To investigate the doses given to the kidneys and the small intestines for three radiation therapy techniques [anterior–posterior (APPA) fields, three fields and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT)] for spinal cord compression (SCC) patients with metastatic disease in the lower thoracic or lumbar spine and to monitor the time spent by clinicians and dose planners.

Radiation therapy is one of the main treatment modalities for SCC. Typical palliative radiation therapy techniques have used APPA fields or a three-field technique.

However, as delivery techniques have evolved dramatically over the past decades, VMAT has gained wide acceptance. VMAT allows for a dose reduction in the organs at risk. Such a dose reduction may result in less toxicity.

The use of the VMAT technique may require more time for contouring and planning compared with the APPA and three-field techniques. Any potential dosimetric benefit of VMAT must not be outweighed by large amounts of extra time spent by clinicians and dose planners.

For 20 patients treated with radiation therapy for SCC at our hospital, we created a VMAT plan, and the more traditionally used APPA and three-field plans. The mean kidney doses and the volume of bowel, which received 20 Gy, were extracted for each plan. The correlations between parameters for three techniques were determined.

Furthermore, the time required for contouring targets for five patients; and the time required to plan five patients, was recorded.

VMAT lead to the most conformal distributions: the high-dose areas were restricted to the target volume, whereas the healthy tissue, especially the bowel, received a lower dose. In contrast, the APPA plan lead to a larger volume of bowel being irradiated, whereas the three-field technique spared the bowel at the expense of a higher dose to the kidneys.

The average contouring time was 16 minutes, the average planning time was 38 minutes.

Patients treated for SCC in the lower thoracic or lumbar region may benefit from VMAT treatment, as it reduces the dose to the bowel and kidneys compared with APPA or three-field treatments.

To analyse the preliminary results of CyberKnife stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) boost in primary head and neck cancer patients among Indian population.

A total of nine patients of primary head and neck cancer were treated with CyberKnife SBRT boost after intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The median phase 1 IMRT dose was 54 Gy/27 fractions. Histological types included squamous cell carcinoma (n=7) and adenoid cystic carcinoma (n=2). Response was evaluated using positron emission tomography/computed tomography and detailed clinical examination.

As a preliminary analysis with median follow up of 8 months (range: 6–19 months), phase 2 median tumour volume of 16·3 cc and a median dose of 5 Gy per fraction, eight patients had loco-regionally stable disease and one had distant metastasis. With objective assessment five patients had complete response. Treatment was well tolerated with no grade 3 or more acute toxicities directly related to CyberKnife boost.

CyberKnife SBRT boost is an attractive option for primary head and neck cancers especially where disease is in close proximity to critical structures hindering radical dose delivery. Future prospective analysis and optimum assessment of total biological effective dose (BED) in a properly selected case might actually benefit the use of CyberKnife SBRT boost.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and sensitivity of the Varian portal dosimetry (PD) system as a quality assurance (QA) tool for breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans.

Four hundred portal dose images from 200 breast cancer patient IMRT treatment plans were analysed. The images were obtained using Varian PortalVision electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) on Varian TrueBeam Linacs. Three patient plans were selected, and the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) positions were randomly altered by a mean of 0·5, 1, 1·5 and 2 mm with a standard deviation of 0·1 mm on 50, 75 and 100% of control points. Using the improved/global gamma calculation algorithm with a low-dose threshold of 10% in the EPID, the change in gamma passing rates for 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm criterion was analysed as a function of the introduced error. The changes in the dose distributions of clinical target volume and organ at risk due to MLC positioning errors were also analysed.

Symmetric and asymmetric breast or chest wall plan fields are different in delivery as well as in the QA. An average gamma passing rate of 99·8 ± 0·5 is presented for 3%/3 mm symmetric plans and 96·9 ± 4·5 is presented for 3%/3 mm asymmetric plans. An average gamma passing rate of 98·4 ± 4·3 is presented for 2%/2 mm symmetric plans and 89·7 ± 9·5 is presented for 2%/2 mm asymmetric plans. A large-induced error in MLC positioning (2·0 mm, 100% of control points) results in an insignificant change in dose that would be delivered to the patient. However, EPID portal dosimetry is sensitive enough to detect even the slightest change in MLC positioning error (0·5 mm, 50% of control points).

Stricter pre-treatment QA action levels can be established for breast IMRT plans utilising EPID. For improved sensitivity, a multigamma criteria approach is recommended. The PD tool is sensitive enough to detect MLC positioning errors that contribute to even insignificant dose changes.

Peer review is an essential quality assurance component of radiation therapy planning. A growing body of literature has demonstrated substantial rates of suggested plan changes resulting from peer review. There remains a paucity of data on the impact of peer review rounds for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We therefore aim to evaluate the outcomes of peer review in this specific patient cohort.

We conducted a retrospective review of all SBRT cases that underwent peer review from July 2015 to June 2018 at a single institution. Weekly peer review rounds are grouped according to cancer subsite and attended by radiation oncologists, medical physicists and medical radiation technologists. We prospectively compiled ‘learning moments’, defined as cases with suggested changes or where an educational discussion occurred beyond routine management, and critical errors, defined as errors which could alter clinical outcomes, recorded prospectively during peer review. Plan changes implemented after peer review were documented.

Nine hundred thirty-four SBRT cases were included. The most common treatment sites were lung (518, 55%), liver (196, 21%) and spine (119, 13%). Learning moments were identified in 161 cases (17%) and translated into plan changes in 28 cases (3%). Two critical errors (0.2%) were identified: an inadequate planning target volume margin and an incorrect image set used for contouring. There was a statistically significantly higher rate of learning moments for lower-volume SBRT sites (defined as ≤30 cases/year) versus higher-volume SBRT sites (29% vs 16%, respectively; p = 0.001).

Peer review for SBRT cases revealed a low rate of critical errors, but did result in implemented plan changes in 3% of cases, and either educational discussion or suggestions of plan changes in 17% of cases. All SBRT sites appear to benefit from peer review, though lower-volume sites may require particular attention.

Malignant spinal cord compression (MSCC) is a serious condition requiring urgent palliative radiotherapy to alleviate symptoms and avoid permanent paralysis. This audit compares the number of patients treated for MSCC before and during Covid-19, their treatment regimes and 30-day mortality rates to assess if the pandemic affected the treatment and the number of patients referred for palliative radiotherapy.

A retrospective audit was performed (July–December 2019) and 101 patients were treated for MSCC, an average of 17 patients per month. A further audit was undertaken during Covid-19 (March–May 2020) and 36 patients were treated for MSCC, an average of 12 patients per month in this shorter cohort.

The results have demonstrated fewer patients presenting during the pandemic and this may be due to patients not wishing to utilise the National Health Service (NHS) during this time. It also highlighted the need to reduce the treatment duration to minimise hospital attendance and lessen the potential for exposure to Covid-19.

Educating patients at risk of MSCC is essential and all cancer patients should be counselled on symptoms and what to do if they occur. Ensuring clinicians know the warning signs and the referral pathway for MSCC is also key to ensure early presentation and early referral for treatment.

The aim of this study was to find the optimal radiotherapy (RT) method using three-dimensional (3D) conformal RT (CRT), physical wedge-based CRT (WB-CRT) and dynamic intensity-modulated RT (D-IMRT) techniques for stomach cancer.

Ten patients with gastric cancer were selected for this study. For each patient, three different treatment plans were generated. 3D-CRT, WB-CRT and IMRT plans were evaluated in terms of dosimetry. Treatment plans were compared with respect to the planning target volume and organs at risk (OARs) volumes including right and left kidney doses (V13, V20 and V28), heart mean and maximum doses, spinal cord maximum doses, dose homogeneity index, conformity index (CI), delivery time and the monitor unit counts for the treatment. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) v25.1 software (IBM Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

In stomach plans, IMRT showed a significantly lower dose for the left and right kidneys than that of WB-CRT or 3D-CRT (p < 0·05). Compared with WB-CRT or 3D-CRT, IMRT reduced the V28, V20, V13 and mean dose to bilateral kidneys (p < 0·05). IMRT plans indicated better dosimetry for at the Dmean of the liver and heart. Concerning the calculated CI, values for IMRT plans gave significant results than other plans (p < 0·05).

IMRT plans provided better protection for the kidneys, liver, heart and spinal cord. For the treatment of stomach cancer, considering the dose to the OARs, IMRT appears to be the most superior technique.

The incidence of venous air embolism (VAE) during and following diagnostic and interventional radiographic procedures utilizing contrast media has been well documented in the literature. However to date a case report of a venous air embolism occurring within an outpatient healthcare facility during a contrast enhanced computer tomography radiation therapy planning procedure remains under reported.

Healthcare professionals must remain alerted to the fact that iatrogenic VAE may occur unexpectedly during and following diagnostic and interventional radiographic procedures utilizing the injection of contrast media. The action by all healthcare professionals to implement rapid and clear acute care guidelines will increase the probability of the patient recovering from the event.

A review of the aetiology and associated pathophysiology of VAE is provided. This is followed by a detailed case report of the occurrence of a non-fatal VAE event (patient consent was obtained and the consent form template was reviewed by a Research Ethics Board).

We conclude with a discussion of quality assurance recommendations that should be considered for implementation in an outpatient facility setting that is performing contrast enhanced computer tomography diagnostic, interventional or radiation therapy planning radiographic procedures.

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men and it is responsible for about 10% of all cancer mortality in Canadian men. The current ‘gold standard’ for the diagnosis of prostate cancer is a prostate biopsy and the decision on when to biopsy a patient with non-suspicious Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) result and total prostate specific antigen (tPSA) of 4–10 ng/ml can be challenging. In order to shift the treatment paradigm of prostate cancer toward more personalised and targeted therapy, there is the need for a clear system that makes its detection binary so as to decrease the rate of inaccurate detections. Therefore in recent years, there have been several investigations into the development of various biomarkers with high sensitivity and specificity for screening, early detection and personalised patient-specific targeted medicine from diagnosis to treatment of the disease.

This paper reports on nine currently available clinical biomarkers used in screening for early detection and diagnosis, to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies, in risk assessment of aggressive disease and in monitoring treatment response of prostate cancer.

Current clinical prostate cancer biomarkers have the potential for a personalised risk assessment of aggressive disease and the risk of developing distant metastatic disease and have been proven to be useful tools to guide clinicians in personalised patient-specific targeted treatment and in the shared decision making between patients and their physicians regarding prostate biopsy and treatment. Using biomarkers to select patients with a significant probability of aggressive prostate cancer would potentially avoid premature death from the disease, while at the same time would safely preclude patients who do not require unnecessary invasive intervention.

To verify the accuracy of two common absorbed dose calculation algorithms in comparison to Monte Carlo (MC) simulation for the planning of the pituitary adenoma radiation treatment.

After validation of Linac's head modelling by MC in water phantom, it was verified in Rando phantom as a heterogeneous medium for pituitary gland irradiation. Then, equivalent tissue-air ratio (ETAR) and collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithms were compared for a conventional three small non-coplanar field technique. This technique uses 30 degree physical wedge and 18 MV photon beams.

Dose distribution findings showed significant difference between ETAR and CCC of delivered dose in pituitary irradiation. The differences between MC and dose calculation algorithms were 6.40 ± 3.44% for CCC and 10.36 ± 4.37% for ETAR. None of the algorithms could predict actual dose in air cavity areas in comparison to the MC method.

Difference between calculation and true dose value affects radiation treatment outcome and normal tissue complication probability. It is of prime concern to select appropriate treatment planning system according to our clinical situation. It is further emphasised that MC can be the method of choice for clinical dose calculation algorithms verification.

For chest wall irradiation in breast cancer patients, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) have made tremendous changes in treatment delivery.

The purpose of this study is to compare the dosimetric parameters in IMRT and 3DCRT plans.

IMRT and 3DCRT plans were generated for 25 randomly selected postmastectomy breast cancer patients. The prescribed dose (PD) was 50 Gray (Gy) in 25 fractions (#) at the rate of 2 Gy/# with 5#/week. Dose volume histogram was evaluated for planning target volume (PTV) coverage and dose to organs at risk (OARs). All the dosimetric parameters were compared using unpaired student’s t-test.

PTV coverage was significantly better in IMRT, although the 90% of PTV was well covered by 90% of PD in all plans by both the techniques. Homogeneity index and conformity index were better in IMRT. V5 Gy and Dmean of contralateral lung, contralateral breast and heart (right side chest wall cases) were found to be lesser in 3DCRT compared with that in IMRT. However, there was no significant difference in V20 Gy of ipsilateral lung and V25 Gy of heart (left side chest wall cases) in all the plans by both the techniques.

Adequate target coverage was achieved by both the techniques, however, dose to OARs were lesser in 3DCRT plans as compared with that in IMRT plans. Thus, it can be concluded that 3DCRT is as efficient as IMRT for the chest wall irradiation.

With recent technological advances in image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), through cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), more image-related clinical information is being collected, at more frequent intervals throughout the treatment course. As radiation therapy (RT) programmes further develop IGRT technology, the aim of this study is to assess whether the distribution and communication of professional responsibilities is evolving to ensure appropriate use of the technology.

Radiation therapists practicing at any of the 14 Ontario RT centres were sent an electronic survey (n = 400). Closed-ended quantitative items addressed perceptions regarding policies, comfort, and professional responsibility in addressing CBCT concerns. Focus was on gynaecological, lung, head and neck (H&N) disease sites. Options for qualitative comments and explanations were included where appropriate.

Seventy-nine surveys were submitted. Respondents from 12/14 (85·7%) centres used CBCT for at least one of three disease sites, most commonly on a daily basis. Five of these centres (41·7%) did not require radiation oncologist CBCT review, with others requiring it Day 1 or weekly. Potential CBCT observations of concern were grouped as set-up issues, tumour changes, organ-at-risk (OAR) changes, contour changes and ancillary findings (especially lung and airway changes). Respondents believed they consulted another professional about a CBCT in 20·2% of H&N patients, 19·6% of lung patients and 9·7% of gynaecological patients. The level of comfort in doing so varied from 77·0% for H&N to 89·5% for lung. Respondents were most likely to believe themselves responsible for changes in OARs (92·2% believing themselves responsible), and least likely for ancillary findings (62·7%).

Through preliminary insight from Ontario therapists, a degree of inconsistency is apparent between perceptions, practices and assigned roles in the management of CBCT information. Clear definition of the scope and nature of therapists’ responsibility for interpreting and addressing changes on CBCT images should be developed within each centre.

To investigate the necessity of rotational shifts by considering dosimetric impact of rotational errors on stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).

20 lung patients with the lesion size <5 cm treated with SBRT have been selected for dosimetric analysis. Three-dimensional dose has been rotationally shifted (±1°, ±3°, ±5° for pitch, roll and yaw) and overlaid to the original computed tomography images. The dose–volume histograms of 18-rotational plans of each patient were compared to those of the original plan.

No significant dosimetric differences were observed in target coverage. For all of the cases up to 5° in any couch angle dose differences of D99 and D95 were <3%. Variations of conformity index were observed to be less than 0·05. None of the organ at risk doses exceeded the dose limit. The V20 differences of the ipsilateral and the total lungs were less than 0·4%.

It has been found to be unnecessary to perform rotational shifts up to 5° for lung SBRT treatments; the translational shift is sufficient for the cases used in this study. This method may be applied and tested after planning and before treatment initiation to rule out exceptionally extreme cases.

This study aimed to compare intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) regarding plan quality and healthy lung sparing, in stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

The plans of 60 patients were allocated either to the IMRT (n=30) or the VMAT (n=30) group. The dose prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV) was evaluated at the 95% level and the mean lung dose (MLD) and the healthy lung receiving 5, 10 and 20 Gy (V5, V10 and V20, respectively) were analysed. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for radiation pneumonitis was calculated with the Lyman–Kutcher–Burman model.

Both techniques achieved comparable results for target coverage (V95%=97·87 versus 97·18%, p>0·05) and homogeneity. The MLD (15·57 versus 16·98 Gy, p>0·05), V5 (60·35 versus 67·25%, p>0·05) and V10 (45·22 versus 53·14%, p=0·011) were lower for IMRT, whereas VMAT reduced V20 (26·44 versus 25·90%, p>0·05). The NTCP for radiation pneumonitis was higher for VMAT, but no statistical significance was observed (11·07 versus 12·75, p>0·05).

Both techniques seemed suitable for NSCLC treatment, but IMRT presented better results regarding lung sparing thus being beneficial in reducing the risk of radiation-induced pneumonitis.

Superficial X-ray therapy units are used for the treatment of certain types of skin cancer and some severe dermatological conditions. The performance assessment and beam characteristics of the superficial unit are very important to ensure accurate dose delivery during patient treatment. Both experimental measurements and Monte Carlo calculations can be used for this purpose.

This study aims to investigate whether it is possible to reproduce experimentally measured data for the XSTRAHL 150 superficial X-ray unit with simulations using the BEAMnrc Monte Carlo code.

The experimental procedure applied in this study included the following: experimental measurements of different X-ray spectra, half-value layers, percentage depth dose and beam profiles. Monte Carlo modelling of the XSTRAHL 150 unit was performed with the BEAMnrc code. The validity of the model was checked by comparing the theoretical calculations with experimental measurements.

There was good agreement (∼1%) between experimentally measured and simulated X-ray spectra. Results of half-value layers obtained from simulated and measured spectra showed that there was a maximum of 3·6% difference between BEAMnrc and measurements and a minimum of 2·3%. In addition, simulated percentage depth dose and profile curves have been compared against experimental measurements and show good agreement (within 2% for the depth dose curves and 3–5% for beam profile curves, depending on the applicator size).

The results of this study provide information about particles’ interaction in different kilovoltage and filter combinations. This information is useful for X-ray tube design and development of new target/filter combinations to improve beam quality in superficial X-ray radiotherapy. The data presented here may provide a base for comparison and a reference for other or potential new users of the XSTRAHL 150 X-ray unit.