Pencil-beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy (PT), particularly intensity modulated PT, represents the latest advanced PT technology for treating cancers, including thoracic malignancies. On the basis of virtual clinical studies, PBS-PT appears to have great potential in its ability to tightly tailor the dose to the target while sparing critical structures, thereby reducing treatment-related toxicities, particularly for tumors in areas with complicated anatomy. However, implementing PBS-PT for moving targets has several additional technical challenges compared with intensity modulated photon radiation therapy or passive scattering PT. Four-dimensional computed tomography-based motion management and robust optimization and evaluation are crucial for minimizing uncertainties associated with beam range and organ motion. Rigorous quality assurance is required to validate dose delivery both before and during the course of treatment. Active motion management (eg, breath hold), beam gating, rescanning, tracking, or adaptive planning may be needed for cases involving significant motion or changes in motion or anatomy over the course of treatment.

A substantial barrier to the single- and multi-institutional aggregation of data to supporting clinical trials, practice quality improvement efforts, and development of big data analytics resource systems is the lack of standardized nomenclatures for expressing dosimetric data. To address this issue, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 263 was charged with providing nomenclature guidelines and values in radiation oncology for use in clinical trials, data-pooling initiatives, population-based studies, and routine clinical care by standardizing: (1) structure names across image processing and treatment planning system platforms; (2) nomenclature for dosimetric data (eg, dose-volume histogram [DVH]-based metrics); (3) templates for clinical trial groups and users of an initial subset of software platforms to facilitate adoption of the standards; (4) formalism for nomenclature schema, which can accommodate the addition of other structures defined in the future. A multisociety, multidisciplinary, multinational group of 57 members representing stake holders ranging from large academic centers to community clinics and vendors was assembled, including physicists, physicians, dosimetrists, and vendors. The stakeholder groups represented in the membership included the AAPM, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), NRG Oncology, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), Children's Oncology Group (COG), Integrating Healthcare Enterprise in Radiation Oncology (IHE-RO), and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine working group (DICOM WG); A nomenclature system for target and organ at risk volumes and DVH nomenclature was developed and piloted to demonstrate viability across a range of clinics and within the framework of clinical trials. The final report was approved by AAPM in October 2017. The approval process included review by 8 AAPM committees, with additional review by ASTRO, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), and American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD). This Executive Summary of the report highlights the key recommendations for clinical practice, research, and trials.

Background. Proton therapy offers superior low and intermediate radiation dose distribution compared with photonbased radiation for brain and skull base tumors; yet tissue within and adjacent to the target volume may receive a comparable radiation dose. We investigated the tolerance of the pediatric brainstem to proton therapy and identifi ed prognostic variables. Material and methods. All patients Ͻ 18 years old with tumors of the brain or skull base treated from 2007 to 2013 were reviewed; 313 who received Ͼ 50.4 CGE to the brainstem were included in this study. Brainstem toxicity was graded according to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0. Results. The three most common histologies were ependymoma, craniopharyngioma, and low-grade glioma. Median patient age was 5.9 years (range 0.5 -17.9 years) and median prescribed dose was 54 CGE (range 48.6 -75.6 CGE). The two-year cumulative incidence of toxicity was 3.8% Ϯ 1.1%. The two-year cumulative incidence of grade 3 ϩ toxicity was 2.1% Ϯ 0.9%. Univariate analysis identifi ed age Ͻ 5 years, posterior fossa tumor location and specifi c dosimetric parameters as factors associated with an increased risk of toxicity. Conclusion. Utilization of current national brainstem dose guidelines is associated with a low risk of brainstem toxicity in pediatric patients. For young patients with posterior fossa tumors, particularly those who undergo aggressive surgery, our data suggest more conservative dosimetric guidelines should be considered.

Brainstem injury is a rare complication of radiation therapy for both photons and protons. Substantial dosimetric data have been collected for brainstem injury after proton therapy, and established guidelines to allow for safe delivery of proton radiation have been defined. Increased capability exists to incorporate LET optimization; however, further research is needed to fully explore the capabilities of LET- and RBE-based planning.