Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology (Jul 2024)

Dummy run for planning of isotoxic dose-escalated radiation therapy for glioblastoma used in the PRIDE trial (NOA-28; ARO-2024-01; AG-NRO-06)

  • Sebastian H. Maier,
  • Stephan Schönecker,
  • Vasiliki Anagnostatou,
  • Sylvia Garny,
  • Alexander Nitschmann,
  • Daniel F. Fleischmann,
  • Marcel Büttner,
  • David Kaul,
  • Detlef Imhoff,
  • Emmanouil Fokas,
  • Clemens Seidel,
  • Peter Hau,
  • Oliver Kölbl,
  • Ilinca Popp,
  • Anca-Ligia Grosu,
  • Jan Haussmann,
  • Wilfried Budach,
  • Eren Celik,
  • Klaus-Henning Kahl,
  • Elgin Hoffmann,
  • Ghazaleh Tabatabai,
  • Frank Paulsen,
  • Adrien Holzgreve,
  • Nathalie L. Albert,
  • Ulrich Mansmann,
  • Stefanie Corradini,
  • Claus Belka,
  • Maximilian Niyazi,
  • Raphael Bodensohn

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 47
p. 100790

Abstract

Read online

Background: The PRIDE trial (NOA-28; ARO-2024-01; AG-NRO-06; NCT05871021) is designed to determine whether a dose escalation with 75.0 Gy in 30 fractions can enhance the median overall survival (OS) in patients with methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) promotor unmethylated glioblastoma compared to historical median OS rates, while being isotoxic to historical cohorts through the addition of concurrent bevacizumab (BEV). To ensure protocol-compliant irradiation planning with all study centers, a dummy run was planned and the plan quality was evaluated. Methods: A suitable patient case was selected and the computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) positron emission tomography (PET) contours were made available. Participants at the various intended study sites performed radiation planning according to the PRIDE clinical trial protocol. The treatment plans and dose grids were uploaded as Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) files to a cloud-based platform. Plan quality and protocol adherence were analyzed using a standardized checklist, scorecards and indices such as Dice Score (DSC) and Hausdorff Distance (HD). Results: Median DSC was 0.89, 0.90, 0.88 for PTV60, PTV60ex (planning target volume receiving 60.0 Gy for the standard and the experimental plan, respectively) and PTV75 (PTV receiving 75.0 Gy in the experimental plan), respectively. Median HD values were 17.0 mm, 13.9 mm and 12.1 mm, respectively. These differences were also evident in the volumes: The PTV60 had a volume range of 219.1–391.3 cc (median: 261.9 cc) for the standard plans, while the PTV75 volumes for the experimental plans ranged from 71.5–142.7 cc (median: 92.3 cc). The structures with the largest deviations in Dice score were the pituitary gland (median 0.37, range 0.00–0.69) and the right lacrimal gland (median 0.59, range 0.42–0.78). Conclusions: The deviations revealed the necessity of systematic trainings with appropriate feedback before the start of clinical trials in radiation oncology and the constant monitoring of protocol compliance throw-out the study. Trial registration: NCT05871021

Keywords