Do all the linear accelerators comply with the ICRU 91's constraints for stereotactic body radiation therapy treatments?

International audienceRecent technological developments in linear accelerators (linacs) and their imaging systems have made it possible to routinely perform stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) treatments. To ensure the security and quality of the treatments, national and international recommendations have been written. This review focuses on the recommendations of the report 91 of the International Commission on Radiation Units (ICRU) on stereotactic treatments with small photon beams and proposes to answer the question of the eligibility of the commercially available accelerators for the treatment of extra-cranial SRT (SBRT). The ICRU 91 report outlines important features needed to respect the constraints, which are high intensity photon beam, integrated image-guidance, high mechanical accuracy of the linac, multileaf collimator with reduced leaf width, bundled motion management and bundled 6 Dimensional "robotic" couch tabletop. Most of the contemporary linacs meet these recommendations, in particular, stereotactic dedicated linacs, or modern gantry-based linacs equipped with 3 dimensional cone-beam CT imaging and 2D-stereoscopic planar imaging. Commercially available ring-based linacs have some limitations: they offer only coplanar treatments, and couch movements are limited to translations and, some have limited imaging equipment and no ability to manage intrafraction motion. However, for performing SBRT, non-coplanar irradiations are not mandatory, contrarily to intracranial stereotactic irradiations. Furthermore, patients' rotations can be corrected, thanks to real-time adaptive radiotherapy available on MRI-linacs. Finally, significant improvements are expected in the short term to compensate the weaknesses of the current devices

Radiotherapy for oral cavity cancers

International audienceIntensity modulated radiation therapy and brachytherapy are standard techniques of irradiation for the treatment of oral cavity cancers. These techniques are detailed in terms of indication, planning, delineation and selection of the volumes of interest, dosimetry and patients positioning control. This is an update of the guidelines of the French Society of Radiotherapy Correspondence

Influence of Nucleoshuttling of the ATM Protein in the Healthy Tissues Response to Radiation Therapy: Toward a Molecular Classification of Human Radiosensitivity.

PURPOSE: Whereas post-radiation therapy overreactions (OR) represent a clinical and societal issue, there is still no consensual radiobiological endpoint to predict clinical radiosensitivity. Since 2003, skin biopsy specimens have been collected from patients treated by radiation therapy against different tumor localizations and showing a wide range of OR. Here, we aimed to establish quantitative links between radiobiological factors and OR severity grades that would be relevant to radioresistant and genetic hyperradiosensitive cases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Immunofluorescence experiments were performed on a collection of skin fibroblasts from 12 radioresistant, 5 hyperradiosensitive, and 100 OR patients irradiated at 2 Gy. The numbers of micronuclei, γH2AX, and pATM foci that reflect different steps of DNA double-strand breaks (DSB) recognition and repair were assessed from 10 minutes to 24 hours after irradiation and plotted against the severity grades established by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. RESULTS: OR patients did not necessarily show a gross DSB repair defect but a systematic delay in the nucleoshuttling of the ATM protein required for complete DSB recognition. Among the radiobiological factors, the maximal number of pATM foci provided the best discrimination among OR patients and a significant correlation with each OR severity grade, independently of tumor localization and of the early or late nature of reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent with a general classification of human radiosensitivity based on 3 groups: radioresistance (group I); moderate radiosensitivity caused by delay of nucleoshuttling of ATM, which includes OR patients (group II); and hyperradiosensitivity caused by a gross DSB repair defect, which includes fatal cases (group III)