Rong, Yi

TPS6093 Background: Since patients with early-stage oral cavity cancer (OCC; T1-2N0M0; AJCC 8th ed) have a 20-30% rate of occult nodal metastases despite clinical and radiographic assessment, standard of care treatment includes elective neck dissection (END). Many patients have comprehensive surgical management of the regional cervical nodal basin even though the majority of those necks (70-80%) will not contain disease. Assessment of draining first echelon lymph nodes by sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy (Bx), a less invasive surgical procedure, may provide an alternative to END, while potentially reducing morbidity and cost. A decisive clinical trial comparing SLN Bx versus END can focus the HNC clinical and research community and resources on establishing the standard of care for management of the neck in early-stage OCC. Methods: In order to address the efficacy of SLN Bx in this population, we recently activated an international multi-institutional phase II/III prospective trial randomizing patients to two surgical arms: SLN Bx and END. PET/CT is an integral imaging biomarker in this trial. A node-negative PET/CT study with central read is required before randomization. Patients with a positive PET/CT central result will remain in a registry to compare imaging findings with final neck pathology. Given the current evidence available regarding morbidity for SLN Bx versus END, the phase II will determine if patient-reported neck and shoulder function and related QOL at 6 months after surgery using the Neck Dissection Impairment Index (NDII) shows a signal of superiority of SLN Bx compared to END. A total of 228 randomized patients with negative PET/CT for potential evaluation of shoulder-related morbidity with difference in 6-month NDII scores (minimum important difference ³7.5; one-sided a = 0.10; 90% power) will serve as the “Go/No-Go” decision to move forward into phase III. The phase III portion is a non-inferiority (NI) trial with disease-free survival (DFS) as the primary endpoint (NI margin hazard ratio 1.34 based on a 5% absolute difference in 2-year DFS; one-sided alpha 0.05; 80% power, and an interim look for efficacy at 67% of the events based on an O’Brien-Fleming boundary). The NDII at 6 months after surgery is a hierarchical co-primary endpoint for the phase III. Target accrual of phase III is 618 PET/CT negative patients, including those randomized in phase II (297 DFS events required for the final analysis). In addition to radiotherapy and imaging credentialing, quality assurance will include central pathology review of all negative SLN Bx cases and surgeon credentialing through an education course and SLN Bx and END case review by the surgical co-chairs. A surgical quality assurance working group will review all trial SLN Bx and END outcomes. As of 02/15/21, 7 patients have been screened and 6 of the planned 228 randomized patients in phase II have been enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT04333537.

Abstract Purpose To evaluate dosimetric properties of intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for simulated treatment planning in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) targeting left atrial‐pulmonary vein junction (LA‐PVJ), in comparison with volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (TOMO). Methods Ten thoracic 4D‐CT scans with respiratory motion and one with cardiac motion were used for the study. Ten respiratory 4D‐CTs were planned with VMAT, TOMO, and IMPT for simulated AF. Targets at the LA‐PVJ were defined as wide‐area circumferential ablation line. A single fraction of 25 Gy was prescribed to all plans. The interplay effects from cardiac motion were evaluated based on the cardiac 4D‐CT scan. Dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) of the ITV and normal tissues were compared. Statistical analysis was evaluated via one‐way Repeated‐Measures ANOVA and Friedman’s test with Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test. Results The median volume of ITV was 8.72cc. All plans had adequate target coverage (V 23.75Gy ≥ 99%). Compared with VMAT and TOMO, IMPT resulted in significantly lower dose of most normal tissues. For VMAT, TOMO, and IMPT plans, D mean of the whole heart was 5.52 ± 0.90 Gy, 5.89 ± 0.78 Gy, and 3.01 ± 0.57 Gy ( P < 0.001), mean dose of pericardium was 4.74 ± 0.76 Gy, 4.98 ± 0.62 Gy, and 2.59 ± 0.44 Gy ( P < 0.001), and D 0.03cc of left circumflex artery (LCX) was 13.96 ± 5.45 Gy, 14.34 ± 5.91 Gy, and 8.43 ± 7.24 Gy ( P < 0.001), respectively. However, no significant advantage for one technique over the others was observed when examining the D 0.03cc of esophagus and main bronchi. Conclusions IMPT targeting LA‐PVJ for patients with AF has high potential to reduce dose to surrounding tissues compared to VMAT or TOMO. Motion mitigation techniques are critical for a particle‐therapy approach.

PurposeAccurate radiation dosimetry in radiobiological experiments is crucial for preclinical research in advancement of cancer treatment. Vendors of cell irradiators often perform calibration for end‐users. However, calibration accuracy remains unclear due to missing detailed information on calibration equipment and procedures. In this study, we report our findings of a vender miscalibration of the radiation output and our investigation on the root cause of the discrepancy.MethodsIndependent calibration verification for a commercial preclinical orthovoltage irradiator was conducted. Initially, in the absence of ionization chambers calibrated at kV energy, radiochromic films (EBT3) was first calibrated at MV energy. Energy correction factors from literature were used to create an in‐house kV dosimetry system. The miscalibration identified with the in‐house kV EBT3 dosimetry was later confirmed by ADCL calibrated ionization chambers (Exradin A1SL and PTW 30013) at kV energy. Ionization chambers were suspended in‐air following TG‐61 recommendation for output calibration. To investigate the root cause of the miscalibration, additional measurements were performed with ionization chambers placed on the shelf. A validated Monte Carlo simulation code was also used to investigate the impact of placing the ionization chamber on the shelf instead of suspending it in air during the vendor‐performed calibration process.ResultsUp to a 6% dosimetry error was observed when comparing the vendor calibrated output of the preclinical irradiator with our independent calibration check. Further investigation showed incorrect setups in the vendor’s calibration procedure which may result in dose errors up to 11% from the backscatter of the shelf board during calibration, and up to 5% from omitting temperature and pressure corrections to ionization chamber readings.ConclusionOur study revealed large dose calibration errors caused by incorrect setup and the omission of temperature/pressure correction in the vendor’s calibration procedure. The findings also highlighted the importance of performing an independent check of the dose calibration for preclinical kV irradiators. More absolute dosimetry training is needed for both vendors and end users for establishing accurate absolute dosimetry.