Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of locoregional failure after reduced dose selective neck irradiation (RD-SNI) in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). Materials and Methods: Between 2008 and 2022, 342 OPC patients underwent definitive radiation therapy (with or without concurrent systemic therapy). The doses of 67.2-68.4 Gy to gross tumor volume (GTV), 56-60 Gy to high-risk clinical target volumes (CTV-HR), and 32-36 Gy to low-risk clinical target volumes (CTV-LR) were irradiated. The same target delineation and dosing policy were applied to all patients regardless of human papillomavirus (HPV) status. Oncological outcomes including failure patterns were also investigated. Results: With a median follow-up of 60.3 months (range, 1.4 to 196.6 months), the 3- and 5-year locoregional control, distant metastasis-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates were 91.6%/90.7%, 83.7%/80.7%, 78.7%/74.8%, and 91.0%/85.8%, respectively. The HPV-positive patients exhibited significantly better outcomes. Treatment failure occurred in 61 patients (17.8%); 37 (10.8%) had distant metastasis, 22 (6.4%) had local failure, and eight (2.3%) had regional failure. GTV failure was significantly more common in HPV-negative patients (p=0.003). Among the 27 patients with locoregional failure, either GTV and/or CTV-HR failure occurred in 22 (81.5%), with CTV-LR failure in one (3.7%), and out-target regional (OTR) failure in five (18.5%). Only five failures (1.5%) could be attributed to the current RD-SNI policy: one CTV-LR failure (0.3%) reflecting the RD policy and four OTR failures (1.2%) reflecting the SNI policy. Conclusion Excellent oncological outcomes were achieved with the current RD-SNI policy.

Purpose: An optimal once-daily radiotherapy (RT) regimen is under investigation for definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in limited disease small cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC). We compared the efficacy and safety of dose escalation with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Materials and Methods: Between January 2016 and March 2021, patients treated with definitive CCRT for LD-SCLC with IMRT were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who received a total dose <50 Gy or those with a history of thoracic RT or surgery were excluded. The patients were divided into two groups (standard and dose-escalated) based on the total biologically effective dose (BED, α/β = 10) of 70 Gy. The chemotherapeutic regimen comprised four cycles of etoposide and cisplatin. Results: One hundred and twenty-two patients were analyzed and the median follow-up was 27.8 months (range, 4.4 to 76.9 months). The median age of the patients was 63 years (range, 35 to 78 years) and the majority had a history of smoking (86.0%). The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates of the escalated dose group were significantly higher than those of the standard group (93.5% and 50.5% vs. 76.7% and 33.3%, respectively; p = 0.008), as were the 1- and 3-year freedom from in-field failure rates (91.4% and 66.5% vs. 73.8% and 46.9%, respectively; p = 0.018). The incidence of grade 2 or higher acute and late pneumonitis was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.062, 0.185). Conclusion Dose-escalated once-daily CCRT with IMRT led to improved locoregional control and survival, with no increase in toxicity.

Purpose: Surface-guided radiation therapy is an image-guided method using optical surface imaging that has recently been adopted for patient setup and motion monitoring during treatment. We aimed to determine whether the surface guide setup is accurate and efficient compared to the skin-marking guide in prostate cancer treatment. Materials and Methods: The skin-marking setup was performed, and vertical, longitudinal, and lateral couch values (labeled as "M") were recorded. Subsequently, the surface-guided setup was conducted, and couch values (labeled as "S") were recorded. After performing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), the final couch values was recorded (labeled as "C"), and the shift value was calculated (labeled as "Gap (M-S)," "Gap (M-C)," "Gap (S-C)") and then compared. Additionally, the setup times for the skin marking and surface guides were also compared. Results: One hundred and twenty-five patients were analyzed, totaling 2,735 treatment fractions. Gap (M-S) showed minimal differences in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral averages (-0.03 cm, 0.07 cm, and 0.06 cm, respectively). Gap (M-C) and Gap (S-C) exhibited a mean difference of 0.04 cm (p = 0.03) in the vertical direction, a mean difference of 0.35 cm (p = 0.52) in the longitudinal direction, and a mean difference of 0.11 cm (p = 0.91) in the lateral direction. There was no correlation between shift values and patient characteristics. The average setup time of the skin-marking guide was 6.72 minutes, and 7.53 minutes for the surface guide. Conclusion There was no statistically significant difference between the surface and skin-marking guides regarding final CBCT shift values and no correlation between translational shift values and patient characteristics. We also observed minimal difference in setup time between the two methods. Therefore, the surface guide can be considered an accurate and time-efficient alternative to skin-marking guides.