Carbon ion radiotherapy (C-ion RT) allows excellent dose distribution because of the Bragg Peak. Compared with conventional radiotherapy, it delivers a higher dose with a smaller field. However, the dose distribution is sensitive to anatomical changes. Imaging technologies are necessary to reduce uncertainties during treatment, especially for hypofractionated and adaptive radiotherapy (ART). In-room computed tomography (CT) techniques, such as cone-beam CT (CBCT) and CT-on-rails are routinely used in photon centers and play a key role in improving treatment accuracy. For C-ion RT, there is an increasing demand for a three-dimensional (3D) image-guided system because of the limitations of the present two-dimensional (2D) imaging verification technology. This review discusses the current imaging system used in carbon ion centers and the potential benefits of a volumetric image-guided system.

The aim of this study was to compare the dose-volume parameters of fiducial marker matching (MM) with vertebral body matching (VM) in patient positioning for carbon ion radiotherapy for primary hepatic cancer. Twenty patients with primary hepatic cancer were retrospectively studied to assess changes in reproducibility of tumor position and dose distribution on two CT scans. One was for treatment planning and another was for dose confirmation, acquired the day before the first treatment day. The coverage of the clinical target volume (CTV) (D98) and normal liver volume excluding the CTV which received 20Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) (V20) were used as evaluation parameters. Additionally, the correlation of tumor movement and D98 was calculated in VM and MM. The prescription dose was 60.0Gy (RBE) delivered in four fractions (15Gy/fx). The median (range) D98 for VM and MM was 57.9 (20.8-59.9) and 59.9 (57.2-60.3) Gy (RBE), respectively. The median (range) V20 for VM and MM was 17.9 (4.8-44.4) and 16.2 (4.7-44.9) Gy (RBE), respectively. The D98 for MM was significantly larger than that for VM (p=0.001), although V20 showed no significant difference (p>0.05). Twelve patients were clinically acceptable (D98>57Gy (RBE)) with VM, while all patients were clinically acceptable with MM. Marker movement correlated with a decrease of D98 for VM (R=-0.814). Compared with VM, MM was clinically acceptable in all patients. This suggests that MM is more robust than VM.

We aimed to clarify the accuracy of rigid image registration and deformable image registration (DIR) in carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for pancreatic cancer. Six patients with pancreatic cancer who were treated with passive irradiation CIRT were enrolled. Three registration patterns were evaluated: treatment planning computed tomography images (TPCT) to CT images acquired in the treatment room (IRCT) in the supine position, TPCT to IRCT in the prone position, and TPCT in the supine position to the prone position. After warping the contours of the original CT images to the destination CT images using deformation matrices from the registration, the warped delineated contours on the destination CT images were compared with the original ones using mean displacement to agreement (MDA). Four contours (clinical target volume (CTV), gross tumor volume (GTV), stomach, duodenum) and four registration algorithms (rigid image registration [RIR], intensity-based DIR [iDIR], contour-based DIR [cDIR], and a hybrid iDIR-cDIR ([hDIR]) were evaluated. The means ± standard deviation of the MDAs of all contours for RIR, iDIR, cDIR, and hDIR were 3.40 ± 3.30, 2.2 1± 2.48, 1.46 ± 1.49, and 1.46 ± 1.37 mm, respectively. There were significant differences between RIR and iDIR, and between RIR/iDIR and cDIR/hDIR. For the pancreatic cancer patient images, cDIR and hDIR had better accuracy than RIR and iDIR.