Citations

Abstract Purpose To develop and implement an in‑house treatment‑management platform to improve communication, data accessibility, and task tracking across a radiation oncology department. Methods We developed Capsule, a custom software platform that centralizes patient data from the ARIA oncology information system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, United States), and integrates it with data from Outlook (Microsoft, Redmond, United States), spreadsheets, and manual inputs. Built using C#, SQL, and the .NET framework, it features a graphical interface in XAML with twelve modular tools to support workflows across a large multi‐modality department. A formal validation, feedback, and maintenance cycle was established. Its impact on workflow efficiency was evaluated using average CarePath task duration before and after implementation, supplemented by user interviews and surveys. Results The Department Schedule, Treatment Planning and On‐Treatment Whiteboard, Spreadsheet, and various workload tracking modules emerged as the most frequently used among dosimetrists surveyed.The Whiteboard module consolidates planning metadata for streamlined workflows. Workload and scheduling modules help distribute tasks fairly. The Department Schedule module centralizes daily role and contact information. The Spreadsheet module allows dosimetrists to identify a reference for unique plans and provides secure access to large exportable tabulated patient data and clinical trends. Other modules support proton down‐time replanning and special procedure physics assignment. One year after Capsule's implementation, most tasks in the external beam radiation therapy workflow experienced a reduction in average duration. Discussion Capsule streamlines workflows by integrating multiple tools into a single platform, supporting urgent scenarios, and improving task hand‐off. Its modular design allows customization to local workflows, but implementation must be guided by institutional oversight and formal quality management to ensure data security and compliance. Conclusion Capsule can provide a solution for improved workflow efficiency, communication, and interdisciplinary coordination. By democratizing access to routine and retrospective data, it supports treatment planning, scheduling, and quality improvement. Ongoing updates are essential as clinical practices evolve.

Background/Objectives: Adjuvant radiation for gynecologic malignancies often exposes organs at risk (OARs), such as the bone marrow, bowel, rectum, and bladder, to radiation, leading to toxicities that impact treatment tolerance and patient quality of life. Scanning proton beam therapy, particularly with Individual Field Simultaneous Optimization (IFSO), may offer dosimetric and biological advantages over volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). This study evaluates the clinical impact of IFSO-based proton planning in post-operative gynecologic cancer patients. Materials and Methods: Fourteen patients receiving adjuvant proton therapy to 45 Gy in 25 fractions were retrospectively analyzed. Comparison VMAT plans were generated on the same datasets. Dose–volume metrics for key OARs and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) were compared using paired statistical tests. Robustness evaluations accounted for setup and range uncertainties. Results: Proton plans significantly reduced dose to bone marrow (V10Gy: 58% vs. 86%, p < 0.00001; V20Gy: 47% vs. 58%, p < 0.00001), small bowel (V20Gy: 21% vs. 56%, p < 0.00001), and femoral heads (left femoral head mean: 11Gy vs. 13Gy, p = 0.032; right femoral head mean: 11Gy vs. 13Gy, p = 0.022). NTCP modeling predicted significantly lower rates of bowel urgency (9.4% vs. 3.3%, p < 0.001) and hematologic toxicity (10.2% vs. 4.9%, p < 0.001) with proton therapy. Plans remained robust across uncertainty scenarios. Conclusions: IFSO-based scanning proton therapy provides clinically meaningful sparing of bone marrow and bowel, with the potential to reduce hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities. These findings support its use in patients receiving adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy, particularly those undergoing extended field treatment or chemotherapy.

ObjectiveDe novo variants in cullin‐3 ubiquitin ligase (CUL3) have been strongly associated with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), but no large case series have been reported so far. Here, we aimed to collect sporadic cases carrying rare variants in CUL3, describe the genotype–phenotype correlation, and investigate the underlying pathogenic mechanism.MethodsGenetic data and detailed clinical records were collected via multicenter collaboration. Dysmorphic facial features were analyzed using GestaltMatcher. Variant effects on CUL3 protein stability were assessed using patient‐derived T‐cells.ResultsWe assembled a cohort of 37 individuals with heterozygous CUL3 variants presenting a syndromic NDD characterized by intellectual disability with or without autistic features. Of these, 35 have loss‐of‐function (LoF) and 2 have missense variants. CUL3 LoF variants in patients may affect protein stability leading to perturbations in protein homeostasis, as evidenced by decreased ubiquitin‐protein conjugates in vitro. Notably, we show that 4E‐BP1 (EIF4EBP1), a prominent substrate of CUL3, fails to be targeted for proteasomal degradation in patient‐derived cells.InterpretationOur study further refines the clinical and mutational spectrum of CUL3‐associated NDDs, expands the spectrum of cullin RING E3 ligase‐associated neuropsychiatric disorders, and suggests haploinsufficiency via LoF variants is the predominant pathogenic mechanism. ANN NEUROL 2025;97:76–89

AbstractBackgroundMechanical accuracy should be verified before implementing a proton stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) program. Linear accelerator (Linac)‐based SRS systems often use electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) to verify beam isocentricity. Because proton therapy systems do not have EPID, beam isocentricity tests of proton SRS may still rely on films, which are not efficient.PurposeTo validate that our proton SRS system meets mechanical precision requirements and to present an efficient method to evaluate the couch and gantry's rotational isocentricity for our proton SRS system.MethodsA dedicated applicator to hold brass aperture for proton SRS system was designed. The mechanical precision of the system was tested using a metal ball and film for 11 combinations of gantry and couch angles. A more efficient quality assurance (QA) procedure was developed, which used a scintillator device to replace the film. The couch rotational isocentricity tests were performed using orthogonal kV x‐rays with the couch rotated isocentrically to five positions (0°, 315°, 270°, 225°, and 180°). At each couch position, the distance between the metal ball in kV images and the imaging isocenter was measured. The gantry isocentricity tests were performed using a cone‐shaped scintillator and proton beams at five gantry angles (0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, and 180°), and the isocenter position and the distance of each beam path to the isocenter were obtained. Daily QA procedure was performed for 1 month to test the robustness and reproducibility of the procedure.ResultsThe gantry and couch rotational isocentricity exhibited sub‐mm precision, with most measurements within ±0.5 mm. The 1‐month QA results showed that the procedure was robust and highly reproducible to within ±0.2 mm. The gantry isocentricity test using the cone‐shaped scintillator was accurate and sensitive to variations of ±0.2 mm. The QA procedure was efficient enough to be completed within 30 min. The 1‐month isocentricity position variations were within 0.5 mm, which demonstrating that the overall proton SRS system was stable and precise.ConclusionThe proton SRS Winston–Lutz QA procedure using a cone‐shaped scintillator was efficient and robust. We were able to verify radiation delivery could be performed with sub‐mm mechanical precision.

Abstract Purpose To compare the dosimetric performances of intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans generated with two different beam angle configurations (the Right–Left oblique posterior beams and the Superior–Inferior oblique posterior beams) for the treatment of distal esophageal carcinoma in the presence of uncertainties and interplay effect. Methods and Materials Twenty patients’ IMPT plans were retrospectively selected, with 10 patients treated with the R‐L oblique posterior beams (Group R‐L) and the other 10 patients treated with the S‐I oblique posterior beams (Group S‐I). Patients in both groups were matched by their clinical target volumes (CTVs—high and low dose levels) and respiratory motion amplitudes. Dose‐volume‐histogram (DVH) indices were used to assess plan quality. DVH bandwidth was calculated to evaluate plan robustness. Interplay effect was quantified using four‐dimensional (4D) dynamic dose calculation with random respiratory starting phase of each fraction. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for heart, liver, and lung was calculated, respectively, to estimate the clinical outcomes. Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used for statistical comparison between the two groups. Results Compared with plans in Group R‐L, plans in Group S‐I resulted in significantly lower liver D mean and lung V 30Gy[RBE] with slightly higher but clinically acceptable spinal cord D max . Similar plan robustness was observed between the two groups. When interplay effect was considered, plans in Group S‐I performed statistically better for heart D mean and V 30Gy[RBE] , lung Dmean and V 5Gy[RBE] , and liver D mean , with slightly increased but clinically acceptable spinal cord D max . NTCP for liver was significantly better in Group S‐I. Conclusions IMPT plans in Group S‐I have better sparing of liver, heart, and lungs at the slight cost of spinal cord maximum dose protection, and are more interplay‐effect resilient compared to IMPT plans in Group R‐L. Our study supports the routine use of the S‐I oblique posterior beams for the treatments of distal esophageal carcinoma.

PurposeApproximate dose calculation methods were used in the nominal dose distribution and the perturbed dose distributions due to uncertainties in a commercial treatment planning system (CTPS) for robust optimization in intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT). We aimed to investigate whether the approximations influence plan quality, robustness, and interplay effect of the resulting IMPT plans for the treatment of locally advanced lung cancer patients.Materials and methodsTen consecutively treated locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were selected. Two IMPT plans were created for each patient using our in‐house developed TPS, named “Solo,” and also the CTPS, EclipseTM (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA), respectively. The plans were designed to deliver prescription doses to internal target volumes (ITV) drawn by a physician on averaged four‐dimensional computed tomography (4D‐CT). Solo plans were imported back to CTPS, and recalculated in CTPS for fair comparison. Both plans were further verified for each patient by recalculating doses in the inhalation and exhalation phases to ensure that all plans met clinical requirements. Plan robustness was quantified on all phases using dose‐volume‐histograms (DVH) indices in the worst‐case scenario. The interplay effect was evaluated for every plan using an in‐house developed software, which randomized starting phases of each field per fraction and accumulated dose in the exhalation phase based on the patient's breathing motion pattern and the proton spot delivery in a time‐dependent fashion. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank‐sum test.ResultsCompared to the plans generated using CTPS on the averaged CT, Solo plans had significantly better target dose coverage and homogeneity (normalized by the prescription dose) in the worst‐case scenario [ITV D95%: 98.04% vs 96.28%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.020; ITV D5%–D95%: 7.20% vs 9.03%, P = 0.049] while all DVH indices were comparable in the nominal scenario. On the inhalation phase, Solo plans had better target dose coverage and cord Dmax in the nominal scenario [ITV D95%: 99.36% vs 98.45%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.014; cord Dmax: 20.07 vs 23.71 Gy(RBE), P = 0.027] with better target coverage and cord Dmax in the worst‐case scenario [ITV D95%: 97.89% vs 96.47%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.037; cord Dmax: 24.57 vs 28.14 Gy(RBE), P = 0.037]. On the exhalation phase, similar phenomena were observed in the nominal scenario [ITV D95%: 99.63% vs 98.87%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.037; cord Dmax: 19.67 vs 23.66 Gy(RBE), P = 0.039] and in the worst‐case scenario [ITV D95%: 98.20% vs 96.74%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.027; cord Dmax: 23.47 vs 27.93 Gy(RBE), P = 0.027]. In terms of interplay effect, plans generated by Solo had significantly better target dose coverage and homogeneity, less hot spots, and lower esophageal Dmean, and cord Dmax [ITV D95%: 101.81% vs 98.68%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.002; ITV D5%–D95%: 2.94% vs 7.51%, P = 0.002; cord Dmax: 18.87 vs 22.29 Gy(RBE), P = 0.014].ConclusionsSolo‐generated IMPT plans provide improved cord sparing, better target robustness in all considered phases, and reduced interplay effect compared with CTPS. Consequently, the approximation methods currently used in commercial TPS programs may have space for improvement in generating optimal IMPT plans for patient cases with locally advanced lung cancer.

BackgroundEsophageal carcinoma is the eighth most common cancer in the world. Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is widely used to treat distal esophageal carcinoma due to high conformality to the target and good sparing of organs at risk (OAR). It is not clear if small‐spot intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) demonstrates a dosimetric advantage over VMAT. In this study, we compared dosimetric performance of VMAT and small‐spot IMPT for distal esophageal carcinoma in terms of plan quality, plan robustness, and interplay effects.Methods35 distal esophageal carcinoma patients were retrospectively reviewed; 19 patients received small‐spot IMPT and the remaining 16 of them received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTVs) on phase‐averaged 4D‐CT's. The dose‐volume‐histogram (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases for each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank‐sum test. For fair comparison, all the treatment plans were normalized to have the same CTVhigh D95% in the nominal scenario relative to the prescription dose.ResultsIn the nominal scenario, small‐spot IMPT delivered statistically significantly lower liver Dmean and V30Gy[RBE], lung Dmean, heart Dmean compared with VMAT. CTVhigh dose homogeneity and protection of other OARs were comparable between the two treatments. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT and VMAT plans were comparable for kidney V18Gy[RBE], liver V30Gy[RBE], stomach V45Gy[RBE], lung Dmean, V5Gy[RBE], and V20Gy[RBE], cord Dmax and , liver Dmean, heart V20Gy[RBE], and V30Gy[RBE], but IMPT was significantly worse for CTVhigh D95%, , and D5%‐D95%, CTVlow D95%, heart Dmean, and V40Gy[RBE], requiring careful and experienced adjustments during the planning process and robustness considerations. The small‐spot IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements after interplay effects were considered.ConclusionsSmall‐spot IMPT decreases doses to heart, liver, and total lung compared to VMAT as well as achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness. Our study supports the use of small‐spot IMPT for the treatment of distal esophageal carcinoma.

AbstractPurposeTo compare dosimetric performance of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and small‐spot intensity‐modulated proton therapy for stage III non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods and MaterialsA total of 24 NSCLC patients were retrospectively reviewed; 12 patients received intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and the remaining 12 received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTV) on averaged 4D‐CTs. The dose‐volume‐histograms (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases of each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.ResultsCompared with VMAT, IMPT delivered significantly lower cord Dmax, heart Dmean, and lung V5 Gy[RBE] with comparable CTV dose homogeneity, and protection of other OARs. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT plans were statistically better than VMAT plans in heart Dmean, but were statistically worse in CTV dose coverage, cord Dmax, lung Dmean, and V5 Gy[RBE]. Other DVH indices were comparable. The IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements with interplay effects considered.ConclusionsSmall‐spot IMPT improves cord, heart, and lung sparing compared to VMAT and achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness at least for the patients included in this study with motion amplitude less than 11 mm. Our study supports the usage of IMPT to treat some lung cancer patients.