Mori, Shinichiro

Objective: Carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) has demonstrated success in treating radioresistant disease within the head and neck, owing to its unique physical and radiobiological properties. Construction cost remains prohibitive; a center offering only a horizontal port may bridge this difficulty, but removal of the vertical port may prohibit treatment of disease near critical organs-at-risk. Building a center only containing a horizontal treatment port has been proposed as one method for cost savings. Methods: 20 complex cases of head and neck cancer previously treated with conventional CIRT were retrospectively planned using horizontal-port-only treatment incorporating non-coplanar treatment angles to achieve greater degrees of freedom. These were dosimetrically compared with the previous plans. Results: Comparable D95 coverage of both planning target volume and gross tumor volume with ability to meet organ-at-risk constraints were feasible with horizontal-port-only treatment. Collectively differences were noted in PTV D95, brain stem Dmax, contralateral eye Dmax and V10 Gy (RBE); further qualitative differences were noted on a plan-by-plan basis dependent on disease location. Conclusion: Horizontal-port-only treatment employing non-coplanar angles was feasible for complicated head and neck disease typically treated with CIRT, though careful consideration is necessary on a plan-by-plan basis. Advances in knowledge: It is worth noting that non-coplanar approaches are not typically used with the current treatment gantry and may extend further the difference between horizontal port planning and a gantry-based gold-standard.

Abstract Dose uncertainty induced by respiratory motion remains a major concern for treating thoracic and abdominal lesions using particle beams. This Task Group report reviews the impact of tumor motion and dosimetric considerations in particle radiotherapy, current motion‐management techniques, and limitations for different particle‐beam delivery modes (i.e., passive scattering, uniform scanning, and pencil‐beam scanning). Furthermore, the report provides guidance and risk analysis for quality assurance of the motion‐management procedures to ensure consistency and accuracy, and discusses future development and emerging motion‐management strategies. This report supplements previously published AAPM report TG76, and considers aspects of motion management that are crucial to the accurate and safe delivery of particle‐beam therapy. To that end, this report produces general recommendations for commissioning and facility‐specific dosimetric characterization, motion assessment, treatment planning, active and passive motion‐management techniques, image guidance and related decision‐making, monitoring throughout therapy, and recommendations for vendors. Key among these recommendations are that: (1) facilities should perform thorough planning studies (using retrospective data) and develop standard operating procedures that address all aspects of therapy for any treatment site involving respiratory motion; (2) a risk‐based methodology should be adopted for quality management and ongoing process improvement.