BACKGROUND:Applying dose-volume constraints is extremely important in ensuring the safe use of radiotherapy. However, constraints for carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) have not been established yet. This review aims to summarize dose-volume constraints for thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic CIRT that have been identified through previous research based on the Japanese models for relative biological effectiveness (RBE). RESULTS:Constraints are reported for the lungs, liver, stomach, gastrointestinal tract, rectum, sigmoid, bladder, nerves, rib, femoral head, sacrum, and skin. The constraints are classified into hard and soft to aid in determining whether priority should be given to the target coverage or organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing during treatment planning. CONCLUSIONS:Further research is necessary to verify the applicability of the reported constraints and to identify constraints for the OARs that have not been investigated yet.

Electrometers are important devices that are part of the standard dosimetry system. Therefore, we evaluated the variation of electrometer calibration coefficients (kelec) over 1 year in this study. We investigated two types of electrometers: a rate mode and an integrate mode. Each electrometer was connected to a charge generator, a constant charge was applied, and kelec was determined by measuring the current. The current measurements were repeated once a month. For electrometers with multiple ranges, measurements were taken at low and medium ranges. Almost all kelec measurements agreed within 0.2% of the initial measurements. However, the low range of the electrometer with an integrate mode showed seasonal variation, with a variation greater than 0.2%. This study shows that electrometers may exhibit errors that cannot be detected through annual inspections. The importance of quality assurance using a charge generator at one's own institution was demonstrated.

AbstractBackground and purposeThe standard dosimetry system of medical accelerators in radiotherapy consists of an ionization chamber, an electrometer, and cables. Guidance for TG‐51 reference dosimetry reported that the electrometer correction factor (Pelec) should be checked every few years. Therefore, continuous Pelec measurements have not been reported. The purpose of this study is to measure the Pelec with a charge generator at our institution and to evaluate variations over time. The measurements are compared with calibration data given by an Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory (ADCL).Materials and methodsWe used four reference‐class electrometers: RT521R (RTQM system/EMF Japan), Model 35040 (FLUKE), RAMTEC Duo (Toyo medic), and UNIDOS‐E (PTW). Each electrometer was connected to the charge generator, and the required charge was applied. The measurement points used were the same as those used for calibration by the ADCL. From the measured charges at each point, the Pelec was obtained from the slope of the linear regression function. The measurements were repeated over a 3‐month period to evaluate variations over time for each electrometer. Additionally, error budgets for the Pelec measurements were estimated, and the overall uncertainty was determined.ResultsThe measured Pelec values were 1.0000, 0.9995, 1.0009/0.9999, and 0.9995/0.9998 for RT521R, Model 35040, the low/medium (L/M) ranges of RAMTEC Duo, and the L/M ranges of UNIDOS‐E, respectively. The measured Pelec values agreed within 0.1% with those given by the ADCL. We found a small drift in the measurements for one electrometer. Additionally, the uncertainty considered was 0.26% for k = 2 (k, coverage factor).ConclusionIn this study, stable Pelec values were obtained for four electrometers using a charge generator over a three‐month period. The measured Pelec values were within the overall uncertainty stated in the electrometer guidelines. However, performing periodic measurements for the Pelec was able to help in detecting small errors.

BACKGROUND:Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) has been applied in cancer treatment for over 25 years. However, guidelines for dose-volume constraints have not been established yet. The aim of this review is to summarize the dose-volume constraints in CIRT for head-and-neck (HN) cancer that were determined through previous clinical studies based on the Japanese models for relative biological effectiveness (RBE). METHODS:A literature review was conducted to identify all constraints determined for HN cancer CIRT that are based on the Japanese RBE models. RESULTS:Dose-volume constraints are reported for 17 organs at risk (OARs), including the brainstem, ocular structures, masticatory muscles, and skin. Various treatment planning strategies are also presented for reducing the dose delivered to OARs. CONCLUSIONS:The reported constraints will provide assistance during treatment planning to ensure that radiation to OARs is minimized, and thus adverse effects are reduced. Although the constraints are given based on the Japanese RBE models, applying the necessary conversion factors will potentially enable their application by institutions worldwide that use the local effect model for RBE.

Background and purpose: In carbon-ion radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer, altered dose distributions due to changes in the gastrointestinal gas volume and anatomy during irradiation are an unresolved therapeutic issue. We developed and investigated an adaptive strategy involving beam angle selection to improve dose distributions in pancreatic cancer. Materials and methods: In the adaptive strategy, multiple beams were prepared with angles similar to those of the conventional strategy, and the beam that best reproduces the dose distribution of the treatment plan was used. The dose distributions of the adaptive strategy were compared with those of the conventional strategy for five patients. Patients underwent computed tomography (CT) before every irradiation. The adaptive strategy was evaluated using the same irradiation schedule as that of the conventional method and an adjusted method based on anatomical changes per fraction. Dose distributions on the pre-treatment CT and accumulated dose distributions on the treatment planning CT were evaluated using the volume receiving >95% of the prescription dose (>= 95) from the clinical target volume (CTV) between strategies. Results: There were significant differences in the CTV V95 values for the pre-treatment CT between all strategies. The median (range) CTV V95 for the conventional strategy was 92.7% (87.1-96.1%), for the proposed adaptive strategy without adjusted schedules was 96.9% (95.1-97.8%), and for the proposed strategy with adjusted schedules was 97.8% (96.5-99.2%). Conclusions: The adaptive strategy can improve target coverage for the pre-treatment CT and accumulated dose distributions for the treatment planning CT without increasing the dose to critical organs.

Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare single-arc (SA) and double-arc (DA) treatment plans, which are planning techniques often used in prostate cancer volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), in the presence of intrafractional deformation (ID) to determine which technique is superior in terms of target dose coverage and sparing of the organs at risk (OARs). SA and DA plans were created for 27 patients with localized prostate cancer. ID was introduced to the clinical target volume (CTV), rectum and bladder to obtain blurred dose distributions using an in-house software. ID was based on the motion probability function of each structure voxel and the intrafractional motion of the respective organs. From the resultant blurred dose distributions of SA and DA plans, various parameters, including the tumor control probability, normal tissue complication probability, homogeneity index, conformity index, modulation complexity score for VMAT, dose–volume indices and monitor units (MUs), were evaluated to compare the two techniques. Statistical analysis showed that most CTV and rectum parameters were significantly larger for SA plans than for DA plans (P < 0.05). Furthermore, SA plans had fewer MUs and were less complex (P < 0.05). The significant differences observed had no clinical significance, indicating that both plans are comparable in terms of target and OAR dosimetry when ID is considered. The use of SA plans is recommended for prostate cancer VMAT because they can be delivered in shorter treatment times than DA plans, and therefore benefit the patients.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy with CyberKnife for prostate cancer has long treatment times compared with conventional radiotherapy. This arises the need for designing treatment plans with short execution times. We propose an objective function for plan quality evaluation, which was used to determine an optimal combination between small and large collimators based on short treatment times and clinically acceptable dose distributions. Data from 11 prostate cancer patients were used. For each patient, 20 plans were created based on all combinations between one small (⌀ 10-25 mm) and one large (⌀ 35-60 mm) Iris collimator size. The objective function was assigned to each combination as a penalty, such that plans with low penalties were considered superior. This function considered the achievement of dosimetric planning goals, tumor control probability, normal tissue complication probability, relative seriality parameter, and treatment time. Two methods were used to determine the optimal combination. First, we constructed heat maps representing the mean penalty values and standard deviations of the plans created for each collimator combination. The combination giving a plan with the smallest mean penalty and standard deviation was considered optimal. Second, we created two groups of superior plans: group A plans were selected by histogram analysis and group B plans were selected by choosing the plan with the lowest penalty from each patient. In both groups, the most used small and large collimators were assumed to represent the optimal combination. The optimal combinations obtained from the heat maps included the 25 mm as a small collimator, giving small/large collimator sizes of 25/35, 25/40, 25/50, and 25/60 mm. The superior-group analysis indicated that 25/50 mm was the optimal combination. The optimal Iris combination for prostate cancer treatment using CyberKnife was determined to be a collimator size between 25 mm (small) and 50 mm (large).