An advanced technique for multiple breath-hold volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has been proposed under fluoroscopic image guidance with a fiducial marker implanted close to a tumor. The marker coordinates on a digitally reconstructed radiography image at a gantry start angle, under a planned breath-hold condition, were transferred to the fluoroscopic image window. Then, a reference lateral line passing through the planned breath-hold marker position was drawn on the fluoroscopic image. Additional lateral lines were further added on both sides of the reference line with a distance of 3 mm as a tolerance limit for the breath-hold beam delivery. Subsequently, the patient was asked to breathe in slowly under fluoroscopy. Immediately after the marker position on the fluoroscopic image moved inside the tolerance range, the patient was asked to hold the breath and the VMAT beam was delivered. During the beam delivery, the breath-hold status was continuously monitored by checking if the deviation of the marker position exceeded the tolerance limit. As long as the marker stayed within the tolerance range, a segmented VMAT delivery continued for a preset period of 15 to 30 seconds depending on the breath-hold capability of each patient. As soon as each segmented delivery was completed, the beam interrupt button was pushed; subsequently, the patient was asked for free breathing. This procedure was repeated until all the segmented VMAT beams were delivered. A lung tumor case is reported here as an initial study. The proposed technique may be clinically advantageous for treating respiratory moving tumors including lung tumor, liver cancer, and other abdominal cancers.

We investigated patient survival after palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases while comparing the prognostic accuracies of the 3-variable number of risk factors (NRF) model and the new Katagiri scoring system (Katagiri score). Overall, 485 patients who received radiotherapy for bone metastases were grouped as per the NRF model (groups I, II and III) and Katagiri score (low-, intermediate- and high-risk). Survival was compared using the log-rank or log-rank trend test. Independent prognostic factors were identified using multivariate Cox regression analyses (MCRA). MCRA and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare both models’ accuracy. For the 376 evaluable patients, the overall survival (OS) rates decreased significantly in the higher-tier groups of both models (P < 0.001). All evaluated factors except ‘previous chemotherapy status’ differed significantly between groups. Both models exhibited independent predictive power (P < 0.001). Per NRF model, hazard ratios (HRs) were 1.44 (P = 0.099) and 2.944 (P < 0.001), respectively, for groups II and III, relative to group I. Per Katagiri score, HRs for intermediate- and high-risk groups were 4.02 (P < 0.001) and 7.09 (P < 0.001), respectively, relative to the low-risk group. Areas under the curve (AUC) for predicting 6-, 18- and 24-month mortality were significantly higher when using the Katagiri score (P = 0.036, 0.039 and 0.022). Both models predict survival. Prognostic accuracy of the Katagiri score is superior, especially in patients with long-term survival potential; however, in patients with short prognosis, no difference occurred between both models; simplicity and patient burden should also be considered.