PITV), low-dose conformity (D_2cm = maximum dose at 2 cm from PTV_opt/Rx dose), and gradient index (R_50%=50% Rx isodose volume/PTV_opt volume).A novel global planning metric, termed the Pancreas Adaptive Radiotherapy Score (PARTS), was developed and implemented based on GI OAR sparing, PTV/GTV coverage, and conformality. Adaptive robustness (baseline to fraction 1) and stability (difference between two fractions with highest GI PRV variation) were quantified. OAR constraints were met on all baseline (n = 67) and adaptive (n = 318) plans. Coverage for baseline/adaptive plans was mean ± SD at 44.9 ± 5.8 Gy/44.3 ± 5.5 Gy (PTV D_80%), 50.1 ± 4.2 Gy/49.1 ± 4.7 Gy (PTV_opt D_80%), and 80%±18%/74%±18% (TC), respectively. Mean homogeneity and conformality for baseline/adaptive plans were 0.87 ± 0.25/0.81 ± 0.30 (PITV), 3.81 ± 1.87/3.87 ± 2.0 (R_50%), 1.53 ± 0.23/1.55 ± 0.23 (HI), and 58%±7%/59%±7% (D_2cm), respectively. PARTS was found to be a sensitive metric due to its additive influence of geometry changes on PARTS' sub-metrics. There were no statistical differences (p > 0.05) for stability, except for PARTS (p = 0.04, median difference -0.6%). Statistical differences for robustness when significant were small for most metrics (<2.0% median). Median adaptive re-optimizations were 2. We describe a 5-fraction ablative SMART planning approach for PCa that is robust and stable during on-table adaption, due to gradients controlled by a GI PRV technique and the use of rings. These findings are noteworthy given that daily interfraction anatomic GI OAR differences are routine, thus necessitating on-table adaptation. This work supports feasibility towards utilizing a patient-independent, template on-table adaptive approach.

We compared the clinical outcomes of BM treated with mask immobilization with zero-SM (i.e., zero-PTV) to standard zero-SM frame immobilization SRS. Consecutive patients with BM, 0.5–2.0 cm in maximal diameter, treated with single-fraction SRS (22–24 Gy) during March 2019–February 2021 were included. Univariable and multivariable analysis were performed using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression. A total of 150 patients with 453 BM met inclusion criteria. A total of 129 (28.5%) lesions were treated with a zero-SM mask immobilization and 324 (71.5%) with zero-SM frame immobilization. Frame immobilization treatments were associated with a higher proportion of gastrointestinal and fewer breast-cancer metastases (p = 0.024), and a higher number of treated lesions per SRS course (median 7 vs. 3; p < 0.001). With a median follow up of 15 months, there was no difference in FFLF between the mask and frame immobilization groups on univariable (p = 0.29) or multivariable analysis (p = 0.518). Actuarial FFLF at 1 year was 90.5% for mask and 92% for frame immobilization (p = 0.272). Radiation necrosis rates at 1 year were 12.5% for mask and 4.1% for frame immobilization (p = 0.502). For BM 0.5–2.0 cm in maximal diameter treated with single-fraction SRS using 22–24 Gy, mask immobilization with zero SM produces comparable clinical outcomes to frame immobilization. The initial findings support omitting a SM when using mask immobilization with this treatment approach on a Gamma Knife^® Icon™.

We evaluated the effect of lesion number and volume for brain metastasis treated with SRS using GammaKnife^® ICON™ (GK) and CyberKnife^® M6™ (CK). Four sets of lesion sizes (10–15 mm, and >15 mm) were contoured and prescribed a dose of 20 Gy/1 fraction. The number of lesions was increased until a threshold mean brain dose of 8 Gy was reached; then individually optimized to achieve maximum conformity. Across GK plans, mean brain dose was linearly proportional to the number of lesions and total GTV for all sizes. The numbers of lesions needed to reach this threshold for GK were 177, 57, 29, and 10 for each size group, respectively; corresponding total GTVs were 3.62 cc, 20.37 cc, 30.25 cc, and 57.96 cc, respectively. For CK, the threshold numbers of lesions were 135, 35, 18, and 8, with corresponding total GTVs of 2.32 cc, 12.09 cc, 18.24 cc, and 41.52 cc respectively. Mean brain dose increased linearly with number of lesions and total GTV while V8 Gy, V10 Gy, and V12 Gy showed quadratic correlations to the number of lesions and total GTV. Modern dedicated intracranial SRS systems allow for treatment of numerous brain metastases especially for ≤10 mm; clinical evidence to support this practice is critical to expansion in the clinic.

Purpose: The objective was to describe PRDR outcomes and report EQD2 OAR toxicity thresholds. Methods: Eighteen patients with recurrent primary CNS tumors treated with PRDR at a single institution between April 2017 and September 2021 were evaluated. The radiotherapy details, cumulative OAR doses, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicities were collected. Results: The median PRDR dose was 45 Gy (range: 36–59.4 Gy); the median cumulative EQD2 prescription dose was 102.7 Gy (range: 93.8–120.4 Gy). The median cumulative EQD2 D_0.03cc for the brain was 111.4 Gy (range: 82.4–175.2 Gy). Symptomatic radiation necrosis occurred in three patients, for which the median EQD2 brain D_0.03cc was 115.9 Gy (110.4–156.7 Gy). The median PFS and OS after PRDR were 6.3 months (95%CI: 0.9–11.6 months) and 8.6 months (95%CI: 4.9–12.3 months), respectively. The systematic review identified five peer-reviewed studies with a median cumulative EQD2 prescription dose of 110.3 Gy. At a median follow-up of 8.7 months, the median PFS and OS were 5.7 months (95%CI: 2.1–15.4 months) and 6.7 months (95%CI: 3.2–14.2 months), respectively. Conclusion: PRDR re-irradiation is a relatively safe and feasible treatment for recurrent primary CNS tumors. Despite high cumulative dose to OARs, the risk of high-grade, treatment-related toxicity within the first year of follow-up remains acceptable.

Radiotherapy for ultracentral lung tumors represents a treatment challenge, considering the high rates of high-grade treatment-related toxicities with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or hypofractionated schedules. Accelerated hypofractionated magnetic resonance-guided adaptive radiation therapy (MRgART) emerged as a potential game-changer for tumors in these challenging locations, in close proximity to central organs at risk, such as the trachea, proximal bronchial tree, and esophagus. In this series, 13 consecutive patients, predominantly male (n = 9), with a median age of 71 (range (R): 46–85), underwent 195 MRgART fractions (all 60 Gy in 15 fractions) to metastatic (n = 12) or primary ultra-central lung tumors (n = 1). The median gross tumor volumes (GTVs) and planning target volumes (PTVs) were 20.72 cc (R: 0.54–121.65 cc) and 61.53 cc (R: 3.87–211.81 cc), respectively. The median beam-on time per fraction was 14 min. Adapted treatment plans were generated for all fractions, and indications included GTV/PTV undercoverage, OARs exceeding tolerance doses, or both indications in 46%, 18%, and 36% of fractions, respectively. Eight patients received concurrent systemic therapies, including immunotherapy (four), chemotherapy (two), and targeted therapy (two). The crude in-field loco-regional control rate was 92.3%. No CTCAE grade 3+ toxicities were observed. Our results offer promising insights, suggesting that MRgART has the potential to mitigate toxicities, enhance treatment precision, and improve overall patient care in the context of ultracentral lung tumors.