Purpose: Re-irradiation is a treatment option for recurrent esophageal cancer patients with a history of radiotherapy, but there is a risk of severe late adverse effects. This study focused on the efficacy and safety of re-irradiation using hyperfractionated radiotherapy. Materials and Methods: Twenty-six patients who underwent re-irradiation by the hyperfraction technique using twice-daily irradiation of 1.2 Gy per fraction for recurrent esophageal cancer were retrospectively included in this study. The overall survival period after the start of secondary radiotherapy and the occurrence of late adverse effects were investigated. Results: Of 26 patients, 21 (81%) received re-irradiation with definitive intention and 21 (81%) underwent concurrent chemotherapy. The median re-irradiation dose was 60 Gy in 50 fractions in 25 treatment days, and the median accumulated irradiation dose in equivalent dose in 2 Gy per fraction was 85.4 Gy with an α/β value of 3. The median interval between two courses of radiotherapy was 21.0 months. The median overall survival period was 15.8 months and the 1-year and 3-year overall survival rates were 64.3% and 28.3%, respectively. Higher dose of re-irradiation and concurrent chemotherapy significantly improved survival (p < 0.001 and p = 0.019, respectively). Severe late adverse effects with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher were observed in 5 (19.2%) patients, and 2 (7.7%) of them developed a grade 5 late adverse effect. Conclusion High-dose re-irradiation using a hyperfractionated schedule with concurrent chemotherapy might be related to good prognosis, while the rate of late severe adverse effects is not high compared with the rates in past reports.

Background/Aims: The necessity for pharyngeal anesthesia during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is controversial. This study aimed to compare the observation ability with and without pharyngeal anesthesia under midazolam sedation. Methods: This prospective, single-blinded, randomized study included 500 patients who underwent transoral upper gastrointestinal endoscopy under intravenous midazolam sedation. Patients were randomly allocated to pharyngeal anesthesia: PA+ or PA– groups (250 patients/group). The endoscopists obtained 10 images of the oropharynx and hypopharynx. The primary outcome was the non-inferiority of the PA– group in terms of the pharyngeal observation success rate. Results: The pharyngeal observation success rates in the pharyngeal anesthesia with and without (PA+ and PA–) groups were 84.0% and 72.0%, respectively. The PA– group was inferior (p=0.707, non-inferiority) to the PA+ group in terms of observable parts (8.33 vs. 8.86, p=0.006), time (67.2 vs. 58.2 seconds, p=0.001), and pain (1.21±2.37 vs. 0.68±1.78, p=0.004, 0–10 point visual analog scale). Suitable quality images of the posterior wall of the oropharynx, vocal fold, and pyriform sinus were inferior in the PA– group. Subgroup analysis showed a higher sedation level (Ramsay score ≥5) with almost no differences in the pharyngeal observation success rate between the groups. Conclusions Non-pharyngeal anesthesia showed no non-inferiority in pharyngeal observation ability. Pharyngeal anesthesia may improve pharyngeal observation ability in the hypopharynx and reduce pain. However, deeper anesthesia may reduce this difference.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate changes in target coverage using magnetic resonance–guided online adaptive radiotherapy (MRgoART) for kidney tumors and to evaluate the suitable timing of treatment. Materials and Methods: Among patients treated with 3-fraction MRgoART for kidney cancer, 18 tumors located within 1 cm of the gastrointestinal tract were selected. Stereotactic radiosurgery planning with a prescription dose of 26 Gy was performed using pretreatment simulation and three MRgoART timings with an adapt-to-shape method. The best MRgoART plan was defined as the plan achieving the highest percentage of planning target volume (PTV) coverage of 26 Gy. In clinical scenario simulation, MRgoART plans were evaluated in the order of actual treatment. Waiting for the next timing was done when the PTV coverage of 26 Gy did not achieve 95%–99% or did not increase by 5% or more compared to the pretreatment plan. Results: The median percentages of PTV receiving 26 Gy in pretreatment and the first, second, and third MRgoART were 82% (range, 19%), 63% (range, 7% to 99%), 88% (range, 31% to 99%), and 95% (range, 3% to 99%), respectively. Comparing pretreatment simulation plans with the best MRgoART plans showed a significant difference (p = 0.025). In the clinical scenario simulation, 16 of the 18 planning series, including nine plans with 95%–99% PTV coverage of 26 Gy and seven plans with increased PTV coverage by 5% or more, would be irradiated at a good timing. Conclusion MRgoART revealed dose coverage differences at each MRgoART timing. Waiting for optimal irradiation timing could be an option in case of suboptimal timing.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate changes in target coverage using magnetic resonance–guided online adaptive radiotherapy (MRgoART) for kidney tumors and to evaluate the suitable timing of treatment. Materials and Methods: Among patients treated with 3-fraction MRgoART for kidney cancer, 18 tumors located within 1 cm of the gastrointestinal tract were selected. Stereotactic radiosurgery planning with a prescription dose of 26 Gy was performed using pretreatment simulation and three MRgoART timings with an adapt-to-shape method. The best MRgoART plan was defined as the plan achieving the highest percentage of planning target volume (PTV) coverage of 26 Gy. In clinical scenario simulation, MRgoART plans were evaluated in the order of actual treatment. Waiting for the next timing was done when the PTV coverage of 26 Gy did not achieve 95%–99% or did not increase by 5% or more compared to the pretreatment plan. Results: The median percentages of PTV receiving 26 Gy in pretreatment and the first, second, and third MRgoART were 82% (range, 19%), 63% (range, 7% to 99%), 88% (range, 31% to 99%), and 95% (range, 3% to 99%), respectively. Comparing pretreatment simulation plans with the best MRgoART plans showed a significant difference (p = 0.025). In the clinical scenario simulation, 16 of the 18 planning series, including nine plans with 95%–99% PTV coverage of 26 Gy and seven plans with increased PTV coverage by 5% or more, would be irradiated at a good timing. Conclusion MRgoART revealed dose coverage differences at each MRgoART timing. Waiting for optimal irradiation timing could be an option in case of suboptimal timing.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate changes in target coverage using magnetic resonance–guided online adaptive radiotherapy (MRgoART) for kidney tumors and to evaluate the suitable timing of treatment. Materials and Methods: Among patients treated with 3-fraction MRgoART for kidney cancer, 18 tumors located within 1 cm of the gastrointestinal tract were selected. Stereotactic radiosurgery planning with a prescription dose of 26 Gy was performed using pretreatment simulation and three MRgoART timings with an adapt-to-shape method. The best MRgoART plan was defined as the plan achieving the highest percentage of planning target volume (PTV) coverage of 26 Gy. In clinical scenario simulation, MRgoART plans were evaluated in the order of actual treatment. Waiting for the next timing was done when the PTV coverage of 26 Gy did not achieve 95%–99% or did not increase by 5% or more compared to the pretreatment plan. Results: The median percentages of PTV receiving 26 Gy in pretreatment and the first, second, and third MRgoART were 82% (range, 19%), 63% (range, 7% to 99%), 88% (range, 31% to 99%), and 95% (range, 3% to 99%), respectively. Comparing pretreatment simulation plans with the best MRgoART plans showed a significant difference (p = 0.025). In the clinical scenario simulation, 16 of the 18 planning series, including nine plans with 95%–99% PTV coverage of 26 Gy and seven plans with increased PTV coverage by 5% or more, would be irradiated at a good timing. Conclusion MRgoART revealed dose coverage differences at each MRgoART timing. Waiting for optimal irradiation timing could be an option in case of suboptimal timing.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate changes in target coverage using magnetic resonance–guided online adaptive radiotherapy (MRgoART) for kidney tumors and to evaluate the suitable timing of treatment. Materials and Methods: Among patients treated with 3-fraction MRgoART for kidney cancer, 18 tumors located within 1 cm of the gastrointestinal tract were selected. Stereotactic radiosurgery planning with a prescription dose of 26 Gy was performed using pretreatment simulation and three MRgoART timings with an adapt-to-shape method. The best MRgoART plan was defined as the plan achieving the highest percentage of planning target volume (PTV) coverage of 26 Gy. In clinical scenario simulation, MRgoART plans were evaluated in the order of actual treatment. Waiting for the next timing was done when the PTV coverage of 26 Gy did not achieve 95%–99% or did not increase by 5% or more compared to the pretreatment plan. Results: The median percentages of PTV receiving 26 Gy in pretreatment and the first, second, and third MRgoART were 82% (range, 19%), 63% (range, 7% to 99%), 88% (range, 31% to 99%), and 95% (range, 3% to 99%), respectively. Comparing pretreatment simulation plans with the best MRgoART plans showed a significant difference (p = 0.025). In the clinical scenario simulation, 16 of the 18 planning series, including nine plans with 95%–99% PTV coverage of 26 Gy and seven plans with increased PTV coverage by 5% or more, would be irradiated at a good timing. Conclusion MRgoART revealed dose coverage differences at each MRgoART timing. Waiting for optimal irradiation timing could be an option in case of suboptimal timing.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate changes in target coverage using magnetic resonance–guided online adaptive radiotherapy (MRgoART) for kidney tumors and to evaluate the suitable timing of treatment. Materials and Methods: Among patients treated with 3-fraction MRgoART for kidney cancer, 18 tumors located within 1 cm of the gastrointestinal tract were selected. Stereotactic radiosurgery planning with a prescription dose of 26 Gy was performed using pretreatment simulation and three MRgoART timings with an adapt-to-shape method. The best MRgoART plan was defined as the plan achieving the highest percentage of planning target volume (PTV) coverage of 26 Gy. In clinical scenario simulation, MRgoART plans were evaluated in the order of actual treatment. Waiting for the next timing was done when the PTV coverage of 26 Gy did not achieve 95%–99% or did not increase by 5% or more compared to the pretreatment plan. Results: The median percentages of PTV receiving 26 Gy in pretreatment and the first, second, and third MRgoART were 82% (range, 19%), 63% (range, 7% to 99%), 88% (range, 31% to 99%), and 95% (range, 3% to 99%), respectively. Comparing pretreatment simulation plans with the best MRgoART plans showed a significant difference (p = 0.025). In the clinical scenario simulation, 16 of the 18 planning series, including nine plans with 95%–99% PTV coverage of 26 Gy and seven plans with increased PTV coverage by 5% or more, would be irradiated at a good timing. Conclusion MRgoART revealed dose coverage differences at each MRgoART timing. Waiting for optimal irradiation timing could be an option in case of suboptimal timing.

The role of academic journals evolves with the times. Academic publishing is diversifying, shifting from traditional paper-based formats to broader dissemination through open access. In response to these developments-and to contribute to ongoing progress in medical education-Medical Education (Japan) has undertaken a comprehensive revision of its submission guidelines. As of January 17, 2025, all submissions, peer reviews, and editorial processes are being conducted in accordance with the updated guidelines.　The Editorial Board convened a round-table discussion to explore recent developments, beginning with the revision of the submission guidelines. This discussion elaborates on the journal's role and its relevance to the academic community, including society members, authors, and readers. It features statements from participating editorial committee members and highlights the key issues discussed, including the criteria each member uses to evaluate manuscripts. The aim is to offer insight into the journal's editorial stance and decision-making process.