Prostate cancer patients who undergo radiotherapy are at an increased risk to develop a radiogenic second cancer. Proton therapy has been shown to reduce the predicted risk of second cancer when compared to intensity modulated radiotherapy. However, it is unknown if this is also true for the rotational therapies proton arc therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The objective of this study was to compare the predicted risk of cancer following proton arc therapy and VMAT for prostate cancer. Proton arc therapy and VMAT plans were created for 3 patients. Various risk models were combined with the dosimetric data (therapeutic and stray dose) to predict the excess relative risk (ERR) of cancer in the bladder and rectum. Ratios of ERR values (RRR) from proton arc therapy and VMAT were calculated. RRR values ranged from 0.74 to 0.99, and all RRR values were shown to be statistically less than 1, except for the value calculated with the linear-non-threshold risk model. We conclude that the predicted risk of cancer in the bladder or rectum following proton arc therapy for prostate cancer is either less than or approximately equal to the risk following VMAT, depending on which risk model is applied.

Background and purposeTwo techniques for metal artefact reduction for computed tomography were studied in order to identify their impact on tumour delineation in radiotherapy.Materials and methodsUsing specially designed phantoms containing metal implants (dental, spine and hip) as well as patient images, we investigated the impact of two methods for metal artefact reduction on (A) the size and severity of metal artefacts and the accuracy of Hounsfield Unit (HU) representation, (B) the visual impact of metal artefacts on image quality and (C) delineation accuracy. A metal artefact reduction algorithm (MAR) and two types of dual energy virtual monochromatic (DECT VM) reconstructions were used separately and in combination to identify the optimal technique for each implant site.ResultsThe artefact area and severity was reduced (by 48–76% and 58–79%, MAR and DECT VM respectively) and accurate Hounsfield-value representation was increased by 22–82%. For each energy, the observers preferred MAR over non-MAR reconstructions (p < 0.01 for dental and hip cases, p < 0.05 for the spine case). In addition, DECT VM was preferred for spine implants (p < 0.01). In all cases, techniques that improved target delineation significantly (p < 0.05) were identified.ConclusionsDECT VM and MAR techniques improve delineation accuracy and the optimal of reconstruction technique depends on the type of metal implant.