Introduction: This study aimed to quantify the difference in setup margin in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) setup imaging, utilising the van Herk formula for two different image registration methods. Two alternative techniques of registration, bony landmark (BL) matching and soft tissue matching (ST) for head and neck cancer patients, were investigated. Methods: This study included 30 head and neck cancer patients who received a simultaneous integrated boost of 54–60–66 Gy in 30 fractions, using volumetric modulated arc treatment. A total of 867 CBCT images were acquired during patient setup and further analysed for setup margin calculation. A region of interest was described using a clip box between the reference and CBCT image to calculate the patient’s positional inaccuracy in three translational directions, X, Y and Z, where X was mediolateral, Y was the cranial-caudal, and Z was the anterior-posterior direction in the patient-based coordinate system, respectively. The shifts were captured by altering the BL and ST matching, and the setup margin was calculated using the van Herk formula (=2·5Σ + 0·7σ where Σ was the systematic and σ was the random error). Results: The difference between bony and ST matching in most cases was observed to be 1·4 mm in all translational directions at a 95% confidence interval and <1° in all rotational directions. The rotational error was found to be below the action level (±3°); hence, no corrections related to rotational error were made. The translational setup margin for bone and ST-based registration was X (BL) = 4·6 mm, X (ST) = 4·4 mm, Y (BL) = 6·3 mm, Y (ST) = 4·7 mm, Z (BL) = 3·0 mm, Z (ST) = 3·6mm. Conclusion: Two distinct registration approaches for head-neck patient setup did not yield any significant difference in the setup margin calculation. A suitable approach for CBCT and reference CT registration technique was required for the setup margin calculation. Confusion in selecting the correct image registration procedure can result in incorrect treatment execution. The compatibility of the two registration approaches was established in this study. Image fusion was neutralised before the second match (ST) to avoid hysteresis. For setup verification using CBCT for the head and neck region, both bone and ST registration were compatible for setup verification.

Background: This investigation quantifies the dose enhancement effect and dose distribution modifications due to the presence of high-z nanospheres in a proton beam. Methods: Various proton pencil beams of therapeutic energies (60–226 MeV) and spatial distribution of 2·7 mm spot size diameter were simulated onto a water phantom utilising the TOPAS Monte Carlo toolkit version 3.6.1. The simulation modelled either water or nanospheres of high-z materials (gold, silver or platinum) at the location of the Bragg Peak (BP) to compare the differences of the resulting dose distributions. Results: The introduction of the nanospheres increases the maximum dose, narrows the BP and shifts the BP location upstream compared to the water phantom with no nanospheres. Conclusions: This work shows that the local dose can be enhanced with the use of high-z nanoparticles in proton therapy, thereby increasing patient safety and decreasing side effects with the same amount of delivered radiation.

Aim: The aim of our study is to retrospectively report the radiobiological aspects for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) against intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for patients with head and neck cancer treated at our institution. A secondary goal is to reinforce current model-based approaches to head and neck cancer patient selection for IMPT. Materials and Methods: Eighteen patients were evaluated with prescription doses ranging from 50 to 70 Gy delivered in 2 Gy per fraction. The dose volume histograms (DVH) were used to calculate equivalent uniform dose (EUD), tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for biophysical comparison using mechanistic mathematical dose response models. Absolute values of TCP and NTCP were then compared between IMPT and IMRT. Results: The dose models demonstrate a minimal radiobiological advantage for IMPT compared to IMRT in treating head and neck cancers. Absolute values of TCP were slightly higher, while absolute values of NTCP were slightly lower for IMPT versus IMRT. Conclusions: Further studies are needed to determine if the radiobiological advantage indeed translates to a therapeutic advantage for patients.

Introduction: Head and neck cancers (HNCs) are some of the commonest cases requiring palliative radiotherapy (PRT) in an Indian radiotherapy practice. A variety of PRT protocols have been explored with varying success. Methods: The study objective was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a short-course hypofractionated PRT schedule in HNC patients in terms of symptom relief, tumour response, acute side effects and survival and to compare results with other PRT regimens. All patients received 30 Gy in 10 fractions over 2 weeks followed by another 20 Gy in 5 fractions after a 4 weeks gap. Results: Seventy-five percent of patients completed both phases of treatment. Symptom relief was seen in 71% (pain) to 76% (dysphagia) of patients. Tumour response was recorded in 73% of patients. At 12 months, the mean overall survival was 10·29 months for patients who responded to PRT compared to 7·87 months for those who did not. Results were comparable to other regimens reported in the literature, but no radiobiological advantage of a higher dose was discernible. Conclusions: Short-course hypofractionated PRT is effective in reducing tumour burden and relieving symptoms in HNC patients and possibly in lengthening survival. Selection of any schedule should be decided by treating oncologists based on clinical, logistic and socio-economic factors.

Purpose: Patient wait time for every single fraction of every patient treated at our centre for the past year has been presented in this study. The waiting time data were analysed across different treatment sites and modalities. Materials and Methods: Between March 2021 and March 2022, all patients and their corresponding recorded measurements of waiting time were analysed. Times recorded included check-in time (CK), scheduled time to start treatment (SC) and beam-on time for the first beam of therapy (ST). SPSS version 18 was used for statistical calculations, correlations and assessing significance. Results: A total of 181 patients were treated during this duration. The total number of radiotherapy (RT) sessions recorded was 3011. Out of these 3011 sessions, number of times treated by rapid arc (RA), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) were 68.18%, 30.19%, 0.167%, 0.565% and 0.19%, respectively. The mean (± standard deviation) times for scheduled time to start treatment (SC) to check-in time (CK), SC to ST (beam-on time for the first beam of treatment), CK to ST and (CK or SC) to ST were −14 ± 48 min, 6 ± 50 min, 19 ± 24 min and −4 ± 31 min, respectively. Conclusion: Patient wait times during RT were presented in this study. This study covered the daily waiting times before RT during modern-day RT treatment sessions. This vast series of consecutive patient data will be a valuable resource for the future planning and management of any modern RT department.

Introduction: This study aimed to systematically review the literature to synthesise and summarise whether using knowledge-based planning (KBP) can improve the planning of stereotactic radiotherapy treatments. Methods: A systematic literature search was carried out using Medline, Scopus and Cochrane databases to evaluate the use of KBP planning in stereotactic radiotherapy. Three hundred twenty-five potential studies were identified and screened to find 25 relevant studies. Results: Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Where a commercial KBP was used, 72.7% of studies reported a quality improvement, and 45.5% reported a reduction in planning time. There is evidence that when used as a quality control tool, KBP can highlight stereotactic plans that need revision. In studies that use KBP as the starting point for radiotherapy planning optimisation, the radiotherapy plans generated are typically equal to or superior to those planned manually. Conclusions: There is evidence that KBP has the potential to improve the quality and speed of stereotactic radiotherapy planning. Further research is required to accurately quantify such systems’ quality improvements and time savings. Notably, there has been little research into their use for prostate, spinal or liver stereotactic radiotherapy, and research in these areas would be desirable. It is recommended that future studies use the ICRU 91 level 2 reporting format and that blinded physician review could add a qualitative assessment of KBP system performance.

Introduction: This study was aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with large (>2 cm in great diameter) vestibular schwannomas (VSs) treated with hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HFSRT) compared to small (<2 cm) ones and the impact of debulking surgery prior to radiation for large VSs. Methods: Fifty-nine patients with VSs treated with HFSRT (25 Gy in 5 fractions) were evaluated by tumour size and surgical status. Patients were divided based on tumour size: small VSs (n = 42) and large VSs (n = 17). The large group was further divided into the groups of pre-treatment debulking surgery (n = 8) and no surgery (n = 9). Rates of tumour control, brainstem necrosis and neurologic dysfunction were assessed following treatment. Pre-surgical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were used to generate hypothetical HFSRT plans to compare the effect of debulking surgery on dosimetry. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) modelling was performed to compare toxicity probabilities with and without surgical debulking in large VSs. Results: There was no statistical difference of tumour control rate between small and large VSs with 100% for small tumours and 94·1% for large tumours (p = 0·12), respectively. In large VSs patient, the tumour control rate of HFSRT was 100% (8/8) for surgically debulked patients and 89% (8/9) for non-surgically debulked patients (p = 0·35). There were no patients who experienced brainstem necrosis or progression of facial and trigeminal nerve symptoms after HFSRT in the entire groups of patients. Surgical debulking large VSs did not change the maximum point dose of brainstem (p = 0·98), but significantly decreased volumes of VSs and changed the minimum dose to the hottest 0·5 cc of tumour (p = 0·016) as well as the volume receiving at least 23 Gy (p = 0·023). NTCP modelling revealed very low rates (average < 1%) of brainstem toxicity with or without surgical debulking, but there was a significant difference favoring surgery (p < 0·05). Conclusions: HFSRT is a safe and effective treatment for both small and large VSs and is a viable option for patients with large VSs who cannot undergo surgery, if NTCP of pre-debulking HFSRT dosimetry is lower.

Introduction: UroLift implants are a novel treatment for the obstructive lower urinary tract symptoms arising from benign prostatic hyperplasia. This case study aimed to assess their effectiveness as fiducial marker (FM) surrogates in prostate image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). Method: Cone-beam CT images from a patient receiving prostate radiation therapy underwent manual alignment using UroLift implants and also prostate soft-tissue matching by five experienced therapeutic radiographers. The match values of both methods were compared using Bland–Altman analysis. All five observers were also asked to score the ease of matching using both approaches. Results: The 95% mean level of agreement for the UroLift matches were within a 2-mm threshold in all dimensions. Comparison of UroLift and prostate matches had 95% limit of agreement values of −0·98 to 1·78, −0·58 to 0·49 and −1·83 to 1·04 mm in the vertical, longitudinal and lateral planes, respectively. All of the UroLift matches were rated as ‘very easy’ or ‘possible with little difficulty’ by the five observers. Conclusion: A small difference between the CBCT UroLift and CBCT prostate match was found. It has been shown that IGRT to the prostate with the aid of the UroLift system implants and CBCT is feasible and can eliminate the need for FM implants. Wider evaluation in a large cohort is recommended.

Introduction: A patient experience survey was undertaken as part of the role of the Macmillan Consultant Therapy Radiographer for the bone and brain metastases patients to inform future development of the service. Method: A questionnaire was developed and approved by the Trust’s local Questionnaire, Interview and Survey Group to survey the experiences and satisfaction of the service including the informed consent process, radiotherapy appointments and overall experience and satisfaction. The survey used qualitative and quantitative methods, including Likert Scales and free comment boxes. The responses were analysed by counting the frequency of each response and identifying any themes in free text responses. Results: Most patients were satisfied with the consent process with 1/36 patients reporting a lack of understandable information and 4/36 wanting more side effect information. The option of plan and treat was a preference of 53% of patients due to travelling back and forth to the centre; however, only 6% stated that they wanted two separate appointments. Ninety-four percent of patients felt that they had complete confidence and trust in the professional who consented them and 86% did not feel fully involved in the decision-making process. Overall, the service was rated as 10/10 by 61% of patients (n = 36). Conclusions: The patients surveyed were satisfied with their experience of the Palliative Radiotherapy Service; however, it needs to be developed further to meet the needs and expectations of the service users.

Introduction: Total skin electron beam therapy is a treatment option in patients with mycosis fungoides (MF) affecting a significant amount of the body surface. For patients with involvement of soles and interdigital folds, however, this approach is ineffective, requiring alternatives such as localised radiotherapy (RT). Although electron beams are well suited for superficial lesions, on irregular surfaces it provides inadequate tumour coverage and excess dose variance, requiring photon irradiation with tissue compensation. Methods: We present the case of a patient with extensive cutaneous MF with skin lesions spread over both lower limbs and treated on these affected areas with photon beam RT. Long sheets of paraffin gauze dressings were used to create a 0·5-cm-thick bolus. The patient received a single fraction of 8 Gy. In vivo dosimetry using Gafchromic films was performed. Results: After 3 months, a complete response was achieved. In this case, paraffin gauze bolus proved to be an inexpensive, convenient, effective and flexible method for irregular superficial cancer irradiations. Conclusion: Paraffin gauze bolus is a suitable option for irregular contours.