Notes

The consequence associated with kidney artery-only or kidney artery-vein clamping during partial nephrectomy about short and also long-term well-designed final results: Is clamping technique critical?
To describe an implementation of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for calculation of proton stopping-power ratios (SPRs) in a commercial treatment-planning system. The process for validation and the workflow for safe deployment of DECT is described, using single-energy computed tomography (SECT) as a safety check for DECT dose calculation.

The DECT images were acquired at 80 kVp and 140 kVp and were processed with computed tomography scanner software to derive the electron density and effective atomic number images. Reference SPRs of tissue-equivalent plugs from Gammex (Middleton, Wisconsin) and CIRS (Computerized Imaging Reference Systems, Norfolk, Virginia) electron density phantoms were used for validation and comparison of SECT versus DECT calculated through the Eclipse treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California) application programming interface scripting tool. An in-house software was also used to create DECT SPR computed tomography images for comparison with the s, including the head and neck.
It is feasible to use DECT for proton-dose calculation in a commercial treatment planning system in a safe manner. The range margins can be reduced to 2% in some sites, including the head and neck.
A multi-field optimization (MFO) technique that uses beam-specific spot placement volumes (SPVs) and spot avoidance volumes (SAVs) is introduced for bilateral head and neck (H&N) cancers. These beam-specific volumes are used to guide the optimizer to consistently achieve optimal organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing with target coverage and plan robustness.

Implementation of this technique using a 4-beam, 5-beam, and variant 5-beam arrangement is discussed. The generation of beam-specific SPVs and SAVs derived from target and OARs are shown. The SPVs for select fields are further partitioned into optimization volumes for uniform dose distributions that resemble those of single-field optimization (SFO). A conventional MFO plan that does not use beam-specific spot placement guidance (MFOcon) and an MFO plan that uses only beam-specific SPV (MFOspv) are compared with current technique (MFOspv/sav), using both simulated scenarios and forward-calculated plans on weekly verification computed tomography (VFCT) scans.

Dose distribution characteristics of the 4-beam, 5-beam, and variant 5-beam technique are demonstrated with discussion on OAR sparing. When comparing the MFOcon, MFOspv, and MFOspv/sav, the MFOspv/sav is shown to have superior OAR sparing in 9 of the 14 OARs examined. It also shows clinical plan robustness when evaluated by using both simulated uncertainty scenarios and forward-calculated weekly VFCTs throughout the 7-week treatment course.

The MFOspv/sav technique is a systematic approach using SPVs and SAVs to guide the optimizer to consistently reach desired OAR dose values and plan robustness.
The MFOspv/sav technique is a systematic approach using SPVs and SAVs to guide the optimizer to consistently reach desired OAR dose values and plan robustness.In this review article, we review the 3 important aspects of linear-energy-transfer (LET) in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for head and neck (H&N) cancer management. Accurate LET calculation methods are essential for LET-guided plan evaluation and optimization, which can be calculated either by analytical methods or by Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Recently, some new 3D analytical approaches to calculate LET accurately and efficiently have been proposed. On the other hand, several fast MC codes have also been developed to speed up the MC simulation by simplifying nonessential physics models and/or using the graphics processor unit (GPU)-acceleration approach. Some concepts related to LET are also briefly summarized including (1) dose-weighted versus fluence-weighted LET; (2) restricted versus unrestricted LET; and (3) microdosimetry versus macrodosimetry. ALK inhibitor drugs LET-guided plan evaluation has been clinically done in some proton centers. Recently, more and more studies using patient outcomes as the biologancers.
Dose constraints are of paramount importance for the outcome of any radiotherapy treatment. In this article, we report dose-volume constraints as well as currently used fractionation schedules for carbon ion radiotherapy as applied in MedAustron (Wiener Neustadt, Austria).

For fractionation schedules, both German and Japanese regimes were used. From the clinical experience of National Institute of Radiological Sciences (Chiba, Japan) and Heidelberg Ion Therapy (Heidelberg, Germany; formerly GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany) and the work by colleagues in Centro Nazionale Adroterapia Oncologica (Pavia, Italy) recalculating the dose from the microdosimetric kinetic model to the local effect model, we have set the dose constraints for critical organs of the head and neck area. Where no clinical data was available, an educated guess was made, based on data available from photon and proton series.

We report the constraints for the optic nerve and chiasm, brainstem, spinal cord, cochlea, brain parenchyma, salivary gland, eye and adnexa, and mandibular/maxillary bone; constraints are grouped based on a fractionation scheme (German versus Japanese) and the risk of toxicity (safe, low to middle, and middle to high).

We think validation of dose constraints should present a relevant part of the activity of any carbon ion radiotherapy facility, and we anticipate future multicentric, joint evaluations.
We think validation of dose constraints should present a relevant part of the activity of any carbon ion radiotherapy facility, and we anticipate future multicentric, joint evaluations.In intensity-modulated proton therapy, robust optimization processes have been developed to manage uncertainties associated with (1) range, (2) setup, (3) anatomic changes, (4) dose calculation, and (5) biological effects. Here we review our experience using a robust optimization technique that directly incorporates range and setup uncertainties into the optimization process to manage those sources of uncertainty. We also review procedures for implementing adaptive planning to manage the anatomic uncertainties. Finally, we share some early experiences regarding the impact of uncertainties in dose calculation and biological effects, along with techniques to manage and potentially reduce these uncertainties.
Here's my website: https://www.selleckchem.com/ALK.html