Finley, Randi R.

Abstract Objective . An algorithm was developed for automated positioning of lattice points within volumetric modulated arc lattice radiation therapy (VMAT LRT) planning. These points are strategically placed within the gross tumor volume (GTV) to receive high doses, adhering to specific separation rules from adjacent organs at risk (OARs). The study goals included enhancing planning safety, consistency, and efficiency while emulating human performance. Approach . A Monte Carlo-based algorithm was designed to optimize the number and arrangement of lattice points within the GTV while considering placement constraints and objectives. These constraints encompassed minimum spacing between points, distance from OARs, and longitudinal separation along the z -axis. Additionally, the algorithm included an objective to permit, at the user’s discretion, solutions with more centrally placed lattice points within the GTV. To validate its effectiveness, the automated approach was compared with manually planned treatments for 24 previous patients. Prior to clinical implementation, a failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) was conducted to identify potential shortcomings. Main results. The automated program successfully met all placement constraints with an average execution time (over 24 plans) of 0.29 ±0.07 min per lattice point. The average lattice point density (# points per 100 c.c. of GTV) was similar for automated (0.725) compared to manual placement (0.704). The dosimetric differences between the automated and manual plans were minimal, with statistically significant differences in certain metrics like minimum dose (1.9% versus 1.4%), D5% (52.8% versus 49.4%), D95% (7.1% versus 6.2%), and Body-GTV V30% (20.7 c.c. versus 19.7 c.c.). Significance. This study underscores the feasibility of employing a straightforward Monte Carlo-based algorithm to automate the creation of spherical target structures for VMAT LRT planning. The automated method yields similar dose metrics, enhances inter-planner consistency for larger targets, and requires fewer resources and less time compared to manual placement. This approach holds promise for standardizing treatment planning in prospective patient trials and facilitating its adoption across centers seeking to implement VMAT LRT techniques.

Background: Contemporary breast cancer radiotherapy (RT) results in variable cardiac radiation exposure. While cardiomyocytes are radio-resistant, radiation induces coronary microvascular endothelial damage and inflammation which may ultimately lead to myocardial inflammation, ischemia and fibrosis and put patients at risk for heart failure (HF) and particularly, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods: Community based (Olmsted County, MN), HF case-control study of contemporary (1999-2014) breast cancer RT patients with CT-based RT planning for precise mean cardiac radiation dose (MCRD) calculation. HF cases (n=66) and controls (n=129) were matched (1:2) for age at RT, HF risk factors, tumor side and chemotherapy use. Matched controls and cases had identical follow-up (index interval). Proportion of HF and clinical characteristics in categories of MCRD were reported (table) and conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the HF odds ratio (OR) associated with MCRD as a continuous variable. Results: Of the 66 HF cases, 46 (70%) had HFpEF and 20 (30%) had HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The proportion of patients with HF (any) or HFpEF increased and proportion with HFrEF tended to increase with increasing MCRD. The prevalence of HF risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, coronary disease) at time of RT did not vary by MCRD while left sided tumor, cancer stage and adriamycin use increased with increasing MCRD. The OR per 1 unit increase in log MCRD was 3.71 (1.98, 6.94) for total HF (p<0.001), 4.91 (1.93, 9.09) for HFpEF (p<0.001) and 2.78 (0.91, 8.47) for HFrEF (p=0.07). The mean index interval was 5.0±3.2 years. Conclusion: Cardiac radiation incident to contemporary breast RT increases the risk of HF, and particularly HFpEF over a short post-RT interval. These data may guide use of proton beam therapy in breast cancer. These data also provide support for the role of coronary microvascular compromise in the pathophysiology of HFpEF.

Background: Cardiomyocytes are resistant to radiation. However, cardiac radiation exposure causes coronary microvascular endothelial inflammation, a perturbation implicated in the pathogenesis of heart failure (HF) and particularly HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Radiotherapy for breast cancer results in variable cardiac radiation exposure and may increase the risk of HF. Methods: We conducted a population-based case-control study of incident HF in 170 female residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota (59 cases and 111 controls), who underwent contemporary (1998–2013) radiotherapy for breast cancer with computed tomography–assisted radiotherapy planning. Controls were matched to cases for age, tumor side, chemotherapy use, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. Mean cardiac radiation dose (MCRD) in each patient was calculated from the patient’s computed tomography images and radiotherapy plan. Results: Mean age at radiotherapy was 69±9 years. Of HF cases, 38 (64%) had EF≥50% (HFpEF), 18 (31%) had EF<50% (HF with reduced EF), and 3 (5%) did not have EF measured. The EF was ≥40% in 50 of the 56 HF cases (89%) with an EF measurement. The mean interval from radiotherapy to HF was 5.8±3.4 years. The odds of HF was higher in patients with a history of ischemic heart disease or atrial fibrillation. The MCRD was 2.5 Gy (range, 0.2–13.1 Gy) and higher in cases (3.3±2.7 Gy) than controls (2.1±2.0 Gy; P =0.004). The odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for HF per log MCRD was 9.1 (3.4–24.4) for any HF, 16.9 (3.9–73.7) for HFpEF, and 3.17 (0.8–13.0) for HF with reduced EF. The increased odds of any HF or HFpEF with increasing MCRD remained significant after adjustment for HF risk factors and in sensitivity analyses matching by cancer stage rather than tumor side. Only 18.6% of patients experienced new or recurrent ischemic events between radiotherapy and the onset of HF. Conclusions: The relative risk of HFpEF increases with increasing cardiac radiation exposure during contemporary conformal breast cancer radiotherapy. These data emphasize the importance of radiotherapy techniques that limit MCRD during breast cancer treatment. Moreover, these data provide further support for the importance of coronary microvascular compromise in the pathophysiology of HFpEF.