Pub Date : 2025-12-10DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2025.12.001
Ryan T Hughes, William A Stokes, Niema B Razavian, David M Routman, Thomas W Lycan, Joshua D Waltonen, Bhisham S Chera
{"title":"The Evolution of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Postoperative Treatment of Human Papillomavirus-Associated Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Comments and Controversies.","authors":"Ryan T Hughes, William A Stokes, Niema B Razavian, David M Routman, Thomas W Lycan, Joshua D Waltonen, Bhisham S Chera","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.12.001","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.12.001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145744414","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-09DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.005
Whoon Jong Kil, Ashley Stiffler, David Cousins, Wyatt Smith
{"title":"Discrepancy Between Joints Functional Improvement and Patients' Perception of Pain After Low-Dose Radiation Therapy for Osteoarthritis in Hands: Pain is Personal.","authors":"Whoon Jong Kil, Ashley Stiffler, David Cousins, Wyatt Smith","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.005","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145745721","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-09DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.004
Noel X Yang, Gianna L Rosamilia, Andrew J Arifin, Aya F Salem, Alison K Yoder, Sydney A Keatts, Oriana Jerez, Ruitao Lin, Andrew J Bishop, Ahsan S Farooqi, Roi Weiser, Merrick I Ross, Alexander F Mericli, B Ashleigh Guadagnolo, Ryan P Goepfert, Devarati Mitra
Purpose: Adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) to a cutaneous target has been associated with elevated risk of surgical complications such as graft, flap, or skin substitute reconstruction failure. We sought to better quantify the risk of surgical site complications after hypofractionated adjuvant RT delivered in the modern era to patients undergoing surgical reconstruction for their primary site cutaneous melanoma.
Methods and materials: We reviewed clinical data on all patients treated for cutaneous melanoma at our center between 2008 and 2021 with primary tumor resection and reconstruction (graft, flap, or skin substitute), followed by 5 × 6 Gy RT. Details on post-treatment complications were assessed.
Results: A total of 193 patients with melanoma undergoing surgical reconstruction followed by hypofractionated RT were identified. Most patients carried at least 1 risk factor for wound healing complications (70% with cardiovascular disease, 64% overweight, and 23% with diabetes). Most tumors were located in the head and neck (89%). Patients initiated RT a median of 7 weeks (IQR, 5-9 weeks) from surgical reconstruction. Skin grafts were used in 62% of reconstructions, and flaps used in 44%. Electron-based RT was used for the majority of patients (n = 166, 86%). Ten patients (5%) required surgical revision after reconstruction, with half occurring after RT. The primary reconstruction for all 5 patients requiring surgical revision after RT was graft reconstruction of the scalp, with a wide range of times from reconstruction to RT (5-11 weeks) and a wide range of times from RT to surgical revision (2-28 months).
Conclusions: The risk of surgical revision after adjuvant hypofractionated RT to a surgical reconstruction involving a graft, flap, or skin substitute is low. Half of graft failures occurred before adjuvant RT and half after, which suggests that adjuvant RT only marginally increases the risk of postreconstruction complications if adequate time for healing is given.
{"title":"Surgical Reconstruction Toxicity Following Hypofractionated Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Primary Cutaneous Melanoma.","authors":"Noel X Yang, Gianna L Rosamilia, Andrew J Arifin, Aya F Salem, Alison K Yoder, Sydney A Keatts, Oriana Jerez, Ruitao Lin, Andrew J Bishop, Ahsan S Farooqi, Roi Weiser, Merrick I Ross, Alexander F Mericli, B Ashleigh Guadagnolo, Ryan P Goepfert, Devarati Mitra","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.004","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.004","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) to a cutaneous target has been associated with elevated risk of surgical complications such as graft, flap, or skin substitute reconstruction failure. We sought to better quantify the risk of surgical site complications after hypofractionated adjuvant RT delivered in the modern era to patients undergoing surgical reconstruction for their primary site cutaneous melanoma.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>We reviewed clinical data on all patients treated for cutaneous melanoma at our center between 2008 and 2021 with primary tumor resection and reconstruction (graft, flap, or skin substitute), followed by 5 × 6 Gy RT. Details on post-treatment complications were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 193 patients with melanoma undergoing surgical reconstruction followed by hypofractionated RT were identified. Most patients carried at least 1 risk factor for wound healing complications (70% with cardiovascular disease, 64% overweight, and 23% with diabetes). Most tumors were located in the head and neck (89%). Patients initiated RT a median of 7 weeks (IQR, 5-9 weeks) from surgical reconstruction. Skin grafts were used in 62% of reconstructions, and flaps used in 44%. Electron-based RT was used for the majority of patients (n = 166, 86%). Ten patients (5%) required surgical revision after reconstruction, with half occurring after RT. The primary reconstruction for all 5 patients requiring surgical revision after RT was graft reconstruction of the scalp, with a wide range of times from reconstruction to RT (5-11 weeks) and a wide range of times from RT to surgical revision (2-28 months).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The risk of surgical revision after adjuvant hypofractionated RT to a surgical reconstruction involving a graft, flap, or skin substitute is low. Half of graft failures occurred before adjuvant RT and half after, which suggests that adjuvant RT only marginally increases the risk of postreconstruction complications if adequate time for healing is given.</p>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145745711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-08DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.009
Bohdan Bodnar, Franziska Loebel, Kerstin Rubarth, Goda Kalinauskaite, Vanessa Hubertus, Reinhard Schild, Alfredo Conti, Arne Gruen, Peter Vajkoczy, Daniel Zips, Gueliz Acker, Carolin Senger
Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly used for spinal metastases. Contouring for SBRT typically follows the International Spine Radiosurgery Consortium (ISRC) guidelines, leading to large planning target volumes (PTV). We compared minimal-volume contouring, which yields a more focused PTV, with conventional contouring and developed predictive models for adverse outcomes.
Methods and materials: We analyzed all patients treated for spinal metastases at our center over the past decade. After exploratory and correlation analyses, we compared the contouring methods for adverse outcomes and PTV and spinal cord dose distributions. Logit and support vector machine (SVM) models were used for outcome prediction.
Results: Among 121 patients (235 lesions), 147 lesions received minimal-volume contouring, 67 followed ISRC recommendations, and 21 were unassigned. The median prescription dose was 20 Gy (15-22 Gy) for single-session, and 24 Gy (19.5-30 Gy) for hypofractionated treatments. The median PTV was 11.1 cm3 (0.2-173.7 cm3). Complications correlated significantly with pre-SBRT Karnofsky status (Cramer V = 0.277). Local control rates were comparable (80.5% vs 78.4%), but complication rates were lower with minimal contouring (15.1% vs 27.8%). Minimal contouring resulted in significantly higher median PTV biologically effective dose (BED) (75.9 Gy vs 57.5 Gy) and lower maximum spinal cord BED (72.7 Gy vs 81.9 Gy, both P < .001). Logit models identified mean PTV (P = .001) and vertebral dose (P < .001) as significant predictors of vertebral fractures but showed limited accuracy (49.3% for local recurrence, 73.3% for fractures). SVM classifiers outperformed logit models, achieving higher accuracy (89.9% for recurrence, 92.0% for fractures) and improved positive predictive values (83.7% and 86.7%, respectively).
Conclusions: Minimal-volume target delineation based on thin-layer magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific membrane antigen/fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography-computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging may be as effective as contouring according to the ISRC guidelines, if those imaging modalities are available. Further studies are warranted to assess minimal and expanded volumes. SVM models show promising potential for predicting patient outcomes, warranting further exploration.
{"title":"Striking the Balance: Tailored Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Osseous Spinal Metastases and Outcome Prediction.","authors":"Bohdan Bodnar, Franziska Loebel, Kerstin Rubarth, Goda Kalinauskaite, Vanessa Hubertus, Reinhard Schild, Alfredo Conti, Arne Gruen, Peter Vajkoczy, Daniel Zips, Gueliz Acker, Carolin Senger","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.009","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.009","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly used for spinal metastases. Contouring for SBRT typically follows the International Spine Radiosurgery Consortium (ISRC) guidelines, leading to large planning target volumes (PTV). We compared minimal-volume contouring, which yields a more focused PTV, with conventional contouring and developed predictive models for adverse outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>We analyzed all patients treated for spinal metastases at our center over the past decade. After exploratory and correlation analyses, we compared the contouring methods for adverse outcomes and PTV and spinal cord dose distributions. Logit and support vector machine (SVM) models were used for outcome prediction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 121 patients (235 lesions), 147 lesions received minimal-volume contouring, 67 followed ISRC recommendations, and 21 were unassigned. The median prescription dose was 20 Gy (15-22 Gy) for single-session, and 24 Gy (19.5-30 Gy) for hypofractionated treatments. The median PTV was 11.1 cm<sup>3</sup> (0.2-173.7 cm<sup>3</sup>). Complications correlated significantly with pre-SBRT Karnofsky status (Cramer V = 0.277). Local control rates were comparable (80.5% vs 78.4%), but complication rates were lower with minimal contouring (15.1% vs 27.8%). Minimal contouring resulted in significantly higher median PTV biologically effective dose (BED) (75.9 Gy vs 57.5 Gy) and lower maximum spinal cord BED (72.7 Gy vs 81.9 Gy, both P < .001). Logit models identified mean PTV (P = .001) and vertebral dose (P < .001) as significant predictors of vertebral fractures but showed limited accuracy (49.3% for local recurrence, 73.3% for fractures). SVM classifiers outperformed logit models, achieving higher accuracy (89.9% for recurrence, 92.0% for fractures) and improved positive predictive values (83.7% and 86.7%, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Minimal-volume target delineation based on thin-layer magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific membrane antigen/fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography-computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging may be as effective as contouring according to the ISRC guidelines, if those imaging modalities are available. Further studies are warranted to assess minimal and expanded volumes. SVM models show promising potential for predicting patient outcomes, warranting further exploration.</p>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145727077","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-06DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.010
Ory Haisraely, Martin C Tom, Subha Perni, Rajat Kudchadker, Surendra Prajapati, Yana Zlateva, Jeffrey S Weinberg, D Nana Yeboa, Jing Li, Sherise D Ferguson, Christopher Alvarez-Breckenridge, Chirag B Patel, Chibawanye I Ene, Sujit Prabhu, Thomas H Beckham
Purpose: Recurrence in glioblastoma (GBM) is common, and the success of salvage strategies, including re-resection and reirradiation, is limited. Brachytherapy with Cs-131 collagen tiles enables intraoperative focal dose intensification with rapid dose fall-off and limited normal brain radiation exposure. We report the outcomes of Cs-131 collagen tile implantation at the time of resection for recurrent GBM.
Methods and materials: We reviewed 15 adults with previously irradiated, recurrent isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) wild-type GBM who underwent maximal safe resection followed by intraoperative Cs-131 collagen tile implantation at a single institution. Candidates had surgically accessible, primarily enhancing recurrences ≥6 months after prior external beam radiation therapy, and were anticipated to have a gross total resection. The prescription dose was 60 Gy at a depth of 5 mm. We assessed overall survival, progression-free survival, toxicity, and patterns of failure (local ≤0.5 cm from the cavity, marginal 0.5-1 cm, and distant >1 cm) after implantation.
Results: Patients (median age, 63 years; range, 39-76) had good performance status (median Karnofsky Performance Status score, 90; range, 70-100) and prior chemoradiation (most to 60 Gy/30 fractions). Tiles (median, 6.5/patient; range, 3-13) were implanted at first recurrence in 12 of 15 patients (80%) and at second recurrence in 3 (20%), at a median of 15 months after external beam radiation therapy (range, 8.9-47). At 13 months median follow-up (range, 1.4-21), the median overall survival after Cs-131 implantation was not reached (NR) (95% CI, 6.7-NR months); the median time to progression after Cs-131 implantation was 9 months (95% CI, 6.0-NR); and the cumulative incidence of first progression (local or distant) after Cs-131 implantation was 53.3% over the follow-up period. The first failures were local (n = 2), marginal (n = 2), distant (n = 3), and combined local and distant (n = 1). One patient developed symptomatic grade 3 radionecrosis, which improved with bevacizumab. No patients required reoperation for Cs-131 toxicity.
Conclusions: Intraoperative Cs-131 tile brachytherapy for recurrent GBM is feasible and well tolerated. Distant failures remain common. Integrating effective systemic therapy and careful patient selection may optimize outcomes.
目的:胶质母细胞瘤(GBM)的复发是常见的,包括再切除和再照射在内的挽救策略的成功是有限的。Cs-131胶原蛋白贴片近距离放射治疗可实现术中局灶剂量强化,剂量下降迅速,正常脑辐射暴露有限。我们报告了Cs-131胶原瓷砖植入治疗复发性GBM的结果。方法:我们回顾了15例既往放射治疗的复发性idh -野生型GBM患者,他们在同一机构接受了最大限度的安全切除后术中Cs-131胶原瓦植入。候选患者在术前外束放疗(EBRT)后≥6个月可手术切除,主要提高复发率,并预期进行总全切除。处方剂量为60gy至5mm深度。我们评估了植入术后的总生存期(OS)、无进展生存期(PFS)、毒性和失败模式(局部≤0.5 cm,边缘0.5-1 cm,远处bbb10 1cm)。结果:患者(中位年龄63岁[范围39-76])具有良好的运动状态(中位Karnofsky运动状态[KPS] 90[70-100])和既往放化疗(最多至60 Gy/30分)。在EBRT后15个月(范围8.9-47)中,12例(80%)患者首次复发时植入瓦片(中位数为6.5个/例[范围3-13]),3例(20%)患者第二次复发时植入瓦片。在13个月的中位随访(范围1.4-21),Cs-131植入后的中位OS未达到(95% CI 6.7-NR月);Cs-131植入后到进展的中位时间为9个月(95% CI 6.0-NR);Cs-131植入后首次进展(局部或远处)的累积发生率为53.3%。第一次失败是局部(n=2)、边缘(n=2)、远程(n=3)和局部+远程组合(n=1)。1例患者出现症状性3级放射性坏死,使用贝伐单抗后得到改善。无患者因铯-131中毒需要再次手术。结论:术中Cs-131贴片近距离治疗复发性GBM是可行且耐受性良好的。远距离的失败仍然很常见。结合有效的全身治疗和仔细的患者选择可以优化结果。
{"title":"Cs-131 Collagen Tile Brachytherapy for Recurrent Glioblastoma: Treatment Outcomes and Toxicity.","authors":"Ory Haisraely, Martin C Tom, Subha Perni, Rajat Kudchadker, Surendra Prajapati, Yana Zlateva, Jeffrey S Weinberg, D Nana Yeboa, Jing Li, Sherise D Ferguson, Christopher Alvarez-Breckenridge, Chirag B Patel, Chibawanye I Ene, Sujit Prabhu, Thomas H Beckham","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.010","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.010","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Recurrence in glioblastoma (GBM) is common, and the success of salvage strategies, including re-resection and reirradiation, is limited. Brachytherapy with Cs-131 collagen tiles enables intraoperative focal dose intensification with rapid dose fall-off and limited normal brain radiation exposure. We report the outcomes of Cs-131 collagen tile implantation at the time of resection for recurrent GBM.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>We reviewed 15 adults with previously irradiated, recurrent isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) wild-type GBM who underwent maximal safe resection followed by intraoperative Cs-131 collagen tile implantation at a single institution. Candidates had surgically accessible, primarily enhancing recurrences ≥6 months after prior external beam radiation therapy, and were anticipated to have a gross total resection. The prescription dose was 60 Gy at a depth of 5 mm. We assessed overall survival, progression-free survival, toxicity, and patterns of failure (local ≤0.5 cm from the cavity, marginal 0.5-1 cm, and distant >1 cm) after implantation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients (median age, 63 years; range, 39-76) had good performance status (median Karnofsky Performance Status score, 90; range, 70-100) and prior chemoradiation (most to 60 Gy/30 fractions). Tiles (median, 6.5/patient; range, 3-13) were implanted at first recurrence in 12 of 15 patients (80%) and at second recurrence in 3 (20%), at a median of 15 months after external beam radiation therapy (range, 8.9-47). At 13 months median follow-up (range, 1.4-21), the median overall survival after Cs-131 implantation was not reached (NR) (95% CI, 6.7-NR months); the median time to progression after Cs-131 implantation was 9 months (95% CI, 6.0-NR); and the cumulative incidence of first progression (local or distant) after Cs-131 implantation was 53.3% over the follow-up period. The first failures were local (n = 2), marginal (n = 2), distant (n = 3), and combined local and distant (n = 1). One patient developed symptomatic grade 3 radionecrosis, which improved with bevacizumab. No patients required reoperation for Cs-131 toxicity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Intraoperative Cs-131 tile brachytherapy for recurrent GBM is feasible and well tolerated. Distant failures remain common. Integrating effective systemic therapy and careful patient selection may optimize outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145710305","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-06DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2025.09.010
Christopher R Weil, Jeffrey Brower, William Small, David K Gaffney, Ann H Klopp
{"title":"Immunotherapy in the Upfront Definitive Management of Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: An Evolving Treatment Paradigm.","authors":"Christopher R Weil, Jeffrey Brower, William Small, David K Gaffney, Ann H Klopp","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.09.010","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.09.010","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145710295","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-29DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2025.09.009
Paul E Wallner, Michael L Steinberg
{"title":"Image Guided Superficial Radiation Therapy-Another Canary Dies in the Coal Mine: A Lesson For Us All.","authors":"Paul E Wallner, Michael L Steinberg","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.09.009","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.09.009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145650068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-24DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.002
Mohammad Yasin Mohammadi, Mehdi Momennezhad, Hamid Gholamhosseinian, Erfan Saatchian, Azam Eskandari, Shahrokh Nasseri
Purpose: The digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) has traditionally been used for geometric radiation therapy (RT) treatment verification, with no reported dosimetric applications to date. This study aimed to introduce a methodology for the first time, allowing us to derive a dose distribution within an RT treatment plan using the DRR image.
Methods and materials: Initially, the correlation between the pixel values of the DRR image and the depth of the water phantom was established. Subsequently, the relationship between depth and absorbed dose was derived. By combining these 2 equations, the connection between the pixel values of the DRR and the absorbed dose was established. This approach was then used to calculate the dose distribution for homogeneous and RANDO phantoms. To verify the accuracy of this technique, the results were compared with the dose distribution from the treatment planning system.
Results: The comparison of point doses at the isocenter of the RANDO phantom indicated differences of 1% and 2.4% for energies of 6 and 15 MV, respectively. A region-based dose distribution comparison using gamma analysis (3%-3 mm criteria) resulted in agreements of 98% and 95% for energies of 6 and 15 MV, respectively.
Conclusions: DRR dosimetry is an innovative method that employs DRR images to calculate dose distribution in RT planning, enhancing their traditional geometric use. It operates independently of a treatment planning system, making it a cost-effective solution that can run on personal computers. This approach acts as a supplementary tool, ensuring dosimetric verification and quality control in RT treatments.
{"title":"Digitally Reconstructed Radiograph Dosimetry: Introducing a New Application of Digitally Reconstructed Radiographs for Evaluation of Dose Distribution in Radiation Therapy.","authors":"Mohammad Yasin Mohammadi, Mehdi Momennezhad, Hamid Gholamhosseinian, Erfan Saatchian, Azam Eskandari, Shahrokh Nasseri","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.002","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.11.002","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) has traditionally been used for geometric radiation therapy (RT) treatment verification, with no reported dosimetric applications to date. This study aimed to introduce a methodology for the first time, allowing us to derive a dose distribution within an RT treatment plan using the DRR image.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>Initially, the correlation between the pixel values of the DRR image and the depth of the water phantom was established. Subsequently, the relationship between depth and absorbed dose was derived. By combining these 2 equations, the connection between the pixel values of the DRR and the absorbed dose was established. This approach was then used to calculate the dose distribution for homogeneous and RANDO phantoms. To verify the accuracy of this technique, the results were compared with the dose distribution from the treatment planning system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The comparison of point doses at the isocenter of the RANDO phantom indicated differences of 1% and 2.4% for energies of 6 and 15 MV, respectively. A region-based dose distribution comparison using gamma analysis (3%-3 mm criteria) resulted in agreements of 98% and 95% for energies of 6 and 15 MV, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DRR dosimetry is an innovative method that employs DRR images to calculate dose distribution in RT planning, enhancing their traditional geometric use. It operates independently of a treatment planning system, making it a cost-effective solution that can run on personal computers. This approach acts as a supplementary tool, ensuring dosimetric verification and quality control in RT treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145642649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-23DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2025.10.015
Murat Köylü, Yavuz Anacak
Purpose: Total skin irradiation (TSI) techniques vary widely in dosimetric performance, yet no standardized metric exists to evaluate their overall quality. Current guidelines address parameters such as dose homogeneity, depth-dose fall-off, and x-ray contamination, but lack a comprehensive quantitative tool. This study introduces and validates the Total Skin Irradiation Quality Index (TSI-QI), a novel composite metric for assessing TSI techniques based on these 3 critical parameters.
Methods and materials: Radiographic films were placed in transverse sections of an anthropomorphic phantom and irradiated using full-treatment TSI to generate entrance-to-exit dose profiles (EEDP). From these profiles, 3 key metrics were derived: dose uniformity within the target, dose fall-off beyond the target, and internal x-ray contamination. Each factor was normalized against established clinical thresholds and combined to calculate the TSI-QI using the formula TSI-QI = Hf + Df + Xf, where Hf represents homogeneity, Df denotes dose fall-off, and Xf indicates x-ray contamination. The index's efficacy was evaluated on 2 widely adopted techniques: Stanford total skin electron irradiation (TSEI) and total skin helical irradiation (TSHI).
Results: TSEI yielded a TSI-QI score of 0.554, within the acceptable quality range, whereas TSHI scored 1.893, exceeding the threshold. Thresholds were defined according to AAPM Report No. 23 and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer recommendations (EORTC). Detailed analysis showed that TSEI provided superior homogeneity, sharper fall-off, and lower x-ray contamination compared with TSHI.
Conclusions: These dosimetric parameters are directly related to clinical safety and toxicity, because dose fall-off and photon contamination reflect healthy tissue protection, whereas homogeneity ensures effective skin tumor coverage. The TSI-QI, thus, offers a reliable tool for evaluating and comparing TSI techniques, supporting institutional quality assurance and cross-center standardization while helping identify protocols unsuitable for safe clinical implementation.
全皮肤照射(TSI)技术在剂量学性能上差异很大,但没有标准的度量来评估它们的整体质量。目前的指南涉及剂量均匀性、深度剂量衰减和x射线污染等参数,但缺乏全面的定量工具。本研究介绍并验证了皮肤总照射质量指数(TSI- qi),这是一种基于这三个关键参数评估TSI技术的新型复合指标。在拟人化幻体的横切面上放置放射线片,并使用全治疗TSI照射以产生入口到出口剂量谱(EEDPs)。从这些概况中得出三个关键指标:靶内剂量均匀性、靶外剂量衰减和内部x射线污染。每个因素根据既定的临床阈值归一化,并使用公式TSI-QI = H / + D / + X /来计算TSI-QI,其中H /表示均匀性,D /表示剂量衰减,X /表示X射线污染。采用Stanford全皮肤电子照射(TSEI)和全皮肤螺旋照射(TSHI)两种广泛采用的技术评价该指数的疗效。TSEI的TSI-QI得分为0.554,在可接受的质量范围内,而TSHI得分为1.893,超过了阈值。阈值根据AAPM第23号报告和EORTC的建议定义。详细分析表明,与TSHI相比,TSEI具有更好的均匀性,更明显的脱落和更低的x射线污染。这些剂量学参数与临床安全性和毒性直接相关,因为剂量衰减和光子污染反映了健康组织的保护,而均匀性确保了有效的皮肤肿瘤覆盖。因此,TSI- qi为评估和比较TSI技术提供了可靠的工具,支持机构质量保证和跨中心标准化,同时帮助确定不适合安全临床实施的方案。
{"title":"A Quality Index for Total Skin Irradiation (TSI-QI): Validation of Total Skin Electron Irradiation and Total Skin Helical Irradiation Techniques.","authors":"Murat Köylü, Yavuz Anacak","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.10.015","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2025.10.015","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Total skin irradiation (TSI) techniques vary widely in dosimetric performance, yet no standardized metric exists to evaluate their overall quality. Current guidelines address parameters such as dose homogeneity, depth-dose fall-off, and x-ray contamination, but lack a comprehensive quantitative tool. This study introduces and validates the Total Skin Irradiation Quality Index (TSI-QI), a novel composite metric for assessing TSI techniques based on these 3 critical parameters.</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>Radiographic films were placed in transverse sections of an anthropomorphic phantom and irradiated using full-treatment TSI to generate entrance-to-exit dose profiles (EEDP). From these profiles, 3 key metrics were derived: dose uniformity within the target, dose fall-off beyond the target, and internal x-ray contamination. Each factor was normalized against established clinical thresholds and combined to calculate the TSI-QI using the formula TSI-QI = H<sup>f</sup> + D<sup>f</sup> + X<sup>f</sup>, where H<sup>f</sup> represents homogeneity, D<sup>f</sup> denotes dose fall-off, and X<sup>f</sup> indicates x-ray contamination. The index's efficacy was evaluated on 2 widely adopted techniques: Stanford total skin electron irradiation (TSEI) and total skin helical irradiation (TSHI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>TSEI yielded a TSI-QI score of 0.554, within the acceptable quality range, whereas TSHI scored 1.893, exceeding the threshold. Thresholds were defined according to AAPM Report No. 23 and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer recommendations (EORTC). Detailed analysis showed that TSEI provided superior homogeneity, sharper fall-off, and lower x-ray contamination compared with TSHI.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These dosimetric parameters are directly related to clinical safety and toxicity, because dose fall-off and photon contamination reflect healthy tissue protection, whereas homogeneity ensures effective skin tumor coverage. The TSI-QI, thus, offers a reliable tool for evaluating and comparing TSI techniques, supporting institutional quality assurance and cross-center standardization while helping identify protocols unsuitable for safe clinical implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145607401","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}