Abstract
Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has demonstrated clinical benefit for patients with metastatic and/or unresectable cancer. Technical considerations of treatment delivery and sensitive organs at risk (OARs) limit the use of SBRT in large tumors or those in unfavorable locations. Spatially fractionated radiotherapy (SFRT) delivers high-dose radiation to discrete sub-volume vertices within a tumor target while restricting the remainder of the target to low dose. SFRT has been utilized for treatment of large tumors with reported dramatic tumor response and minimal side effects. Lattice is a modern approach to SFRT that can be delivered with arc-based therapy, which allows for the rapid dose fall-off required for high quality SBRT. In order to overcome the limitations of SBRT for large tumors, we developed Lattice SBRT. Here we report the results of a dosimetry and quality assurance (QA) feasibility study of Lattice SBRT in 11 patients with 12 tumor targets, each ≥ 10 cm in an axial dimension. Prior CT simulation scans were used to generate volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) Lattice SBRT plans that were then delivered on clinically available Linacs. QA testing included external portal imaging device (EPID) and ion chamber (IC) analysis. All generated plans were able to meet the standard SBRT dose constraints, such as those from AAPM Task Group 101. Additionally, we provide a step-by-step approach for generating and delivering Lattice SBRT plans using commercially available treatment technology. Lattice SBRT is currently being tested in a prospective trial for patients with metastatic cancer needing palliation of a large tumor (NCT04133415).
Introduction
Metastatic or unresectable cancer is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality in patients with solid tumors [1]. SBRT is emerging as a high-value treatment option for such patients, offering improved symptom palliation across cancer types and even extended survival in oligometastatic populations.
Unfortunately, SBRT can be difficult to deliver safely for large tumors. Prior studies have shown that SBRT may be associated with unacceptable toxicity for tumors greater than 5 cm [2], [3]. Also, large tumors may be near surrounding OARs, which can make planning difficult [4], [5].
SFRT is a radiotherapy technique that theoretically allows for safe dose escalation for large tumors. Specialized beam collimation creates high-dose “peaks” organized throughout a target volume with intervening low-dose “valleys” [6]. SFRT planned with two-dimensional techniques, such as GRID, has been evaluated for large soft tissue sarcomas, and is associated with excellent local control and low toxicity in prior case series [7], [8]. Newer SFRT techniques that utilize 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and VMAT techniques, such as Lattice, offer improved dose distribution and OAR sparing compared to GRID radiation, which may be beneficial for large or deep-seated tumors [9]
In order to safely deliver SBRT to large tumors, we created a Lattice SBRT technique that delivers 2000 cGy in 5 fractions to the entire tumor target with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to 6670 cGy to vertices arranged geometrically inside the tumor. Here we describe the Lattice SBRT planning process, dosimetric parameters of 12 pilot Lattice SBRT plans, and their their quality assurance (QA) results.
Methods
This study was approved by the local IRB. We retrospectively identified 12 large tumors greater than 10 cm in 11 patients previously treated at our institution. Patient and tumor characteristics were extracted from the electronic medical record (EMR).
The Lattice SBRT prescription was created on the assumption that the tumor planning target volume (PTV) should receive at least a standard 5-fraction palliative dose of 2000 cGy. Spatially fractionated techniques have traditionally created a peak-valley dose gradient of approximately 100%-30% [6], therefore a SIB of 6670 cGy was selected as a Lattice boost dose prescription. The goal was to achieve at least 95% prescription dose coverage to at least 95% of both the PTV_2000 and PTV_6670. OAR constraints consistent with 5-fraction SBRT published in AAPM TG-101 were used in planning directives [10, p. 101]. High max point doses were allowed inside the PTV_6670.
We initially attempted a 3DCRT approach. However, it was apparent that doses to nearby OARs and SBRT plan quality metrics were unacceptable for most deep-seated tumors. We therefore switched to VMAT planning as this has been hypothesized to offer superior target coverage, reduce high-dose spill, and better spare OAR compared with 3DCRT [11], [12]. An example comparison between 3DCRT and VMAT is shown in Supplementary Figure 1.
The Lattice SBRT planning technique was based on previously published approaches, which used boost target vertices of 1-2 cm in diameter spaced 2-3 cm apart throughout the GTV [13], [14]. Multiple combinations of target vertices (1-2 cm) and inter-vertex distances (2-4 cm) were tested. Based upon dosimetric analysis within our planning system, it was felt that optimal target sphere size was between 1.2-1.8 cm in diameter, and that a non-coplanar approach was needed to achieve the goal dose gradient within and between each axial plane. The final Lattice SBRT technique utilizes a sphere diameter of 1.5 cm, a 6 cm center to center spacing, and a separation of 3.0 cm between each successive axial plane of spheres. A representative schematic is shown in Figure 1. Once the Lattice SBRT contouring and treatment planning process was finalized, it was completed for all 12 tumors in the Varian Eclipse system (Version 15.6) using patient CT simulation scans.
A) Geometric representation of sphere placement. Yellow dots represent the 1.5 cm diameter PTV_6670 target vertices, and dotted line vertices represent the transposed target vertices from adjacent planes. Axial planes where vertices are placed are separated by 3 cm in-plane. Within a plan, vertices are separated by 6 cm center to center (4.5 cm edge to edge) in orthogonal axes, and 3√2 cm along the diagonal. B) Axial CT slices of Target 1 with the yellow outlined target vertices (PTV_6670) in each plane, red GTV_2000, and green PTV_2000. Magenta arrows denote cropped vertices in PTV_6670 that extend outside of the GTV_2000. C) Dose distribution after VMAT planning for Target 1 with blue representing 20 Gy and red representing 66.7 Gy.
After treatment planning and approval, plans were subjected to the Lattice SBRT QA protocol. This includes EPID portal dosimetry, IC absolute dose measurements, and machine parameter Dyna QA. For EPID portal dosimetry, 2-dimensional fluence maps were measured for each plan, and a 3%/3mm tolerance requiring a 95% pass rate across all pixels as well as a 2%/2mm tolerance requiring a 90% pass rate across all pixels. IC measurements were done using an Exradin A16 Ion Chamber (Standard Imaging, Middleton, WI) placed in an in-house designed solid water phantom at locations corresponding to the PTV_6670 and PTV_Avoid vertices, with one measurement in each structure captured per patient. A Dyna QA report was generated from the treatment machine and subjected to standard in-house software analysis for machine parameters (MLC movement, gantry rotation, MUs delivered, etc.) [15].
Results
A step-by-step guide to the Lattice SBRT contouring and treatment planning process is available in the supplementary materials (Supplement). The process begins with a physician contoured GTV, which includes all visually identifiable gross disease and is designated GTV_2000. The GTV is expanded by 0.5-1.0 cm to create the PTV_2000, which is to receive 2000 cGy in 5 fractions. All relevant OARs are contoured.
The dosimetrist then identifies the axial plane with the largest cross dimension within the GTV_2000, overlays a 3 cm × 3 cm grid guide, and places high-dose target vertices using a 1.5 cm 3D brush to create the PTV_6670. The PTV_6670 high-dose target vertices are alternated with 1.5 cm avoidance vertices (i.e. PTV_Avoid) such that their centers are spaced 3 cm apart. This process is repeated every 3 cm in the superior-inferior direction with vertices offset by 3.0 cm, with respect to axial slices above and below. PTV_6670 vertices extending outside of a 5 mm contraction of the GTV_2000 are cropped and then PTV_6670 vertices extending within 1.5 cm of an OAR is further cropped to limit dose to normal tissue and facilitate set up at the time of treatment. Finally, a PTV_Control structure is made by expanding PTV_6670 by 8 mm and subtracting this from PTV_2000, which is used to assess for dose fall-off.
The 11 patients had tumors of various histologies that were located in a range of anatomical locations (Table 1). Tumors had a median volume of 687.5 cc (range: 350-4440) and a median greatest axial dimension of 12.75 cm (range: 10-18.5). VMAT plans were created using multiple full or partial non-coplanar arcs with couch kicks up to 15° based on available clearance of the treatment couch. Plans used 6MV or 10MV energies with 10MV plans overall resulting in less monitor units (MU). A collimator rotation of 15°-90° and jaw tracking were used for all plans.
patient tumor characteristics Patient tumor characteristics for Lattice SBRT dosimetric and QA analysis ranked from smallest to largest volume.
All plans met dose constraints for OARs (Supplementary Table 1) except for one plan. The skin dose constraint could not be achieved in one patient with a very large sarcoma metastasis of the head and neck patient whose tumor extended close to the skin. All targets, achieved > 95% coverage for the PTV_2000 and PTV_6670 (Table 2). Interestingly, Target 12, the largest target, was able to achieve adequate dose coverage and OAR sparing, however, the DMean of the PTV_Avoid was the highest of this series, indicating that it may be difficult to achieve desired dose fall off in exceptionally large targets. An additional metric, termed the Lattice composite, was defined as PTV_6670 divided by GTV_2000 to objectify the volume of tumor target filled by high-dose vertices. All patients had a Lattice composite of approximately 2-4%. All 2D EPID and Dyna QA results achieved the thresholds specified. The IC measurements taken in the PTV_6670 structures were within 3% of the expected dose predicted by the TPS. A larger deviation of agreement was observed for the low dose IC measurements taken in the PTV_Avoid structure, with no measurement exceeding 5% deviation. All QA results are provided in Supplementary Table 2.
target dose coverage, Lattice Composite 
, number of non-coplanar arcs, MU per Gy for each treatment plan, and Selectivity 
Discussion
This study demonstrates that the proposed Lattice SBRT technique is clinically feasible and can be planned and delivered on commercially available equipment. Lattice SBRT plans were successfully created for tumors ranging from 350-4440 cc, and the plans met tumor coverage objectives and OAR dose constraints for 5 fraction SBRT. Furthermore, all plans passed QA testing following a SBRT QA protocol with EPID portal dosimetry at 3%/3mm and 2%/2mm, IC absolute dose measurements at high- and low-dose points, and Dyna QA to confirm mechanical deliverability of plans. The increased variability in the low-dose IC measurements is attributed to the high degree of time these regions are covered under the MLCs during the treatment process. It should be noted that the reported values are relative to the expected dose produced in the TPS, resulting in a deviation of ∼5% being equivalent to 1 Gy in the low-dose measurements.
We are currently evaluating the toxicity and efficacy of this regimen in LITE SABR M1, a phase I/II clinical trial for patients with large tumors of any cancer type who need palliative radiotherapy (NCT04133415). Future work will evaluate delivering Lattice SBRT using intensity modulated proton therapy and magnetic resonance guided adaptive radiotherapy platforms.
Data Availability
The data referred to in this manuscript is not available.
Contouring, Treatment Planning, and Evaluation Procedure for Lattice SBRT
Contouring
The physician contours the GTV_2000, which represents the gross tumor volume. The GTV_2000 is expanded 0.5-1.0 cm to form the PTV_2000.
Contour all normal structures in their entirety. High density and machine couch contours should be included where appropriate.
Create the PTV_6670 and PTV_Avoid structures.
Turn on the grid in the contouring workspace and set to user-defined 3.0 cm.
Locate the center of PTV_2000 and set the viewing planes to match the grid intersection in all 3 planes.
Select PTV_6670 and select a 1.5 cm 3D brush.
Working in the axial plane, draw PTV_6670 spheres at every other grid intersection point, then repeat the process with PTV_Avoid spheres. The spheres should encompass and surround the PTV in this plane. PTV_6670 and PTV_Avoid spheres can be deleted and/or rearranged later if needed.
Move one plane superior to the next grid intersection point and place PTV_6670 and PTV_Avoid spheres so that they alternate in the superior-inferior direction.
Continue this alternating pattern until the superior most region of PTV_2000 is covered
Repeat the process in the inferior direction so that the entire PTV_2000 is covered.
Finalize the spheres by translating the structures and/or switch the PTV_6670 and PTV_Avoid to optimize sphere placement.
Create a PTV_Control structure by cropping PTV_6670 + 8 mm from PTV_2000.
Crop PTV_6670 so that they do not go outside the GTV_2000 – 5 mm volume.
Crop PTV_Avoid so that they do not go outsdie of the PTV_2000.
Ensure PTV_6670 spheres are not overlapping any critical OAR plus some volume.
Planning and Optimization
Plans are created for the Varian Truebeam or Edge using an SRS ARC technique at our institution. The following is a suggested planning process to cover the target volumes designed above. Suggested optimization parameters are included below.
Insert a new course and plan with a prescription of 6670 cGy in 5 fractions. PTV_6670 is the planning target and reference point1. Ensure the isocenter is in the center of PTV_2000.
Select 6MV or 10MV depending on the treatment site (10MV may result in lower overall monitor units).
Utilize full or partial arcs to plan the treatment. Most volumes are sufficiently covered with 4 arcs. Couch kicks up to 10° may be used.
Jaw tracking with initial jaws set to PTV_2000 and a collimator rotation of 15°-90° should be used.
Typical MU objectives and baseline normal tissue objectives are shown. Normal tissue objectives are set for rapid dose fall off.
OAR objectives should be given a high optimization priority.
Pause at each MR level accordingly to ensure optimal plan solution if found.
Evaluation
Clinical OAR goals are the top priority. They cannot be exceeded in our current clinical trials. PTV_6670 coverage is a secondary goal for evaluation. If a PTV_6670 sphere proximal to an OAR is causing the plan to exceed the OAR goal, that sphere can be retracted or deleted.
Once OAR goals are met, a subjective analysis should be performed to evaluate the following features:
Overall lattice distribution with isodose holes at 2400 cGy and below present between PTV_6670 spheres.
Global hot spot approximately 115%.
PTV_Avoid structure should have a mean dose between 2000-2400 cGy.
PTV_2000 and PTV_6670 should have V95% Rx > 95%. However, under coverage of targets is allowed on current clinical trials in order to meet dose constraints.
MU ratio between 2.0 and 3.0.
The beam parameters for an example plan are shown on the next page.
Troubleshooting and Tips
Evaluate the PTV_6670 and PTV_Avoid spheres and beam arrangement with a physicist colleague before optimization. Beam selection will be disease site specific.
Don’t directly optimize on the mean dose to PTV_Avoid, as this seems to lead to poor PTV_2000 target coverage.
Be sure to check for beam clearance with a physicist or therapist.
Ensure the correct table is inserted if required.
Have fun!
Dose to OARs for each tumor treatment plan.
Patient specific QA results for each target
Comparison of 3D conformal versus VMAT plans for tumor target 5. Both plans used identical target sphere placement. Dose is shown in color wash with the GTV_2000 in red outline.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Jessica Hilliard, Jennifer Harris, and Tammy Price-Warfield for their contributions to the dosimetry and treatment planning process reported in this manuscript.
Footnotes
↵1 Plans were created for Varian Truebeam or Edge in this study.
References
