林 直樹

PURPOSE: 177Lu-DOTATATE-targeted radionuclide therapy (TRT) is effective for patients with somatostatin receptor (SSTR)-positive neuroendocrine tumors; however, radiation safety regulations often necessitate hospitalization, particularly in countries with stringent discharge criteria. This study aimed to identify pretreatment factors predicting outpatient eligibility. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 26 patients who underwent their first cycle of 177Lu-DOTATATE TRT with complete data for analysis. The external dose rate at 1 m (EDR-1 m) was measured 6 h after administration. Patients were divided into two groups: EDR-1 m greater than or equal to 18 μSv/h and less than 18 μSv/h. Characteristics, including age, sex, BMI, body surface area, estimated glomerular filtration rate, administered dose, and tumor site, were compared. In addition, the whole-body washout rate from pretreatment SSTR imaging was evaluated as a potential predictor. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Fourteen of the 26 (53.8%) patients met the discharge criterion at 6 h. No significant differences were observed in demographic or clinical characteristics between groups. The median washout rate was significantly higher in those meeting the criterion (57.6 vs. 35.0%; P < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve for the washout rate was 0.929, indicating excellent predictive ability. An optimal cut-off value of 53.5% predicted same-day discharge with a sensitivity of 92.9% and specificity of 91.7%. CONCLUSION: The whole-body washout rate derived from pretreatment SSTR imaging is a strong, practical predictor for outpatient eligibility following 177Lu-DOTATATE TRT. Incorporating this simple, noninvasive marker into clinical workflow could support individualized discharge planning and improve patient access under strict radiation safety regulations.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diffusion of surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT), implementation of quality control and quality assurance strategies, established clinical workflows and user perceptions regarding the benefits and limitations of SGRT in routine practice. From October to December 2024, we surveyed 880 radiotherapy institutions in Japan regarding institutional characteristics, quality assurance/quality control, computed tomography simulation, treatment procedures and general questions regarding SGRT. The survey was distributed via mailing list and through vendors, and administered via Google Forms. A total of 292 institutions responded, corresponding to a response rate of 33%. Ninety-eight institutions reported introducing SGRT, and 50 institutions had introduced it after 2022. The highest usage rate of SGRT in breast treatment was 87%. Approximately half of the institutions performed daily checks of SGRT and radiation isocenter coincidence, as well as static accuracy, whereas 6% did not perform these checks at all. The primary functions of the SGRT system were patient positioning (94%), respiratory management (78%), patient monitoring (76%) and skin marker-less techniques (69%). Many institutions reduced or eliminated skin marking, citing simplified workflows and reduced setup time. Many respondents observed that SGRT implementation reduced both setup and treatment times for breast/chest, abdomen/pelvis and extremity procedures. SGRT has been widely embraced in Japan, offering notable clinical and workflow benefits. However, because participation in this survey was voluntary, the results may overrepresent institutions with greater awareness or adoption of SGRT. Greater standardization, broader insurance coverage and ongoing technological advancements are essential to fully realize its advantages.

The patient setup using the surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT) system differs from conventional surface marker procedures. Owing to the abundance of three-dimensional information, there may be operator variability in where to focus during the patient setup. This study aimed to clarify the differences between expert and novice operators in SGRT positioning for head and neck cases by tracking their eye movements, thereby providing data for developing efficient patient setup procedures. Six radiation therapists set up a simulated patient on the SGRT system while recording eye movements on the screen using the QG-PLUS eye-tracking system. The positioning time and number of gaze fixations on the screen were analysed, and the relationship between years of experience with SGRT, positioning time and number of gaze fixations was evaluated. No significant correlation was found between SGRT experience and positioning time (r = -0.67, p = 0.15). However, more experienced radiation therapists exhibited fewer gaze fixations per positioning session (r = -0.81, p < 0.05), indicating that they efficiently identified key positioning points. Additionally, experienced radiation therapists focused more intently on a specific screen during the latter half of positioning, suggesting a refined approach for final patient alignment verification. More experienced radiation therapists showed fewer gaze fixations and demonstrated increased attention to a specific screen during the latter half of the patient setup process, suggesting that eye-tracking technology may provide useful data for standardising patient setup procedures in SGRT patient setups.

To quantify radiation dose reduction in radiotherapy treatment-planning CT (RTCT) using a deep learning-based reconstruction (DLR; AiCE) algorithm compared with adaptive iterative dose reduction (IR; AIDR). To evaluate its potential to inform RTCT-specific diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). In this single-institution retrospective study, 4-part RTCT scans (head, head and neck, lung, and pelvis) were acquired on a large-bore CT. Scans reconstructed with IR (n = 820) and DLR (n = 854) were compared. The 75th-percentile CTDIvol and DLP (CTDIIR, DLPIR vs. CTDIDLR, DLPDLR) were determined per site. Dose reduction rates were calculated as (CTDIDLR - CTDIIR)/CTDIIR × 100% and similarly for DLP. Statistical significance was assessed by the Mann-Whitney U-test. DLR yielded CTDIvol reductions of 30.4-75.4% and DLP reductions of 23.1-73.5% across sites (p < 0.001), with the greatest reductions in head and neck RTCT (CTDIvol: 75.4%; DLP: 73.5%). Variability also narrowed. Compared with published national DRLs, DLR achieved 34.8 mGy and 18.8 mGy lower CTDIvol for head and neck versus UK-DRLs and Japanese multi-institutional data, respectively. DLR substantially lowers RTCT dose indices, providing quantitative data to guide RTCT-specific DRLs and optimize clinical workflows.

BACKGROUND: Accurate absolute dosimetry is essential for achieving high-precision proton beam therapy. Consequently, a comprehensive characterization of the ionization chamber's response properties is necessary. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the average f Q using Monte Carlo (MC) code PHITS to assess uncertainties among different MC simulation tools. Additionally, P Q values for PTW 30013, NACP-02, and PTW 31013 ionization chambers are calculated using PHITS to provide new reference data for P Q . Furthermore, a new k Q factor for PTW 31013 chamber is established using MC method, contributing to advancements in proton beam dosimetry protocols. METHODS: Monoenergetic proton beams were employed to calculate f Q , k Q , and P Q for Farmer, Semiflex, and plane-parallel chambers. The absorbed dose deposited within the sensitive volume of each chamber was determined via simulations employing PHITS, thereby providing the basis for the estimation of these factors. Computed f Q values were compared with previous reports, while k Q and P Q were benchmarked against literature and Technical Reports Series No. 398 (TRS-398) Rev.1 guideline. RESULTS: Incorporating PHITS-derived f Q values reduced the uncertainty of f ¯ Q P H I T S compared to previous findings. The k Q factor for PTW 31013 followed trends observed in cylindrical chambers with varying sensitive volumes; notably, this study represents the first MC estimation of k Q for this chamber. P Q values for values deviated by up to 1.7% from unity. CONCLUSION: The data generated in this study provide important insights for refining proton beam dosimetry, contributing to the improvement of treatment precision.

This study investigated the effects of preparation temperature and usage period on the relaxation times and apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) of sucrose phantoms to enhance imaging reliability. Phantoms were prepared using 10% sucrose solutions at 20, 50, and 80 °C. T1 and T2 relaxation times and ADC were monitored over 80 days using magnetic resonance imaging on a 1.5 T system. T2 relaxation time in 50 °C solutions increased from 245.5 to 1579 ms, while 80 °C solutions showed the highest stability (coefficient of variation ≈ 1.8%). T1 relaxation time changes were minimal, and ADC decreased at an average rate of 2.19 × 10-6 mm2/s per day. Bacteria were observed in the sucrose solution, and higher protein concentrations were strongly correlated with decreased 1/T2. In conclusion, sucrose phantoms exhibited temperature-dependent stability, with 80 °C preparations providing the most reliable T2 relaxation time.

Abstract Background Accurate dosimetry is important in radiotherapy, and all equipment used for radiotherapy shoud be audited by an independent external dose audit. Radiophotoluminescence glass dosimeter (RPLD) has excellent characteristics and is widely used for postal dose audit; however, postal dose audit for proton therapy using RPLD has not been established. Purpose This study aims to develop a postal dose audit procedure for scanning proton beams using RPLD, estimate uncertainties, and conduct a multicenter pilot study to validate the methodology. Methods A postal toolkit was developed and a postal dose audit procedure for RPLD measurements of scanning proton beams was established in cooperation with several facilities that employ various accelerators, irradiation equipment, and treatment planning systems (TPS) for clinical use. Based on basic and previous studies, an uncertainty budget was developed for estimating relative uncertainty and pilot studies were conducted at each site. A method for postal dose audits was developed in a multicenter collaboration to develop an approach suitable for implementation across multiple facilities. Results The relative response of 60 RPLDs for scanning proton beam examined in this study was 1.00 ± 1.28% mean ± standard deviation. The combined relative standard uncertainty of postal dosimetry for scanning proton beams using the RPLD was 2.97% (k = 1). Under the reference condition, the maximum differences between the ionization chamber measurement (IC) and TPS, RPLD and TPS, and RPLD and IC were 0.97, 1.88, and 2.12%, respectively. The maximum differences between the RPLD and ionization chamber for plateau measurements at 3 cm depth using single‐energy and non‐reference conditions were 11.31 and 4.02%, respectively. Conclusion We established a procedure for the postal dose audits of proton beams using RPLD and presented the results of a multicenter pilot study. By standardizing the reference conditions, the dosimetry uncertainty was estimated at 2.92%. The results demonstrated the feasibility of performing an independent third‐party dose audit of scanning proton beams using RPLD, and for such postal dose audits for proton beams, the irradiation conditions should be standardized to reduce uncertainties. These results are expected to contribute to the development of proton beams.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy devices with multiple image-guidance systems, such as surface-guided radiation therapy (SGRT), have been widely used in recent years. However, in the case of SGRT devices using the light-section method, coordinate coincidence evaluation using a phantom for SGRT devices with patterned light projection is not appropriate. Hence, this study aims to develop a dedicated phantom able to evaluate both the detection accuracy and coordinate coincidence of multiple IGRT configurations, including light-section-based SGRT devices. MATERIALS AND METHOD: First, we developed an end-to-end (E2E) phantom that can be scanned by CT and detected by a light-section-method-based SGRT device. Second, the detection accuracy of the phantom under three reference data acquisition conditions was evaluated using the E2E phantom. The three conditions were a body surface image detected by VOXELAN in the simulation CT room, a body surface image reconstructed from the volume data of the simulation CT room, and a body surface image acquired by VOXELAN in the radiotherapy room. Finally, the coordinate coincidence of the image-guidance system was evaluated using the E2E phantom. RESULT: Upon comparing detection accuracy among the three reference data acquisition methods, we found that the reference data generated in the CT room had the largest error (0.58 mm at maximum). The coordinate coincidences of the multiple image-guidance systems were within 1 mm for all components after the maintenance of VOXELAN using E2E phantom. Furthermore, the long-term direction stability was worse in the longitudinal direction. CONCLUSION: The new E2E phantom can be used to evaluate the detection accuracy of a light-section-based SGRT system and the coordinate coincidence using a Winston-Lutz-based method in multiple image-guided configurations. The detection accuracy in the three different reference images of VOXELAN using this phantom improved to within 1 mm in all directions.

This study aimed to evaluate the performance for answering the Japanese medical physicist examination and providing the benchmark of knowledge about medical physics in language-generative AI with large language model. We used questions from Japan's 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 medical physicist board examinations, which covered various question types, including multiple-choice questions, and mainly focused on general medicine and medical physics. ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 (OpenAI) were used. We compared the AI-based answers with the correct ones. The average accuracy rates were 42.2 ± 2.5% (ChatGPT-3.5) and 72.7 ± 2.6% (ChatGPT-4), showing that ChatGPT-4 was more accurate than ChatGPT-3.5 [all categories (except for radiation-related laws and recommendations/medical ethics): p value < 0.05]. Even with the ChatGPT model with higher accuracy, the accuracy rates were less than 60% in two categories; radiation metrology (55.6%), and radiation-related laws and recommendations/medical ethics (40.0%). These data provide the benchmark for knowledge about medical physics in ChatGPT and can be utilized as basic data for the development of various medical physics tools using ChatGPT (e.g., radiation therapy support tools with Japanese input).

The reference dose for clinical proton beam therapy is based on ionization chamber dosimetry. However, data on uncertainties in proton dosimetry are lacking, and multifaceted studies are required. Monte Carlo simulations are useful tools for calculating ionization chamber dosimetry in radiation fields and are sensitive to the transport algorithm parameters when particles are transported in a heterogeneous region. We aimed to evaluate the proton transport algorithm of the Particle and Heavy Ion Transport Code System (PHITS) using the Fano test. The response of the ionization chamber f Q and beam quality correction factors k Q were calculated using the same parameters as those in the Fano test and compared with those of other Monte Carlo codes for verification. The geometry of the Fano test consisted of a cylindrical gas-filled cavity sandwiched between two cylindrical walls. f Q was calculated as the ratio of the absorbed dose in water to the dose in the cavity in the chamber. We compared the f Q calculated using PHITS with that of a previous study, which was calculated using other Monte Carlo codes (Geant4, FULKA, and PENH) under similar conditions. The flight mesh, a parameter for charged particle transport, passed the Fano test within 0.15%. This was shown to be sufficiently accurate compared with that observed in previous studies. The f Q calculated using PHITS were 1.116 ± 0.002 and 1.124 ± 0.003 for NACP-02 and PTW-30013, respectively, and the k Q were 0.981 ± 0.008 and 1.027 ± 0.008, respectively, at 150 MeV. Our results indicate that PHITS can calculate the f Q and k Q with high precision.

INTRODUCTION: In this simulation study, we examined the effects of a de-escalation strategy with a reduced dose to subclinical nodal regions in patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC). METHODS: We created two patterns of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for 16 patients with HPV-associated OPC. In the standard and de-escalation plans, the initial field including elective nodal regions received 46 and 30 Gy, followed by 20 and 36 Gy to the cutdown field, respectively. Comparison metrics were set for each organ at risk (OAR). We compared these metric values and the probability of adverse effects based on the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model between the two plans. RESULTS: Both plans generally met the dose constraints for the targets and all OAR. Among the comparison metrics, the mean doses to the brain, pharyngeal constrictor muscle, thyroid, and skin and the dose to a 1 % volume of the skin were higher in the standard plan than in the de-escalation plan (P = 0.031, 0.007, < 0.001, < 0.001, and 0.006, respectively). NTCP analyses revealed that the probability of adverse effects in the ipsilateral parotid gland and thyroid was higher in the standard plan than in the de-escalation plan (standard vs. de-escalation plans: ipsilateral parotid gland, 6.4 % vs. 5.0 %, P = 0.016; thyroid, 3.3 % vs. 0.5 %, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A de-escalation strategy with elective nodal regions is a promising treatment to prevent a decline in the quality of life in patients with HPV-associated OPC, particularly xerostomia, dysphagia, and hypothyroidism.

This study aimed to investigate the educational environment of radiotherapy technology and medical physics specialists (RTMP) in Japan. We conducted a nationwide questionnaire survey in radiotherapy institutions between June and August 2022. Participants were asked questions regarding the educational system, perspectives on updating RTMP's skills and qualifications, and perspectives on higher education for RTMP at radiotherapy institutions. The results were then analyzed in detail according to three factors: whether the hospital was designed for cancer care, whether it was a Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology (JASTRO)-accredited hospital, and whether it was an intensity-modulated radiation therapy charged hospital. Responses were obtained from 579 (69%) nationwide radiation therapy institutions. For non-qualified RTMP, 10% of the institutions had their own educational systems, only 17% of institutions provided on-the-job training, and 84% of institutions encouraged participation in educational lectures and workshops in academic societies. However, for qualified RTMP, 3.0% of institutions had their own educational systems, only 8.9% of the institutions provided on-the-job training, and 83% encouraged participation in academic conferences and workshops. Less than 1% of the facilities offered salary increases for certification, whereas 8.2% offered consideration for occupational promotion. Regarding the educational environment, JASTRO-accredited hospitals were better than general hospitals. Few institutions have their own educational systems for qualified and non-qualified RTMP, but they encourage them to attend educational seminars and conferences. It is desirable to provide systematic education and training by academic and professional organizations to maintain the skills of individuals.

Several staffing models are used to determine the required medical physics staffing, including radiotherapy technologists, of radiation oncology departments. However, since Japanese facilities tend to be smaller in scale than foreign ones, those models might not apply to Japan. Therefore, in this study, we surveyed workloads in Japan to estimate the optimal medical physics staffing in external beam radiotherapy. A total of 837 facilities were surveyed to collect information regarding radiotherapy techniques and medical physics specialists (RTMPs). The survey covered facility information, staffing, patient volume, equipment volume, workload and quality assurance (QA) status. Full-time equivalent (FTE) factors were estimated from the workload and compared with several models. Responses were received from 579 facilities (69.2%). The median annual patient volume was 369 at designated cancer care hospitals (DCCHs) and 252 across all facilities. In addition, the median FTE of RTMPs was 4.6 at DCCHs and 3.0 at all sites, and the average QA implementation rate for radiotherapy equipment was 69.4%. Furthermore, advanced treatment technologies have increased workloads, particularly in computed tomography simulations and treatment planning tasks. Compared to published models, larger facilities (over 500 annual patients) had a shortage of medical physics staff. In very small facilities (about 140 annual patients), the medical physics staffing requirement was estimated to be 0.5 FTE, implying that employing a full-time medical physicist would be inefficient. However, ensuring the quality of radiotherapy is an important issue, given the limited number of RTMPs. Our study provides insights into optimizing staffing and resource allocation in radiotherapy departments.

Deep learning-based CT image reconstruction (DLR) is a state-of-the-art method for obtaining CT images. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of DLR in radiotherapy. Data were acquired using a large-bore CT system and an electron density phantom for radiotherapy. We compared the CT values, image noise, and CT value-to-electron density conversion table of DLR and hybrid iterative reconstruction (H-IR) for various doses. Further, we evaluated three DLR reconstruction strength patterns (Mild, Standard, and Strong). The variations of CT values of DLR and H-IR were large at low doses, and the difference in average CT values was insignificant with less than 10 HU at doses of 100 mAs and above. DLR showed less change in CT values and smaller image noise relative to H-IR. The noise-reduction effect was particularly large in the low-dose region. The difference in image noise between DLR Mild and Standard/Strong was large, suggesting the usefulness of reconstruction intensities higher than Mild. DLR showed stable CT values and low image noise for various materials, even at low doses; particularly for Standard or Strong, the reduction in image noise was significant. These findings indicate the usefulness of DLR in treatment planning using large-bore CT systems.

A calibration phantom made of Derlin requires manual translational and rotational adjustments when calibrating a light-section-based optical surface monitoring system (VOXELAN) with a phantom material that insufficiently reflects the red-slit laser of the system. This study aimed to develop a new calibration phantom using different materials and to propose a procedure that minimizes setup errors. The new phantom, primarily made of PET100, which exhibits good reflectivity without scattering or attenuating the red-slit laser at the phantom surface, was shaped in a manner similar to that of previous designs. The detection accuracy and stability were evaluated using six different regions of interest (ROIs) and compared with previous phantom designs. The coordinate coincidence between the machine and VOXELAN was compared for both phantom designs. The detection accuracy and stability of the new phantom in the reference ROI setting were found to be better than those of previous phantoms. In the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions, the coordinate coincidences in translational directions for the previous phantom were obtained at 1.07 ± 0.66, 1.46 ± 0.47, and 0.26 ± 0.83 mm, whereas those for the new phantom were obtained at 0.28 ± 0.21, 0.18 ± 0.30, and - 0.30 ± 0.29 mm, respectively. The rotational errors of the two phantoms were identical. The new phantom exhibited improved detection stability because of its good reflectivity. Additionally, the new placement procedure was linked to the six-degrees-of-freedom couch. A combination of the new phantom and its new placement procedure is suitable for coordinate calibration of VOXELAN.

PURPOSE: The spot position is an important beam parameter in the quality assurance of scanning proton therapy. In this study, we investigated dosimetric impact of systematic 15 spot position errors (SSPE) in spot scanning proton therapy using three types of optimization methods of head and neck tumor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The planning simulation was performed with ± 2 mm model SSPE in the X and Y directions. Treatment plans were created using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and single-field uniform dose (SFUD). IMPT plans were created by two optimization methods: with worst-case optimization (WCO-IMPT) and without (IMPT). For clinical target volume (CTV), D95%, D50%, and D2cc were used for analysis. For organs at risk (OAR), Dmean was used to analyze the brain, cochlea, and parotid, and Dmax was used to analyze brainsetem, chiasm, optic nerve, and cord. RESULTS: For CTV, the variation (1 standard deviation) of D95% was ± 0.88%, 0.97% and 0.97% to WCO-IMPT, IMPT, and SFUD plan. The variation of D50% and D2cc of CTV showed <0.5% variation in all plans. The dose variation due to SSPE was larger in OAR, and worst-case optimization reduced the dose variation, especially in Dmax. The analysis results showed that SSPE has little impact on SFUD. CONCLUSIONS: We clarified the impact of SSPE on dose distribution for three optimization methods. SFUD was shown to be a robust treatment plan for OARs, and the WCO can be used to increase robustness to SSPE in IMPT.

In single-isocenter multiple-target stereotactic radiotherapy (SIMT-SRT), it is difficult to evaluate both the geometrical accuracy and absorbed dose measurement when irradiating off-isocenter targets. This study aimed to develop a simple quality assurance (QA) method to evaluate off-isocenter irradiation position accuracy in SIMT-SRT and compare its feasibility with that of a commercial device. First, we created two types of inserts and metallic balls with a diameter of 5 mm to be inserted into a commercially available phantom (SIMT phantom). Second, we developed a dedicated analysis software using Python for the Winston-Lutz test (WLT). Third, an image processing software, including the filtered back-projection algorithm, was developed to analyze the images obtained using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Fourth, the feasibility of our method was evaluated by comparing it with the results of WLT using two commercially available phantoms: WL-QA and MultiMet-WL cubes. Notably, 92% of the results in one-dimensional deviations were within 0.26 mm (EPID pixel width). The correlation coefficients were 0.52, 0.92, and 0.96 in the left-right, superior-inferior, and anterior-posterior directions, respectively. In the WLT, a maximum two-dimensional deviation of 0.70 mm was detected in our method, while the deviation in the other method was within 0.5 mm. The advantage of our method is that it can evaluate the geometrical accuracy at any gantry angle during dynamic rotation irradiation using a filtered back-projection algorithm, even if the target is located off the isocenter. Our method can perform WLT at arbitrary positions and is suitable for the QA of dynamic rotation irradiation using an EPID.

PURPOSE: Accurate calculation of the proton beam range inside a patient is an important topic in proton therapy. In recent times, a computed tomography (CT) image reconstruction algorithm was developed for treatment planning to reduce the impact of the variation of the CT number with changes in imaging conditions. In this study, we investigated the usefulness of this new reconstruction algorithm (DirectDensity™: DD) in proton therapy based on its comparison with filtered back projection (FBP). METHODS: We evaluated the effects of variations in the X-ray tube potential and target size on the FBP- and DD-image values and investigated the usefulness of the DD algorithm based on the range variations and dosimetric quantity variations. RESULTS: For X-ray tube potential variations, the range variation in the case of FBP was up to 12.5 mm (20.8%), whereas that of DD was up to 3.3 mm (5.6%). Meanwhile, for target size variations, the range variation in the case of FBP was up to 2.2 mm (2.5%), whereas that of DD was up to 0.9 mm (1.4%). Moreover, the variations observed in the case of DD were smaller than those of FBP for all dosimetric quantities. CONCLUSION: The dose distributions obtained using DD were more robust against variations in the CT imaging conditions (X-ray tube potential and target size) than those obtained using FBP, and the range variations were often less than the dose calculation grid (2 mm). Therefore, the DD algorithm is effective in a robust workflow and reduces uncertainty in range calculations.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of quality assurance (QA)-related setup errors in passive proton therapy for prostate cancer with and without a hydrogel spacer. We used 20 typical computed tomography (CT) images of prostate cancer: 10 patients with and 10 patients without spacers. The following 12 model errors were assumed: output error ± 2%, range error ± 1 mm, setup error ± 1 mm for three directions, and multileaf collimator (MLC) position error ± 1 mm. We created verification plans with model errors and compared the prostate-rectal (PR) distance and dose indices with and without the spacer. The mean PR distance at the isocenter was 1.1 ± 1.3 mm without the spacer and 12.9 ± 2.9 mm with the spacer (P < 0.001). The mean rectum V53.5 GyE, V50 GyE, and V34.5 GyE in the original plan were 2.3%, 4.1%, and 12.1% without the spacer and 0.1%, 0.4%, and 3.3% with the spacer (P = 0.0011, < 0.001, and < 0.001). The effects of the range and lateral setup errors were small; however, the effects of the vertical/long setup and MLC error were significant in the cases without the spacer. The means of the maximum absolute change from original plans across all scenarios in the rectum V53.5 GyE, V50 GyE, and V34.5 GyE were 1.3%, 1.5%, and 2.3% without the spacer, and 0.2%, 0.4%, and 1.3% with the spacer (P < 0.001, < 0.001, and = 0.0019). This study indicated that spacer injections were also effective in reducing the change in the rectal dose due to setup errors.

A radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeter (RGD) is used for a postal audit of a photon beam because of its various excellent characteristics. However, it has not been used for scanning proton beams because its response characteristics have not been verified. In this study, the response of RGD to scanning protons was investigated to develop a dosimetry protocol using the linear energy transfer (LET)-based correction factor. The responses of RGD to four maximum-range-energy-pattern proton beams were verified by comparing it with ionization chamber (IC) dosimetry. The LET at each measurement depth was calculated via Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. The LET correction factor ( k LET RGD ) was the ratio between the uncorrected RGD dose ( D raw RGD ) and the IC dose at each measurement depth. k LET RGD can be represented as a function of LET using the following equation: k LET RGD LET = - 0.035 LET + 1.090 . D raw RGD showed a linear under-response with increasing LET, and the maximum dose difference between the IC dose and D raw RGD was 15.2% at an LET of 6.07 keV/μm. The LET-based correction dose ( D LET RGD ) conformed within 3.6% of the IC dose. The mean dose difference (±SD) of D raw RGD and D LET RGD was -2.5 ± 6.9% and 0.0 ± 1.6%, respectively. To achieve accurate dose verification for scanning proton beams using RGD, we derived a linear regression equation based on LET. The results show that with appropriate LET correction, RGD can be used for dose verification of scanning proton beams.

A radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeter (RGD) is widely used in postal audit system for photon beams in Japan. However, proton dosimetry in RGDs is scarcely used owing to a lack of clarity in their response to beam quality. In this study, we investigated RGD response to beam quality for establishing a suitable linear energy transfer (LET)-corrected dosimetry protocol in a therapeutic proton beam. The RGD response was compared with ionization chamber measurement for a 100-225 MeV passive proton beam. LET of the measurement points was calculated by the Monte Carlo method. An LET-correction factor, defined as a ratio between the non-corrected RGD dose and ionization chamber dose, of 1.226×(LET)-0.171 was derived for the RGD response. The magnitude of the LET-dependence of RGD increased with LET; for an LET of 8.2 keV/μm, the RGD under-response was up to 16%. The coefficient of determination, mean difference ± SD of non-corrected RGD dose, residual range-corrected RGD dose, and LET-corrected RGD dose to the ionization chamber are 0.923, 3.7 ± 4.2%, -2.4 ± 7.5%, and 0.04 ± 2.1%, respectively. The LET-corrected RGD dose was within 5% of the corresponding ionization chamber dose at all energies until 200 MeV, where it was 5.3% lower than the ionization chamber dose. A corrected LET-dependence of RGD using a correction factor based on a power function of LET and precise dosimetric verification close to the maximum LET were realized here. We further confirmed establishment of an accurate postal audit under various irradiation conditions.

PURPOSE: The beam model in radiation treatment planning systems (RTPSs) plays a crucial role in determining the accuracy of calculated dose distributions. The purpose of this study was to ascertain differences in beam models and their dosimetric influences when a golden beam dataset (GBD) and multi-institution measured beam datasets (MBDs) are used for beam modeling in RTPSs. METHODS: The MBDs collected from 15 institutions, and the MBDs' beam models, were compared with a GBD, and the GBD's beam model, for Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator. The calculated dose distributions of the MBDs' beam models were compared with those of the GBD's beam model for simple geometries in a water phantom. Calculated dose distributions were similarly evaluated in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for TG-119 C-shape and TG-244 head and neck, at several dose constraints of the planning target volumes (PTVs), and organs at risk. RESULTS: The agreements of the MBDs with the GBD were almost all within ±1%. The calculated dose distributions for simple geometries in a water phantom also closely corresponded between the beam models of GBD and MBDs. Nevertheless, there were considerable differences between the beam models. The maximum differences between the mean energy of the energy spectra of GBD and MBDs were -0.12 MeV (-10.5%) in AcurosXB (AXB, Eclipse) and 0.11 MeV (7.7%) in collapsed cone convolution (CCC, RayStation). The differences in the VMAT calculated dose distributions varied for each dose region, plan, X-ray energy, and dose calculation algorithm. The ranges of the differences in the dose constraints were -5.6% to 3.0% for AXB and -24.1% to 2.8% for CCC. In several VMAT plans, the calculated dose distributions of GBD's beam model tended to be lower in high-dose regions and higher in low-dose regions than those of the MBDs' beam models. CONCLUSIONS: We found that small differences in beam data have large impacts on the beam models, and on calculated dose distributions in clinical VMAT plan, even if beam data correspond within ±1%. GBD's beam model was not a representative beam model. The beam models of GBD and MBDs and their calculated dose distributions under clinical conditions were significantly different. These differences are most likely due to the extensive variation in the beam models, reflecting the characteristics of beam data. The energy spectrum and radial energy in the beam model varied in a wide range, even if the differences in the beam data were <±1%. To minimize the uncertainty of the calculated dose distributions in clinical plans, it was best to use the institutional MBD for beam modeling, or the beam model that ensures the accuracy of calculated dose distributions.

OBJECTIVES: The efficacy of radiotherapy for breast cancer has greatly improved owing to better irradiation methods. Radiotherapy aims to deliver therapeutic doses to predetermined target volumes while sparing surrounding healthy tissues. However, there are few reports on radiation exposure to eye lenses, and the recommended exposure limits to ocular lens have been substantially reduced in recent years. This study aimed to investigate the amount of radiation exposure to eye lenses using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) and determine whether wearing special protective devices to protect the eyes, as an organ at risk, during whole breast irradiation, is necessary. METHODS: This experiment used OSLDs on water-equivalent phantom to measure the change in scattered radiation dose due to the difference of irradiation field while using 4- and 6-MV photons of TrueBeam linear accelerator. Using a total treatment dose of 50 Gy, a target was positioned to approximate the breast, and a plan was formulated to deliver 2 Gy per treatment by tangential irradiation. The mean (SD) irradiation dose at the lens position outside the irradiation field was reported. RESULTS: The scattered radiation dose outside the irradiation field was more affected by the irradiation field size than by the radiation energy. The out-of-field irradiation dose with a larger field of view was higher than that with a smaller field of view. The use of 0.07- and 0.83-mm-thick lead shield protective glasses reduced the radiation dose by 56.1% (P < .001) and 55.6% (P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this experimental model, the amount of radiation the eye was exposed to during whole breast irradiation was determined by the distance of the eye from the radiation field edge and by wearing protective glasses. In clinical practice, the protection offered by eyeglasses may reduce the risk of long-term side effects and allow the use of higher intensive radiotherapy.

We clarified the reconstructed 3D dose difference between two different commercial software programs (Mobius3D v2.0 and PerFRACTION v1.6.4). Five prostate cancer patients treated with IMRT (74 Gy/37 Fr) were studied. Log files and cine EPID images were acquired for each fraction. 3D patient dose was reconstructed using log files (Mobius3D) or log files with EPID imaging (PerFRACTION). The treatment planning dose was re-calculated on homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms, and log files and cine EPID images were acquired. Measured doses were compared with the reconstructed point doses in the phantom. Next, we compared dosimetric metrics (mean dose for PTV, rectum, and bladder) calculated by Mobius3D and PerFRACTION for all fractions from five patients. Dose difference at isocenter between measurement and reconstructed dose for two software programs was within 3.0% in both homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms. Moreover, the dose difference was larger using skip arc plan than that using full arc plan, especially for PerFRACTION (e.g., dose difference at isocenter for PerFRACTION: 0.34% for full arc plan vs. -4.50% for skip arc plan in patient 1). For patients, differences in dosimetric parameters were within 1% for almost all fractions. PerFRACTION had wider range of dose difference between first fraction and the other fractions than Mobius3D (e.g., maximum difference: 0.50% for Mobius3D vs. 1.85% for PerFRACTION), possibly because EPID may detect some types of MLC positioning errors such as miscalibration errors or mechanical backlash which cannot be detected by log files, or that EPID data might include image acquisition failure and image noise.