Radiotherapy with concomitant BRAF inhibitor therapy is feasible with an acceptable increase in toxicity. Vemurafenib is a more potent radiosensitizer than dabrafenib.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.85.

Background: There is a rapidly growing literature available on right hemicolectomy comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to revise current comparative literature systematically. Methods: A systematic review of comparative studies published between 2000 to 2021 in PubMed, Scopus and Embase was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity, mortality and long-term oncological results. Secondary endpoints consist of blood loss, conversion rates, complications, time to first flatus, hospital stay and incisional hernia rate. Results: 25 of 322 studies were considered for data extraction. A total of 16,099 individual patients who underwent RRC (n = 1842) or LRC (n = 14,257) between 2002 and 2020 were identified. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LRC group (LRC 165.31 min ± 43.08 vs. RRC 207.38 min ± 189.13, MD: −42.01 (95% CI: −51.06−32.96), p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly lower in the RRC group (LRC 63.57 ± 35.21 vs. RRC 53.62 ± 34.02, MD: 10.03 (95% CI: 1.61–18.45), p = 0.02) as well as conversion rate (LRC 1155/11,629 vs. RRC 94/1534, OR: 1.65 (1.28–2.13), p < 0.001) and hospital stay (LRC 6.15 ± 31.77 vs. RRC 5.31 ± 1.65, MD: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.29–1.38), p = 0.003). Oncological long-term results did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: The advantages of robotic colorectal procedures were clearly demonstrated. RRC can be regarded as safe and feasible. Most of the included studies were retrospective with a limited level of evidence. Further randomized trials would be suitable.

Purpose: Integrating log file analysis with LINACWatch ® (LW) into clinical routine as part of the quality assurance (QA) process could be a time-saving strategy that does not compromise on quality. The purpose is to determine the error sensitivity of log file analysis using LINACWatch ® compared with a measurement device (Arc-CHECK ® , AC) for VMAT delivery QA. Materials and methods: Multi-leaf collimator (MLC) errors, collimator angle errors, MLC shift errors and dose errors were inserted to analyze error detection sensitivity. A total of 36 plans were manipulated with different magnitudes of errors. The gamma index protocols for AC were 3%/3 mm/Global and 2%/2 mm/Global, as well as 2%/2 mm/Global, and 1.5%/1.5 mm/Global for LW. Additionally, deviations of the collimator and monitor units between TPS and log file were calculated as RMS values. A 0.125 cm 3 ionization chamber was used to independently examine the effect on dose. Results: The sensitivity for AC was 20.4% and 49.6% vs 63.0% and 86.5% for LW, depending on the analysis protocol. For MLC opening and closing errors, the detection rate was 19.0% and 47.7% for AC vs 50.5% and 75.5% for LW. For MLC shift errors, it was 29.6% and 66.7% for AC vs 66.7% and 83.3% for LW. AC could detect 25.0% and 44.4% of all collimator errors. Log file analysis detected all collimator errors using 1°detection level. 13.2% and 42.4% of all dose errors were detected by AC vs 59.0% and 92.4% for LW using gamma analysis. Using RMS value, all dose errors were detected by LW (1% detection level). Conclusion: The results of this study clearly show that log file analysis is an excellent complement to phantom-based delivery QA of VMAT plans. We recommend a 1.5%/1.5 mm/Global criteria for log file-based gamma calculations. Log file analysis was implemented successfully in our clinical routine for VMAT delivery QA.

Purpose: In this study, 4-Hz log files were evaluated with an independent secondary Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm to reduce the workload for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) in clinical routine.Materials and Methods: A total of 30 randomly selected clinical prostate VMAT plans were included. The used treatment planning system (TPS) was Monaco (Elekta, Crawley), and the secondary dose calculation software was SciMoCa (Scientific-RT, Munich). Monaco and SciMoCa work with a Monte Carlo algorithm. A plausibility check of Monaco and SciMoCa was performed using an ionization chamber in the BodyPhantom (BP). First, the original Monaco RT plans were verified with SciMoCa (pretreatment QA). Second, the corresponding 4-Hz log files were converted into RT log file plans and sent to SciMoCa as on-treatment QA. MLC shift errors were introduced for one prostate plan to determine the sensitivity of on-treatment QA. For pretreatment and on-treatment QA, a gamma analysis (2%/1mm/20%) was performed and dosimetric values of PTV and OARs were ascertained in SciMoCa.Results: Plausibility check of TPS Monaco vs. BP measurement and SciMoCa vs. BP measurement showed valid accuracy for clinical VMAT QA. Using SciMoCa, there was no significant difference in PTV Dmean between RT plan and RT log file plan.Between pretreatment and on-treatment QA, PTV metrics, femur right and left showed no significant dosimetric differences as opposed to OARs rectum and bladder. The overall gamma passing rate (GPR) ranged from 96.10% to 100% in pretreatment QA and from 93.50% to 99.80% in on-treatment QA. MLC shift errors were identified for deviations larger than −0.50 mm and +0.75 mm using overall gamma criterion and PTV Dmean. Conclusion:SciMoCa calculations of Monaco RT plans and RT log file plans are in excellent agreement to each other. Therefore, 4-Hz log files and SciMoCa can replace labor-intensive phantom-based measurements as patient-specific QA.