BackgroundAlthough the effects of high dose radiation on human cells and tissues are relatively well defined, there is no consensus regarding the effects of low and very low radiation doses on the organism. Ionizing radiation has been shown to induce gene mutations and chromosome aberrations which are known to be involved in the process of carcinogenesis. The induction of secondary cancers is a challenging long-term side effect in oncologic patients treated with radiation. Medical sources of radiation like intensity modulated radiotherapy used in cancer treatment and computed tomography used in diagnostics, deliver very low doses of radiation to large volumes of healthy tissue, which might contribute to increased cancer rates in long surviving patients and in the general population. Research shows that because of the phenomena characteristic for low dose radiation the risk of cancer induction from exposure of healthy tissues to low dose radiation can be greater than the risk calculated from linear no-threshold model. Epidemiological data collected from radiation workers and atomic bomb survivors confirms that exposure to low dose radiation can contribute to increased cancer risk and also that the risk might correlate with the age at exposure.ConclusionsUnderstanding the molecular mechanisms of response to low dose radiation is crucial for the proper evaluation of risks and benefits that stem from these exposures and should be considered in the radiotherapy treatment planning and in determining the allowed occupational exposures.

No abstract

HT is feasible for CSI, and in comparison with 3DCRT it improves PTV coverage. HT reduces high dose volumes of OARs, but larger volumes of normal tissue receive low radiation dose. HT requires further study to establish correlations between dosimetrical findings and clinical outcomes, especially with regard to late sequelae of treatment.

No abstract

No abstract

No clear criteria have yet been established to guide decision-making for patient selection and the optimal timing of adaptive radiotherapy (ART) based on image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). We have developed a novel protocol—the Best for Adaptive Radiotherapy (B-ART) protocol—to guide patient selection for ART. The aim of the present study is to describe this protocol, to evaluate its validity in patients with head and neck (HN) cancer, and to identify the anatomical and clinical predictors of the need for replanning. We retrospectively evaluated 82 patients with HN cancer who underwent helical tomotherapy (HT) and subsequently required replanning due to soft tissue changes upon daily MVCT. Under the proposed criteria, patients with anatomical changes >3 mm on three to four consecutive scans are candidates for ART. We compared the volumes on the initial CT scan (iCT) and the replanning CT (rCT) scan for the clinical target volumes (CTV1, referring to primary tumor or tumor bed and CTV2, metastatic lymph nodes) and for the parotid glands (PG) and body contour (B-body). The patients were stratified by primary tumor localization, clinical stage, and treatment scheme. The main reasons for replanning were: (1) a planning target volume (PTV) outside the body contour (n = 70; 85.4%), (2) PG shrinkage (n = 69; 84.1%), (3) B-body deviations (n = 69; 84.1%), and (4) setup deviations (n = 40; 48.8%). The replanning decision was made, on average, during the fourth week of treatment (n = 47; 57.3%). The mean reductions in the size of the right and left PG volumes were 6.31 cc (20.9%) and 5.98 cc (20.5%), respectively (p < 0.001). The reduction in PG volume was ≥30% in 30 patients (36.6%). The volume reduction in all of the anatomical structures was statistically significant. Four variables—advanced stage disease (T3–T4), chemoradiation, increased weight loss, and oropharyngeal localization—were significantly associated with the need for ART. The B-ART protocol provides clear criteria to eliminate random errors, and to allow for an early response to relevant changes in target volumes.

No abstract

Most European countries have taken steps to implement European directives designed to reduce the probability and magnitude of accidents in radiotherapy. Variability between countries is substantial in terms of legal frameworks, tools used to conduct proactive risk assessment and reactive analysis of events, and in the reporting and learning systems utilized. These findings underscore the need for greater harmonisation in common terminology, classification and reporting practices across Europe to improve patient safety and to enable more reliable inter-country comparisons.