Engineering topics
Publications and source records attributed to Lindsay, Patricia.
To explore and quantify the relationship between esophageal dose and toxicity in the setting of lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).
Purpose: To identify risk factors associated with a decline in liver function after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods and Materials: Data were analyzed from patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated on clinical trials of 6-fraction SBRT. Liver toxicity was defined as an increase in Child-Pugh (CP) score ≥2 three months after SBRT. Clinical factors, SBRT details, and liver dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters were tested for association with toxicity using logistic regression. CP class B patients were analyzed separately. Results: Among CP class A patients, 101 were evaluable, with a baseline score of A5 (72%) or A6 (28%). Fifty-three percent had portal vein thrombus. The median liver volume was 1286 cc (range, 766-3967 cc), and the median prescribed dose was 36 Gy (range, 27-54 Gy). Toxicity was seen in 26 patients (26%). Thrombus, baseline CP of A6, and lower platelet count were associated with toxicity on univariate analysis, as were several liver DVH-based parameters. Absolute and spared liver volumes were not significant. On multivariate analysis for CP class A patients, significant associations were found for baseline CP score of A6 (odds ratio [OR], 4.85), lower platelet count (OR, 0.90; median, 108 × 10{sup 9}/L vs 150 × 10{sup 9}/L), higher mean liver dose (OR, 1.33; median, 16.9 Gy vs 14.7 Gy), and higher dose to 800 cc of liver (OR, 1.11; median, 14.3 Gy vs 6.0 Gy). With 13 CP-B7 patients included or when dose to 800 cc of liver was replaced with other DVH parameters (eg, dose to 700 or 900 cc of liver) in the multivariate analysis, effective volume and portal vein thrombus were associated with an increased risk. Conclusions: Baseline CP scores and higher liver doses (eg, mean dose, effective volume, doses to 700-900 cc) were strongly associated with liver function decline 3 months after SBRT. A lower baseline platelet count and portal vein thrombus were also associated with an increased risk.
Purpose: We have developed a semi-automated dose accumulation workflow for Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) patients to evaluate volumetric and dosimetric changes that take place during radiotherapy. This work will be used to assess how dosimetric changes affect both toxicity and disease control, hence inform the feasibility and design of a prospective HNC adaptive trial. Methods: RayStation 4.5.2 features deformable image registration (DIR), where structures already defined on the planning CT image set can be deformably mapped onto cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, accounting for daily treatment set-up shifts and changes in patient anatomy. The daily delivered dose can be calculated on each CBCT and mapped back to the planning CT to allow dose accumulation. The process is partially automated using Python scripts developed in collaboration with RaySearch. Results: To date we have performed dose accumulation on 18 HNC patients treated at our institution during 2013–2015 under REB approval. Our semi-automated process establishes clinical feasibility. Generally, dose accumulation for the entire treatment course of one case takes 60–120 minutes: importing all CBCTs requires 20–30 minutes as each patient has 30 to 40 treated fractions; image registration and dose accumulation require 60–90 minutes. This is in contrast to the process without automated scripts where dose accumulation alone would take 3–5 hours. Conclusions: We have developed a reliable workflow for retrospective dose tracking in HNC using RayStation. The process has been validated for HNC patients treated on both Elekta and Varian linacs with CBCTs acquired on XVI and OBI platforms respectively.
Purpose: The treatment of thoracic cancer using external beam radiation requires an optimal selection of the radiation beam directions to ensure effective coverage of the target volume and to avoid unnecessary treatment of normal healthy tissues. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning is a lengthy process, which requires the planner to iterate between choosing beam angles, specifying dose–volume objectives and executing IMRT optimization. In thorax treatment planning, where there are no class solutions for beam placement, beam angle selection is performed manually, based on the planner’s clinical experience. The purpose of this work is to propose and study a computationally efficient framework that utilizes machine learning to automatically select treatment beam angles. Such a framework may be helpful for reducing the overall planning workload. Methods: The authors introduce an automated beam selection method, based on learning the relationships between beam angles and anatomical features. Using a large set of clinically approved IMRT plans, a random forest regression algorithm is trained to map a multitude of anatomical features into an individual beam score. An optimization scheme is then built to select and adjust the beam angles, considering the learned interbeam dependencies. The validity and quality of the automatically selected beams evaluated using the manually selected beams from the corresponding clinical plans as the ground truth. Results: The analysis included 149 clinically approved thoracic IMRT plans. For a randomly selected test subset of 27 plans, IMRT plans were generated using automatically selected beams and compared to the clinical plans. The comparison of the predicted and the clinical beam angles demonstrated a good average correspondence between the two (angular distance 16.8° ± 10°, correlation 0.75 ± 0.2). The dose distributions of the semiautomatic and clinical plans were equivalent in terms of primary target volume coverage and organ at risk sparing and were superior over plans produced with fixed sets of common beam angles. The great majority of the automatic plans (93%) were approved as clinically acceptable by three radiation therapy specialists. Conclusions: The results demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing a learning-based approach for automatic selection of beam angles in thoracic IMRT planning. The proposed method may assist in reducing the manual planning workload, while sustaining plan quality.
Purpose: A prospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate toxicity, quality of life (QOL), and clinical outcomes in patients treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and concurrent chemotherapy for anal and perianal cancer. Methods and Materials: From June 2008 to November 2010, patients with anal or perianal cancer treated with IMRT were eligible. Radiation dose was 27 Gy in 15 fractions to 36 Gy in 20 fractions for elective targets and 45 Gy in 25 fractions to 63 Gy in 35 fractions for gross targets using standardized, institutional guidelines, with no planned treatment breaks. The chemotherapy regimen was 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin C. Toxicity was graded with the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3. QOL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and CR29 questionnaires. Correlations between dosimetric parameters and both physician-graded toxicities and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated by polyserial correlation. Results: Fifty-eight patients were enrolled. The median follow-up time was 34 months; the median age was 56 years; 52% of patients were female; and 19% were human immunodeficiency virus—positive. Stage I, II, III, and IV disease was found in 9%, 57%, 26%, and 9% of patients, respectively. Twenty-six patients (45%) required a treatment break because of acute toxicity, mainly dermatitis (23/26). Acute grade 3 + toxicities included skin 46%, hematologic 38%, gastrointestinal 9%, and genitourinary 0. The 2-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), colostomy-free survival (CFS), and cumulative locoregional failure (LRF) rates were 90%, 77%, 84%, and 16%, respectively. The global QOL/health status, skin, defecation, and pain scores were significantly worse at the end of treatment than at baseline, but they returned to baseline 3 months after treatment. Social functioning and appetite scores were significantly better at 12 months than at baseline. Multiple dose-volume parameters correlated moderately with diarrhea, skin, and hematologic toxicity scores. Conclusion: IMRT reduces acute grade 3 + hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities compared with reports from non-IMRT series, without compromising locoregional control. The reported QOL scores most relevant to acute toxicities returned to baseline by 3 months after treatment.
Radiation dose is central to much of radiobiological research. Precision and accuracy of dose measurements and reporting of the measurement details should be sufficient to allow the work to be interpreted and repeated and to allow valid comparisons to be made, both in the same laboratory and by other laboratories. Despite this, a careful reading of published manuscripts suggests that measurement and reporting of radiation dosimetry and setup for radiobiology research is frequently inadequate, thus undermining the reliability and reproducibility of the findings. To address these problems and propose a course of action, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) brought together representatives of the radiobiology and radiation physics communities in a workshop in September, 2011. The workshop participants arrived at a number of specific recommendations as enumerated in this paper and they expressed the desirability of creating dosimetry standard operating procedures (SOPs) for cell culture and for small and large animal experiments. It was also felt that these SOPs would be most useful if they are made widely available through mechanism(s) such as the web, where they can provide guidance to both radiobiologists and radiation physicists, be cited in publications, and be updated as the field and needs evolve. Other broad areas covered were the need for continuing education through tutorials at national conferences, and for journals to establish standards for reporting dosimetry. This workshop did not address issues of dosimetry for studies involving radiation focused at the sub-cellular level, internally-administered radionuclides, biodosimetry based on biological markers of radiation exposure, or dose reconstruction for epidemiological studies.