Light cluster production in intermediate energy heavy-ion collisions induced by neutron-rich nuclei

The coalescence model based on nucleon distribution functions from an isospin-dependent transport model is used to study the production of light clusters such as deuteron, triton, and $^{3}$He from heavy-ion collisions induced by neutron-rich nuclei at intermediate energies. It is found that the emission time of light clusters depends on their masses. For clusters with the same momentum per nucleon, heavier ones are emitted earlier. Both the yield and energy spectrum of light clusters are sensitive to the density dependence of nuclear symmetry energy, with more light clusters produced in the case of a stiff symmetry energy. On the other hand, effects due to the stiffness of the isoscalar part of nuclear equation of state and the medium dependence of nucleon-nucleon cross sections on light cluster production are unimportant. We have also studied the correlation functions of clusters, and they are affected by the density dependence of nuclear symmetry energy as well, with the stiff symmetry energy giving a stronger anti-correlation of light clusters, particularly for those with large kinetic energies. Dependence of light cluster production on the centrality and incident energy of heavy ion collisions as well as the mass of the reaction system is also investigated.Comment: Revised version, typos corrected and discussions added, 14 pages, 15 figures, 1 table, REVTeX4.

Systematisation of spatial uncertainties for comparison between a MR and a CT-based radiotherapy workflow for prostate treatments

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the present work we compared the spatial uncertainties associated with a MR-based workflow for external radiotherapy of prostate cancer to a standard CT-based workflow. The MR-based workflow relies on target definition and patient positioning based on MR imaging. A solution for patient transport between the MR scanner and the treatment units has been developed. For the CT-based workflow, the target is defined on a MR series but then transferred to a CT study through image registration before treatment planning, and a patient positioning using portal imaging and fiducial markers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An "open bore" 1.5T MRI scanner, Siemens Espree, has been installed in the radiotherapy department in near proximity to a treatment unit to enable patient transport between the two installations, and hence use the MRI for patient positioning. The spatial uncertainty caused by the transport was added to the uncertainty originating from the target definition process, estimated through a review of the scientific literature. The uncertainty in the CT-based workflow was estimated through a literature review.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The systematic uncertainties, affecting all treatment fractions, are reduced from 3-4 mm (1Sd) with a CT based workflow to 2-3 mm with a MR based workflow. The main contributing factor to this improvement is the exclusion of registration between MR and CT in the planning phase of the treatment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Treatment planning directly on MR images reduce the spatial uncertainty for prostate treatments.</p

Single blind randomized Phase III trial to investigate the benefit of a focal lesion ablative microboost in prostate cancer (FLAME-trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: The treatment results of external beam radiotherapy for intermediate and high risk prostate cancer patients are insufficient with five-year biochemical relapse rates of approximately 35%. Several randomized trials have shown that dose escalation to the entire prostate improves biochemical disease free survival. However, further dose escalation to the whole gland is limited due to an unacceptable high risk of acute and late toxicity. Moreover, local recurrences often originate at the location of the macroscopic tumor, so boosting the radiation dose at the macroscopic tumor within the prostate might increase local control. A reduction of distant metastases and improved survival can be expected by reducing local failure. The aim of this study is to investigate the benefit of an ablative microboost to the macroscopic tumor within the prostate in patients treated with external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer.Methods/Design: The FLAME-trial (Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in prostatE cancer) is a single blind randomized controlled phase III trial. We aim to include 566 patients (283 per treatment arm) with intermediate or high risk adenocarcinoma of the prostate who are scheduled for external beam radiotherapy using fiducial markers for position verification. With this number of patients, the expected increase in five-year freedom from biochemical failure rate of 10% can be detected with a power of 80%. Patients allocated to the standard arm receive a dose of 77 Gy in 35 fractions to the entire prostate and patients in the experimental arm receive 77 Gy to the entire prostate and an additional integrated microboost to the macroscopic tumor of 95 Gy in 35 fractions. The secondary outcome measures include treatment-related toxicity, quality of life and disease-specific survival. Furthermore, by localizing the recurrent tumors within the prostate during follow-up and correlating this with the delivered dose, we can obtain accurate dose-effect information for both the macroscopic tumor and subclinical disease in prostate cancer. The rationale, study design and the first 50 patients included are described.Biological, physical and clinical aspects of cancer treatment with ionising radiatio

Intrafraction motion of the prostate during an IMRT session: a fiducial-based 3D measurement with Cone-beam CT

Background: Image-guidance systems allow accurate interfractional repositioning of IMRT treatments, however, these may require up to 15 minutes. Therefore intrafraction motion might have an impact on treatment precision. 3D geometric data regarding intrafraction prostate motion are rare; we therefore assessed its magnitude with pre- and post-treatment fiducial-based imaging with cone-beam-CT (CBCT). Methods: 39 IMRT fractions in 5 prostate cancer patients after (125)I-seed implantation were evaluated. Patient position was corrected based on the (125)I-seeds after pre-treatment CBCT. Immediately after treatment delivery, a second CBCT was performed. Differences in bone- and fiducial position were measured by seed-based grey-value matching. Results: Fraction time was 13.6 +/- 1.6 minutes. Median overall displacement vector length of (125)Iseeds was 3 mm (M = 3 mm, Sigma = 0.9 mm, sigma = 1.7 mm; M: group systematic error, Sigma: SD of systematic error, sigma: SD of random error). Median displacement vector of bony structures was 1.84 mm (M = 2.9 mm, Sigma = 1 mm, sigma = 3.2 mm). Median displacement vector length of the prostate relative to bony structures was 1.9 mm (M = 3 mm, Sigma = 1.3 mm, sigma = 2.6 mm). Conclusion: a) Overall displacement vector length during an IMRT session is &lt; 3 mm. b) Positioning devices reducing intrafraction bony displacements can further reduce overall intrafraction motion. c) Intrafraction prostate motion relative to bony structures is &lt; 2 mm and may be further reduced by institutional protocols and reduction of IMRT duration

Real-time prostate motion assessment: image-guidance and the temporal dependence of intra-fraction motion

BACKGROUND: The rapid adoption of image-guidance in prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) results in longer treatment times, which may result in larger intrafraction motion, thereby negating the advantage of image-guidance. This study aims to qualify and quantify the contribution of image-guidance to the temporal dependence of intrafraction motion during prostate IMRT. METHODS: One-hundred and forty-three patients who underwent conventional IMRT (n=67) or intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT/RapidArc, n=76) for localized prostate cancer were evaluated. Intrafraction motion assessment was based on continuous RL (lateral), SI (longitudinal), and AP (vertical) positional detection of electromagnetic transponders at 10 Hz. Daily motion amplitudes were reported as session mean, median, and root-mean-square (RMS) displacements. Temporal effect was evaluated by categorizing treatment sessions into 4 different classes: IMRT(c) (transponder only localization), IMRT(cc) (transponder + CBCT localization), IMAT(c) (transponder only localization), or IMAT(cc) (transponder + CBCT localization). RESULTS: Mean/median session times were 4.15/3.99 min (IMAT(c)), 12.74/12.19 min (IMAT(cc)), 5.99/5.77 min (IMRT(c)), and 12.98/12.39 min (IMRT(cc)), with significant pair-wise difference (p<0.0001) between all category combinations except for IMRT(cc) vs. IMAT(cc) (p>0.05). Median intrafraction motion difference between CBCT and non-CBCT categories strongly correlated with time for RMS (t-value=17.29; p<0.0001), SI (t-value=−4.25; p<0.0001), and AP (t-value=2.76; p<0.0066), with a weak correlation for RL (t-value=1.67; p=0.0971). Treatment time reduction with non-CBCT treatment categories showed reductions in the observed intrafraction motion: systematic error (Σ)<0.6 mm and random error (σ)<1.2 mm compared with ≤0.8 mm and <1.6 mm, respectively, for CBCT-involved treatment categories. CONCLUSIONS: For treatment durations >4-6 minutes, and without any intrafraction motion mitigation protocol in place, patient repositioning is recommended, with at least the acquisition of the lateral component of an orthogonal image pair in the absence of volumetric imaging