Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “PANCREAS”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 541 records · Page 30
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Maximizing Tumor Control and Limiting Complications With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy is being increasingly used for pancreatic cancer (PCa), particularly in patients with locally advanced and borderline resectable disease. A wide variety of dose fractionation schemes have been reported in the literature. This HyTEC review uses tumor control probability models to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the various SBRT treatment regimens used in the treatment of patients with localized PCa.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2021

Investigation of Relation of Radiation Therapy Quality With Toxicity and Survival in LAP07 Phase 3 Trial for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Carcinoma

The LAP07 multicenter randomized study assessed whether chemoradiation therapy increases overall survival versus continuation chemotherapy in patients whose locally advanced pancreatic cancer was controlled after 4 months of induction chemotherapy. This analysis investigated whether failure to adhere to radiation therapy (RT) guidelines influenced survival and toxicity.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2021

Phase I Trial of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Dose Escalation in Pancreatic Cancer

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has demonstrated encouraging local tumor control rates in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, yet we lack prospective clinical trials evaluating dose-escalation strategies among patients treated with 5-fraction SBRT. This phase 1 dose-escalation trial was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose of SBRT in patients with pancreatic cancer.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2021

Screening and Validation of Molecular Targeted Radiosensitizers

The development of molecular targeted drugs with radiation and chemotherapy is critically important for improving the outcomes of patients with hard-to-treat, potentially curable cancers. However, too many preclinical studies have not translated into successful radiation oncology trials. Major contributing factors to this insufficiency include poor reproducibility of preclinical data, inadequate preclinical modeling of intertumoral genomic heterogeneity that influences treatment sensitivity in the clinic, and a reliance on tumor growth delay instead of local control (TCD50) endpoints. There exists an urgent need to overcome these barriers to facilitate successful clinical translation of targeted radiosensitizers. To this end, we have used 3-dimensional (3D) cell culture assays to better model tumor behavior in vivo. Examples of successful prediction of in vivo effects with these 3D assays include radiosensitization of head and neck cancers by inhibiting epidermal growth factor receptor or focal adhesion kinase signaling, and radioresistance associated with oncogenic mutation of KRAS. To address the issue of tumor heterogeneity, we leveraged institutional resources that allow high-throughput 3D screening of radiation combinations with small-molecule inhibitors across genomically characterized cell lines from lung, head and neck, and pancreatic cancers. This high-throughput screen is expected to uncover genomic biomarkers that will inform the successful clinical translation of targeted agents from the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program portfolio and other sources. Screening “hits” need to be subjected to refinement studies that include clonogenic assays, addition of disease-specific chemotherapeutics, target/biomarker validation, and integration of patient-derived tumor models. The chemoradiosensitizing activities of the most promising drugs should be confirmed in TCD50 assays in xenograft models with or without relevant biomarker and using clinically relevant radiation fractionation. We predict that appropriately validated and biomarker-directed targeted therapies will have a higher likelihood than past efforts of being successfully incorporated into the standard management of hard-to-treat tumors.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2018

Pain Palliation Using Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer

Pain is a common symptom for patients with pancreatic cancer and is often treated using palliative radiation therapy. Standard palliative dose regimes typically consist of 2000 cGy to 3000 cGy in 5 to 10 fractions (fx). With the recent advancements in radiation dosimetric planning and delivery, the Juravinski Cancer Centre in Hamilton, Ontario, offers a hypofractionated dose of 2500 cGy in 5 fx for the improvement of pain and tumour control in selected pancreatic cancer patients. This project reviews the safety and efficacy of this prescription.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2012

Dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for pancreatic malignancies

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has been previously evaluated for several tumor sites and has been shown to provide significant dosimetric and delivery benefits when compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). To date, there have been no published full reports on the benefits of VMAT use in pancreatic patients compared with IMRT. Ten patients with pancreatic malignancies treated with either IMRT or VMAT were retrospectively identified. Both a double-arc VMAT and a 7-field IMRT plan were generated for each of the 10 patients using the same defined tumor volumes, organs at risk (OAR) volumes, dose, fractionation, and optimization constraints. The planning tumor volume (PTV) maximum dose (55.8 Gy vs. 54.4 Gy), PTV mean dose (53.9 Gy vs. 52.1 Gy), and conformality index (1.11 vs. 0.99) were statistically similar between the IMRT and VMAT plans, respectively. The VMAT plans had a statistically significant reduction in monitor units compared with the IMRT plans (1109 vs. 498, p < 0.001). In addition, the doses to the liver, small bowel, and spinal cord were comparable between the IMRT and VMAT plans. However, the VMAT plans demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the mean left kidney V{sub 25} (9.4 Gy vs. 2.3 Gy, p = 0.018), mean right kidney V{sub 15} (53.4 Gy vs. 45.9 Gy, p = 0.035), V{sub 20} (32.2 Gy vs. 25.5 Gy, p = 0.016), and V{sub 25} (21.7 Gy vs. 14.9 Gy, p = 0.001). VMAT was investigated in patients with pancreatic malignancies and compared with the current standard of IMRT. VMAT was found to have similar or improved dosimetric parameters for all endpoints considered. Specifically, VMAT provided reduced monitor units and improved bilateral kidney normal tissue dose. The clinical relevance of these benefits in the context of pancreatic cancer patients, however, is currently unclear and requires further investigation.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Stereotactic body radiation therapy planning with duodenal sparing using volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: A dosimetric analysis

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) achieves excellent local control for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), but may increase late duodenal toxicity. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivers intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with a rotating gantry rather than multiple fixed beams. This study dosimetrically evaluates the feasibility of implementing duodenal constraints for SBRT using VMAT vs IMRT. Non–duodenal sparing (NS) and duodenal-sparing (DS) VMAT and IMRT plans delivering 25 Gy in 1 fraction were generated for 15 patients with LAPC. DS plans were constrained to duodenal D{sub max} of<30 Gy at any point. VMAT used 1 360° coplanar arc with 4° spacing between control points, whereas IMRT used 9 coplanar beams with fixed gantry positions at 40° angles. Dosimetric parameters for target volumes and organs at risk were compared for DS planning vs NS planning and VMAT vs IMRT using paired-sample Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Both DS VMAT and DS IMRT achieved significantly reduced duodenal D{sub mean}, D{sub max}, D{sub 1cc}, D{sub 4%}, and V{sub 20} {sub Gy} compared with NS plans (all p≤0.002). DS constraints compromised target coverage for IMRT as demonstrated by reduced V{sub 95%} (p = 0.01) and D{sub mean} (p = 0.02), but not for VMAT. DS constraints resulted in increased dose to right kidney, spinal cord, stomach, and liver for VMAT. Direct comparison of DS VMAT and DS IMRT revealed that VMAT was superior in sparing the left kidney (p<0.001) and the spinal cord (p<0.001), whereas IMRT was superior in sparing the stomach (p = 0.05) and the liver (p = 0.003). DS VMAT required 21% fewer monitor units (p<0.001) and delivered treatment 2.4 minutes faster (p<0.001) than DS IMRT. Implementing DS constraints during SBRT planning for LAPC can significantly reduce duodenal point or volumetric dose parameters for both VMAT and IMRT. The primary consequence of implementing DS constraints for VMAT is increased dose to other organs at risk, whereas for IMRT it is compromised target coverage. These findings suggest clinical situations where each technique may be most useful if DS constraints are to be employed.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2014

A comprehensive dosimetric study of pancreatic cancer treatment using three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated radiation therapy (VMAT), and passive-scattering and modulated-scanning proton therapy (PT)

With traditional photon therapy to treat large postoperative pancreatic target volume, it often leads to poor tolerance of the therapy delivered and may contribute to interrupted treatment course. This study was performed to evaluate the potential advantage of using passive-scattering (PS) and modulated-scanning (MS) proton therapy (PT) to reduce normal tissue exposure in postoperative pancreatic cancer treatment. A total of 11 patients with postoperative pancreatic cancer who had been previously treated with PS PT in University of Pennsylvania Roberts Proton Therapy Center from 2010 to 2013 were identified. The clinical target volume (CTV) includes the pancreatic tumor bed as well as the adjacent high-risk nodal areas. Internal (iCTV) was generated from 4-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT), taking into account target motion from breathing cycle. Three-field and 4-field 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), 5-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy, 2-arc volumetric-modulated radiation therapy, and 2-field PS and MS PT were created on the patients’ average CT. All the plans delivered 50.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV). Overall, 98% of PTV was covered by 95% of the prescription dose and 99% of iCTV received 98% prescription dose. The results show that all the proton plans offer significant lower doses to the left kidney (mean and V{sub 18} {sub Gy}), stomach (mean and V{sub 20} {sub Gy}), and cord (maximum dose) compared with all the photon plans, except 3-field 3DCRT in cord maximum dose. In addition, MS PT also provides lower doses to the right kidney (mean and V{sub 18} {sub Gy}), liver (mean dose), total bowel (V{sub 20} {sub Gy} and mean dose), and small bowel (V{sub 15} {sub Gy} absolute volume ratio) compared with all the photon plans and PS PT. The dosimetric advantage of PT points to the possibility of treating tumor bed and comprehensive nodal areas while providing a more tolerable treatment course that could be used for dose escalation and combining with radiosensitizing chemotherapy.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2014

Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for pancreatic malignancies: Dosimetric comparison with sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy

Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) is an iteration of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), both of which deliver highly conformal dose distributions. Studies have shown the superiority of VMAT and IMRT in comparison with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in planning target volume (PTV) coverage and organs-at-risk (OARs) sparing. This is the first study examining the benefits of VMAT in pancreatic cancer for doses more than 55.8 Gy. A planning study comparing 3D-CRT, IMRT, and VMAT was performed in 20 patients with pancreatic cancer. Treatments were planned for a 25-fraction delivery of 45 Gy to a large field followed by a reduced-volume 8-fraction external beam boost to 59.4 Gy in total. OARs and PTV doses, conformality index (CI) deviations from 1.0, monitor units (MUs) delivered, and isodose volumes were compared. IMRT and VMAT CI deviations from 1.0 for the large-field and the boost plans were equivalent (large field: 0.032 and 0.046, respectively; boost: 0.042 and 0.037, respectively; p > 0.05 for all comparisons). Both IMRT and VMAT CI deviations from 1.0 were statistically superior to 3D-CRT (large field: 0.217, boost: 0.177; p < 0.05 for all comparisons). VMAT showed reduction of the mean dose to the boost PTV (VMAT: 61.4 Gy, IMRT: 62.4 Gy, and 3D-CRT: 62.3 Gy; p < 0.05). The mean number of MUs per fraction was significantly lower for VMAT for both the large-field and the boost plans. VMAT delivery time was less than 3 minutes compared with 8 minutes for IMRT. Although no statistically significant dose reduction to the OARs was identified when comparing VMAT with IMRT, VMAT showed a reduction in the volumes of the 100% isodose line for the large-field plans. Dose escalation to 59.4 Gy in pancreatic cancer is dosimetrically feasible with shorter treatment times, fewer MUs delivered, and comparable CIs for VMAT when compared with IMRT.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2014

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for pancreatic and prostate cancer using pulsed low–dose rate delivery techniques

Reirradiation of patients who were previously treated with radiotherapy is vastly challenging. Pulsed low–dose rate (PLDR) external beam radiotherapy has the potential to reduce normal tissue toxicities while providing significant tumor control for recurrent cancers. This work investigates treatment planning techniques for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)-based PLDR treatment of various sites, including cases with pancreatic and prostate cancer. A total of 20 patients with clinical recurrence were selected for this study, including 10 cases with pancreatic cancer and 10 with prostate cancer. Large variations in the target volume were included to test the ability of IMRT using the existing treatment planning system and optimization algorithm to deliver uniform doses in individual gantry angles/fields for PLDR treatments. Treatment plans were generated with 10 gantry angles using the step-and-shoot IMRT delivery technique, which can be delivered in 3-minute intervals to achieve an effective low dose rate of 6.7 cGy/min. Instead of dose constraints on critical structures, ring structures were mainly used in PLDR-IMRT optimization. In this study, the PLDR-IMRT plans were compared with the PLDR-3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) plans and the PLDR-RapidArc plans. For the 10 cases with pancreatic cancer that were investigated, the mean planning target volume (PTV) dose for each gantry angle in the PLDR-IMRT plans ranged from 17.6 to 22.4 cGy. The maximum doses ranged between 22.9 and 34.8 cGy. The minimum doses ranged from 8.2 to 17.5 cGy. For the 10 cases with prostate cancer that were investigated, the mean PTV doses for individual gantry angles ranged from 18.8 to 22.6 cGy. The maximum doses per gantry angle were between 24.0 and 34.7 cGy. The minimum doses per gantry angle ranged from 4.4 to 17.4 cGy. A significant reduction in the organ at risk (OAR) dose was observed with the PLDR-IMRT plan when compared with that using the PLDR-3DCRT plan. The volume receiving an 18-Gy (V{sub 18}) dose for the left and right kidneys was reduced by 10.6% and 12.5%, respectively, for the pancreatic plans. The volume receiving a 45-Gy (V{sub 45}) dose for the small bowel decreased from 65.3% to 45.5%. For the cases with prostate cancer, the volume receiving a 40-Gy (V{sub 40}) dose for the bladder and the rectum was reduced significantly by 25.1% and 51.2%, respectively. When compared with the RapidArc technique, the volume receiving a 30-Gy (V{sub 30}) dose for the left and the right kidneys was lower in the IMRT plans. For most OARs, no significant differences were observed between the PLDR-IMRT and the PLDR-RapidArc plans. These results clearly demonstrated that the PLDR-IMRT plan was suitable for PLDR pancreatic and prostate cancer treatments in terms of the overall plan quality. A significant reduction in the OAR dose was achieved with the PLDR-IMRT plan when compared with that using the PLDR-3DCRT plan. For most OARs, no significant differences were observed between the PLDR-IMRT and the PLDR-RapidArc plans. When compared with the PLDR-3DCRT plan, the PLDR-IMRT plan could provide superior target coverage and normal tissue sparing for PLDR reirradiation of recurrent pancreatic and prostate cancers. The PLDR-IMRT plan is an effective treatment choice for recurrent cancers in most cancer centers.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Dosimetric evaluation of simultaneous integrated boost during stereotactic body radiation therapy for pancreatic cancer

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) provides a promising way to treat locally advanced pancreatic cancer and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. A simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the region of vessel abutment or encasement during SBRT has the potential to downstage otherwise likely positive surgical margins. Despite the potential benefit of using SIB-SBRT, the ability to boost is limited by the local geometry of the organs at risk (OARs), such as stomach, duodenum, and bowel (SDB), relative to tumor. In this study, we have retrospectively replanned 20 patients with 25 Gy prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV) and 33~80 Gy to the boost target volume (BTV) using an SIB technique for all patients. The number of plans and patients able to satisfy a set of clinically established constraints is analyzed. The ability to boost vessels (within the gross target volume [GTV]) is shown to correlate with the overlap volume (OLV), defined to be the overlap between the GTV + a 1(OLV1)- or 2(OLV2)-cm margin with the union of SDB. Integral dose, boost dose contrast (BDC), biologically effective BDC, tumor control probability for BTV, and normal tissue complication probabilities are used to analyze the dosimetric results. More than 65% of the cases can deliver a boost to 40 Gy while satisfying all OAR constraints. An OLV2 of 100 cm{sup 3} is identified as the cutoff volume: for cases with OLV2 larger than 100 cm{sup 3}, it is very unlikely the case could achieve 25 Gy to the PTV while successfully meeting all the OAR constraints.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2015

Ipsilateral kidney sparing in treatment of pancreatic malignancies using volumetric-modulated arc therapy avoidance sectors

Recent research has shown treating pancreatic cancer with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to be superior to either intensity-modulated radiation therapy or 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), with respect to reducing normal tissue toxicity, monitor units, and treatment time. Furthermore, using avoidance sectors with RapidArc planning can further reduce normal tissue dose while maintaining target conformity. This study looks at the methods in reducing dose to the ipsilateral kidney, in pancreatic head cases, while observing dose received by other critical organs using avoidance sectors. Overall, 10 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Each patient had preoperative/unresectable pancreatic tumor and were selected based on the location of the right kidney being situated within the traditional 3D-CRT treatment field. The target planning target volume (286.97 ± 85.17 cm{sup 3}) was prescribed to 50.4 Gy using avoidance sectors of 30°, 40°, and 50° and then compared with VMAT as well as 3D-CRT. Analysis of the data shows that the mean dose to the right kidney was reduced by 11.6%, 15.5%, and 21.9% for avoidance angles of 30°, 40°, and 50°, respectively, over VMAT. The mean dose to the total kidney also decreased by 6.5%, 8.5%, and 11.0% for the same increasing angles. Spinal cord maximum dose, however, increased as a function of angle by 3.7%, 4.8%, and 6.1% compared with VMAT. Employing avoidance sector angles as a complement to VMAT planning can significantly reduce high dose to the ipsilateral kidney while not greatly overdosing other critical organs.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Couch height–based patient setup for abdominal radiation therapy

There are 2 methods commonly used for patient positioning in the anterior-posterior (A-P) direction: one is the skin mark patient setup method (SMPS) and the other is the couch height–based patient setup method (CHPS). This study compared the setup accuracy of these 2 methods for abdominal radiation therapy. The enrollment for this study comprised 23 patients with pancreatic cancer. For treatments (539 sessions), patients were set up by using isocenter skin marks and thereafter treatment couch was shifted so that the distance between the isocenter and the upper side of the treatment couch was equal to that indicated on the computed tomographic (CT) image. Setup deviation in the A-P direction for CHPS was measured by matching the spine of the digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) of a lateral beam at simulation with that of the corresponding time-integrated electronic portal image. For SMPS with no correction (SMPS/NC), setup deviation was calculated based on the couch-level difference between SMPS and CHPS. SMPS/NC was corrected using 2 off-line correction protocols: no action level (SMPS/NAL) and extended NAL (SMPS/eNAL) protocols. Margins to compensate for deviations were calculated using the Stroom formula. A-P deviation > 5 mm was observed in 17% of SMPS/NC, 4% of SMPS/NAL, and 4% of SMPS/eNAL sessions but only in one CHPS session. For SMPS/NC, 7 patients (30%) showed deviations at an increasing rate of > 0.1 mm/fraction, but for CHPS, no such trend was observed. The standard deviations (SDs) of systematic error (Σ) were 2.6, 1.4, 0.6, and 0.8 mm and the root mean squares of random error (σ) were 2.1, 2.6, 2.7, and 0.9 mm for SMPS/NC, SMPS/NAL, SMPS/eNAL, and CHPS, respectively. Margins to compensate for the deviations were wide for SMPS/NC (6.7 mm), smaller for SMPS/NAL (4.6 mm) and SMPS/eNAL (3.1 mm), and smallest for CHPS (2.2 mm). Achieving better setup with smaller margins, CHPS appears to be a reproducible method for abdominal patient setup.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗