Modification of the 4 MeV electron beam from a linear accelerator for irradiation of small superficial skin tumors

Uniform dose distribution with steep lateral gradient within depth range of 0–0.5 cm is crucial to be able to treat small skin lesions. The standard nominal 4 MeV electron beam from Elekta Versa HD linear accelerator was modified with degrading filter to remove the lateral scatter from treatment head and minimize the penumbra. The energy degrading method was verified based on dosimetric properties and output factors (OFs)with comparison of four types of measurement methods. The properties of degraded 4 MeV electron beam and developed electron applicators seem optimal for treating small targets near the skin surface. © 2019 The AuthorsNon peer reviewe

Estimate of the uncertainties in the relative risk of secondary malignant neoplasms following proton therapy and intensity-modulated photon therapy

Theoretical calculations have shown that proton therapy can reduce the incidence of radiation-induced secondary malignant neoplasms (SMN) compared with photon therapy for patients with prostate cancer. However, the uncertainties associated with calculations of SMN risk had not been assessed. The objective of this study was to quantify the uncertainties in projected risks of secondary cancer following contemporary proton and photon radiotherapies for prostate cancer. We performed a rigorous propagation of errors and several sensitivity tests to estimate the uncertainty in the ratio of relative risk (RRR) due to the largest contributors to the uncertainty: the radiation weighting factor for neutrons, the dose-response model for radiation carcinogenesis and interpatient variations in absorbed dose. The interval of values for the radiation weighting factor for neutrons and the dose-response model were derived from the literature, while interpatient variations in absorbed dose were taken from actual patient data. The influence of each parameter on a baseline RRR value was quantified. Our analysis revealed that the calculated RRR was insensitive to the largest contributors to the uncertainty. Uncertainties in the radiation weighting factor for neutrons, the shape of the dose-risk model and interpatient variations in therapeutic and stray doses introduced a total uncertainty of 33% to the baseline RRR calculation. © 2010 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine

Future vision for the quality assurance of oncology clinical trials

The National Cancer Institute clinical cooperative groups have been instrumental over the past 50 years in developing clinical trials and evidence-based process improvements for clinical oncology patient care. The cooperative groups are undergoing a transformation process as we further integrate molecular biology into personalized patient care and move to incorporate international partners in clinical trials. To support this vision, data acquisition and data management informatics tools must become both nimble and robust to support transformational research at an enterprise level. Information, including imaging, pathology, molecular biology, radiation oncology, surgery, systemic therapy, and patient outcome data needs to be integrated into the clinical trial charter using adaptive clinical trial mechanisms for design of the trial. This information needs to be made available to investigators using digital processes for real-time data analysis. Future clinical trials will need to be designed and completed in a timely manner facilitated by nimble informatics processes for data management. This paper discusses both past experience and future vision for clinical trials as we move to develop data management and quality assurance processes to meet the needs of the modern trial

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) vs. 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC): dosimetric comparison and clinical implications

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>To compare target dose distribution, comformality, normal tissue avoidance, and irradiated body volume (IBV) in 3DCRT using classic anatomical landmarks (c3DCRT), 3DCRT fitting the PTV (f3DCRT), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).</p> <p>Materials and methods</p> <p>Fifteen patients with LARC underwent c3DCRT, f3DCRT, and IMRT planning. Target definition followed the recommendations of the ICRU reports No. 50 and 62. OAR (SB and bladder) constraints were D5 ≤ 50 Gy and Dmax < 55 Gy. PTV dose prescription was defined as PTV95 ≥ 45 Gy and PTVmin ≥ 35 Gy. Target coverage was evaluated with the D95, Dmin, and Dmax. Target dose distribution and comformality was evaluated with the homogeneity indices (HI) and Conformity Index (CI). Normal tissue avoidance of OAR was evaluated with the D5 and V40. IBV at 5 Gy (V5), 10 Gy (V10), and 20 Gy (V20) were calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean GTV95, CTV95, and PTV95 doses were significantly lower for IMRT plans. Target dose distribution was more inhomogeneous after IMRT planning and 3DCRTplans had significantly lower CI. The V40 and D5 values for OAR were significantly reduced in the IMRT plans .V5 was greater for IMRT than for f3DCRT planning (p < 0.05) and V20 was smaller for IMRT plans(p < 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>IMRT planning improves target conformity and decreases irradiation of the OAR at the expense of increased target heterogeneity. IMRT planning increases the IBV at 5 Gy or less but decreases the IBV at 20 Gy or more.</p

Second primary cancers after radiation for prostate cancer: a review of data from planning studies

A review of planning studies was undertaken to evaluate estimated risks of radiation induced second primary cancers (RISPC) associated with different prostate radiotherapy techniques for localised prostate cancer. A total of 83 publications were identified which employed a variety of methods to estimate RISPC risk. Of these, the 16 planning studies which specifically addressed absolute or relative second cancer risk using dose–response models were selected for inclusion within this review. There are uncertainties and limitations related to all the different methods for estimating RISPC risk. Whether or not dose models include the effects of the primary radiation beam, as well as out-of-field regions, influences estimated risks. Regarding the impact of IMRT compared to 3D-CRT, at equivalent energies, several studies suggest an increase in risk related to increased leakage contributing to out-of-field RISPC risk, although in absolute terms this increase in risk may be very small. IMRT also results in increased low dose normal tissue irradiation, but the extent to which this has been estimated to contribute to RISPC risk is variable, and may also be very small. IMRT is often delivered using 6MV photons while conventional radiotherapy often requires higher energies to achieve adequate tissue penetration, and so comparisons between IMRT and older techniques should not be restricted to equivalent energies. Proton and brachytherapy planning studies suggest very low RISPC risks associated with these techniques. Until there is sufficient clinical evidence regarding RISPC risks associated with modern irradiation techniques, the data produced from planning studies is relevant when considering which patients to irradiate, and which technique to employ

TU-C-WAB-01: Accuracy Requirements and Uncertainty Considerations in Radiation Therapy

Recent years have seen major advances in the technology of radiation oncology allowing for a transition from 2‐D radiation therapy (RT) to 3‐D conformal RT, intensity modulated RT (IMRT), image‐guided RT (IGRT), adaptive RT (ART), and 4‐D imaging and motion management in RT. Brachytherapy procedures have evolved both for high dose rate (HDR) techniques as well as permanent implants, and image‐guided brachytherapy is the modern standard. While a number of publications have defined accuracy needs in radiation oncology, most of these reports were developed in an era with different radiation technologies and date back to the 1980s and 90s. In view of modern treatment procedures, improvements in dosimetry methodologies, and new clinical dose‐volume data, the AAPM 2011 summer school dealt with uncertainties in external beam radiation therapy and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is completing a new guidance document on “Accuracy Requirements and Uncertainties in Radiation Therapy”. This symposium will review the latest information on accuracy requirements and uncertainty considerations in radiation therapy in terms of radiobiological rationale, clinical needs and a practical reality check. Learning Objectives: 1. To review historical and current data related to accuracy and uncertainties in the overall radiation treatment process. 2. To provide a radiobiological rationale for accuracy considerations in RT. 3. To provide a clinical rationale for accuracy considerations in RT. 4. To review recent data demonstrating realistically achievable accuracy levels in RT