Explore the vast range of titles available.

The case of a 50‐year‐old man affected by a rhabdomiosarcoma metastatic lesion in the left flank Is reported. The patient was addressed to 50.4 Gy radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy in order to locally control the lesion. A Tri‐60‐Co magnetic resonance hybrid radiotherapy unit was used for treatment delivery and a respiratory gating protocol was applied for the different breathing phases (Free Breathing, Deep Inspiration Breath Hold and Final Expiration Breath Hold). Three intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were calculated and Final Expiration Breath Hold plan was finally selected due to the absence of PTV coverage differences and better organs at risk sparing (i.e. kidneys). This case report suggests that organs at risk avoidance with MRI‐guided respiratory‐gated Radiotherapy is feasible and particularly advantageous whenever sparing the organs at risk is of utmost dosimetric or clinical importance.

The attenuation of 511 keV photons by the structure of a PET/MR scanner was measured prior to energizing the magnet. The exposure rate from a source of fluorine‐18 was measured in air and, with the source placed at the isocenter of the instrument, at various points outside of the scanner. In an arc from 45 to 135 degrees relative to the long axis of the scanner and at a distance of 1.5 m from the isocenter, the attenuation by the scanner is at least 5.6 half‐value layers from the MR component alone and at least 6.6 half‐value layers with the PET insert installed. This information could inform better design of the radiation shielding for PET/MR scanners.

Purpose The quality of on‐board imaging systems, including cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT), plays a vital role in image‐guided radiation therapy (IGRT) and adaptive radiotherapy. Recently, there has been an upgrade of the CBCT systems fused in the O‐ring linear accelerators called HyperSight, featuring a high imaging performance. As the characterization of a new imaging system is essential, we evaluated the image quality of the HyperSight system by comparing it with Halcyon 3.0 CBCT and providing benchmark data for routine imaging quality assurance. Methods The HyperSight features ultra‐fast scan time, a larger kilovoltage (kV) detector, a more substantial kV tube, and an advanced reconstruction algorithm. Imaging protocols in the two modes of operation, treatment mode with IGRT and the CBCT for planning (CBCTp) mode were evaluated and compared with Halcyon 3.0 CBCT. Image quality metrics, including spatial resolution, contrast resolution, uniformity, noise, computed tomography (CT) number linearity, and calibration error, were assessed using a Catphan and an electron density phantom and analyzed with TotalQA software. Results HyperSight demonstrated substantial improvements in contrast‐to‐noise ratio and noise in both IGRT and CBCTp modes compared to Halcyon 3.0 CBCT. CT number calibration error of HyperSight CBCTp mode (1.06%) closely matches that of a full CT scanner (0.72%), making it suitable for adaptive planning. In addition, the advanced hardware of HyperSight, such as ultra‐fast scan time (5.9 s) or 2.5 times larger heat unit capacity, enhanced the clinical efficiency in our experience. Conclusions HyperSight represented a significant advancement in CBCT imaging. With its image quality, CT number accuracy, and ultra‐fast scans, HyperSight has a potential to transform patient care and treatment outcomes. The enhanced scan speed and image quality of HyperSight are expected to significantly improve the quality and efficiency of treatment, particularly benefiting patients.

Purpose Studies have evaluated the viability of using open‐face masks as an immobilization technique to treat intracranial and head and neck cancers. This method offers less stress to the patient with comparable accuracy to closed‐face masks. Open‐face masks permit implementation of surface guided radiation therapy (SGRT) to assist in positioning and motion management. Research suggests that changes in patient facial expressions may influence the SGRT system to generate false positional corrections. This study aims to quantify these errors produced by the SGRT system due to face motion. Methods Ten human subjects were immobilized using open‐face masks. Four discrete SGRT regions of interest (ROIs) were analyzed based on anatomical features to simulate different mask openings. The largest ROI was lateral to the cheeks, superior to the eyebrows, and inferior to the mouth. The smallest ROI included only the eyes and bridge of the nose. Subjects were asked to open and close their eyes and simulate fear and annoyance and peak isocenter shifts were recorded. This was performed in both standard and SRS specific resolutions with the C‐RAD Catalyst HD system. Results All four ROIs analyzed in SRS and Standard resolutions demonstrated an average deviation of 0.3 ± 0.3 mm for eyes closed and 0.4 ± 0.4 mm shift for eyes open, and 0.3 ± 0.3 mm for eyes closed and 0.8 ± 0.9 mm shift for eyes open. The average deviation observed due to changing facial expressions was 1.4 ± 0.9 mm for SRS specific and 1.6 ± 1.6 mm for standard resolution. Conclusion The SGRT system can generate false positional corrections for face motion and this is amplified at lower resolutions and smaller ROIs. These errors should be considered in the overall tolerances and treatment plan when using open‐face masks with SGRT and may warrant additional radiographic imaging.

In the Monte Carlo‐based treatment planning system (TPS) Monaco, transmission probability filters (TPF) are utilized to describe the transmission through the multi leaf collimator (MLC). By having knowledge of the TPF parameters for various photon beam energies, adjusting the MLC transmission parameters becomes easier, enhancing the accuracy of the Monte Carlo algorithm in achieving a dose distribution that closely aligns with the irradiated dose at the Versa HD linear accelerator (linac). The objective of this study was to determine the TPF parameters for 6MV, 10MV, 6MV flattening filter free (FFF) and 10MV FFF for a Versa HD linac equipped with Agility MLC. The TPF parameters were adjusted using point dose measurements and vendor‐provided fields specifically designed to fine‐tune the MLC. After adjusting the TPF parameters, a gamma passing rate (GPR) analysis was conducted on 25 treatment plans to ensure that the Monte Carlo model, with the updated TPF parameters, accurately matched the actual linac delivery. The TPF values ranged from 0.0018 to 0.0032 for leaf transmission and 1.15 to 1.25 for Leaf Tip leakage across the different energies. The average GPR ranged from 97.8% for 10MV FFF to 98.5% for 6MV photon energies. Additionally, the TPF parameters for 6MV obtained in this study were consistent with previously published TPF values for 6MV photon energy. Hence, it was concluded that optimizing the TPF does not need to be performed for every individual Versa HD linac with Agility MLC. Instead, the published parameters can be applied to other Versa HD linacs to enhance clinical accuracy. In conclusion, this study determined the TPF parameters for 6MV and previously unpublished photon energies 10MV, 6MV FFF and 10MV FFF. These parameters can be easily transferred to other facilities, resulting in improved agreement between the dose distribution from the TPS and the linac.

Purpose Beam delivery latency in respiratory‐gated particle therapy systems is a crucial issue to dose delivery accuracy. The aim of this study is to develop a multi‐channel signal acquisition platform for investigating gating latencies occurring within RPM respiratory gating system (Varian, USA) and ProBeam proton treatment system (Varian, USA) individually. Methods The multi‐channel signal acquisition platform consisted of several electronic components, including a string position sensor for target motion detection, a photodiode for proton beam sensing, an interfacing board for accessing the trigger signal between the respiratory gating system and the proton treatment system, a signal acquisition device for sampling and synchronizing signals from the aforementioned components, and a laptop for controlling the signal acquisition device and data storage. RPM system latencies were determined by comparing the expected gating phases extracted from the motion signal with the trigger signal's state turning points. ProBeam system latencies were assessed by comparing the state turning points of the trigger signal with the beam signal. The total beam delivery latencies were calculated as the sum of delays in the respiratory gating system and the cyclotron proton treatment system. During latency measurements, simulated sinusoidal motion were applied at different amplitudes and periods for complete beam delivery latency evaluation under different breathing patterns. Each breathing pattern was repeated 30 times for statistical analysis. Results The measured gating ON/OFF latencies in the RPM system were found to be 104.20 ± 13.64 ms and 113.60 ± 14.98 ms, respectively. The measured gating ON/OFF delays in the ProBeam system were 108.29 ± 0.85 ms and 1.20 ± 0.04 ms, respectively. The total beam ON/OFF latencies were determined to be 212.50 ± 13.64 ms and 114.80 ± 14.98 ms. Conclusion With the developed multi‐channel signal acquisition platform, it was able to investigate the gating lags happened in both the respiratory gating system and the proton treatment system. The resolution of the platform is enough to distinguish the delays at the millisecond time level. Both the respiratory gating system and the proton treatment system made contributions to gating latency. Both systems contributed nearly equally to the total beam ON latency, with approximately 100 ms. In contrast, the respiratory gating system was the dominant contributor to the total beam OFF latency.

Background The clinical introduction of dedicated treatment units for online adaptive radiation therapy (OART) has led to widespread adoption of daily adaptive radiotherapy. OART allows for rapid generation of treatment plans using daily patient anatomy, potentially leading to reduction of treatment margins and increased normal tissue sparing. However, the OART workflow does not allow for measurement of patient‐specific quality assurance (PSQA) during treatment delivery sessions and instead relies on secondary dose calculations for verification of adapted plans. It remains unknown if independent dose verification is a sufficient surrogate for PSQA measurements. Purpose To evaluate the plan quality of previously treated adaptive plans through multiple standard PSQA measurements. Methods This IRB‐approved retrospective study included sixteen patients previously treated with OART at our institution. PSQA measurements were performed for each patient's scheduled and adaptive plans: five adaptive plans were randomly selected to perform ion chamber measurements and two adaptive plans were randomly selected for ArcCHECK measurements. The same ArcCHECK 3D dose distribution was also sent to Mobius3D to evaluate the second‐check dosimetry system. Results All (n = 96) ion chamber measurements agreed with the planned dose within 3% with a mean of 1.4% (± 0.7%). All (n = 48) plans passed ArcCHECK measurements using a 95% gamma passing threshold and 3%/2 mm criteria with a mean of 99.1% (± 0.7%). All (n = 48) plans passed Mobius3D second‐check performed with 95% gamma passing threshold and 5%/3 mm criteria with a mean of 99.0% (± 0.2%). Conclusion Plan measurement for PSQA may not be necessary for every online‐adaptive treatment verification. We recommend the establishment of a periodic PSQA check to better understand trends in passing rates for delivered adaptive treatments.