1
|
Hooshangnejad H, Youssefian S, Narang A, Shin EJ, Rao AD, Han-Oh S, McNutt T, Lee J, Hu C, Wong J, Ding K. Finite Element-Based Personalized Simulation of Duodenal Hydrogel Spacer: Spacer Location Dependent Duodenal Sparing and a Decision Support System for Spacer-Enabled Pancreatic Cancer Radiation Therapy. Front Oncol 2022; 12:833231. [PMID: 35402281 PMCID: PMC8987290 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.833231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2021] [Accepted: 02/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death, with a very low 5-year overall survival rate (OS). Radiation therapy (RT) together with dose escalation significantly increases the OS at 2 and 3 years. However, dose escalation is very limited due to the proximity of the duodenum. Hydrogel spacers are an effective way to reduce duodenal toxicity, but the complexity of the anatomy and the procedure makes the success and effectiveness of the spacer procedure highly uncertain. To provide a preoperative simulation of hydrogel spacers, we presented a patient-specific spacer simulator algorithm and used it to create a decision support system (DSS) to provide a preoperative optimal spacer location to maximize the spacer benefits. Materials and Methods Our study was divided into three phases. In the validation phase, we evaluated the patient-specific spacer simulator algorithm (FEMOSSA) for the duodenal spacer using the dice similarity coefficient (DSC), overlap volume histogram (OVH), and radial nearest neighbor distance (RNND). For the simulation phase, we simulated four virtual spacer scenarios based on the location of the spacer in para-duodenal space. Next, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) plans were designed and dosimetrically analyzed. Finally, in the prediction phase, using the result of the simulation phase, we created a Bayesian DSS to predict the optimal spacer location and biological effective dose (BED). Results A realistic simulation of the spacer was achieved, reflected in a statistically significant increase in average target and duodenal DSC for the simulated spacer. Moreover, the small difference in average mean and 5th-percentile RNNDs (0.5 and 2.1 mm) and OVH thresholds (average of less than 0.75 mm) showed that the simulation attained similar separation as the real spacer. We found a spacer-location-independent decrease in duodenal V20Gy, a highly spacer-location-dependent change in V33Gy, and a strong correlation between L1cc and V33Gy. Finally, the Bayesian DSS predicted the change in BED with a root mean squared error of 3.6 Gys. Conclusions A duodenal spacer simulator platform was developed and used to systematically study the dosimetric effect of spacer location. Further, L1cc is an informative anatomical feedback to guide the DSS to indicate the spacer efficacy, optimum location, and expected improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hamed Hooshangnejad
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Sina Youssefian
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Amol Narang
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Eun Ji Shin
- Department of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Avani Dholakia Rao
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Sarah Han-Oh
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Todd McNutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Junghoon Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Chen Hu
- Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - John Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Kai Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
- *Correspondence: Kai Ding,
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chen G, Cui J, Qian J, Zhu J, Zhao L, Luo B, Cui T, Zhong L, Yang F, Yang G, Zhao X, Zhou Y, Geng M, Sun J. Rapid Progress in Intelligent Radiotherapy and Future Implementation. Cancer Invest 2022; 40:425-436. [PMID: 35225723 DOI: 10.1080/07357907.2022.2044842] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
Radiotherapy is one of the major approaches to cancer treatment. Artificial intelligence in radiotherapy (shortly, Intelligent radiotherapy) mainly involves big data, deep learning, extended reality, digital twin, radiomics, Internet plus and Internet of Things (IoT), which establish an automatic and intelligent network platform consisting of radiotherapy preparation, target volume delineation, treatment planning, radiation delivery, quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC), prognosis judgment and post-treatment follow-up. Intelligent radiotherapy is an interdisciplinary frontier discipline in infancy. The review aims to summary the important implements of intelligent radiotherapy in various areas and put forward the future of unmanned radiotherapy center.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guangpeng Chen
- Department of Oncology, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400037, P.R. China
| | - Jianxiong Cui
- Department of Oncology, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400037, P.R. China.,Department of Oncology, Sichuan Provincial Crops Hospital of Chinese People's Armed Police Forces, Leshan 614000, Sichuan, P.R. China
| | - Jindong Qian
- Department of Oncology, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400037, P.R. China
| | - Jianbo Zhu
- Department of Oncology, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400037, P.R. China
| | - Lirong Zhao
- Department of Oncology, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400037, P.R. China
| | - Bangyu Luo
- Department of Oncology, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400037, P.R. China
| | - Tianxiang Cui
- Department of Oncology, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400037, P.R. China
| | - Liangzhi Zhong
- Department of Oncology, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400037, P.R. China
| | - Fan Yang
- Department of Oncology, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400037, P.R. China
| | - Guangrong Yang
- Qijiang District People's Hospital, Chongqing 401420, P.R. China
| | - Xianlan Zhao
- Department of Oncology, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400037, P.R. China
| | - Yibing Zhou
- Department of Oncology, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400037, P.R. China
| | - Mingying Geng
- Department of Cancer Center, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400042, P.R. China
| | - Jianguo Sun
- Department of Oncology, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400037, P.R. China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Medical physics external beam plan review: What contributes to the variability? Phys Med 2021; 89:293-302. [PMID: 34488178 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.08.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2021] [Revised: 07/12/2021] [Accepted: 08/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE In this article we report on the results of a survey of physics plan review practices conducted by the Cancer Care Ontario Communities of Practice and the variations in practice between and within centers. METHODS The medical physicists at each center worked together to complete the survey and submit a single response for that center. A 4-point Likert scale, used to report the variation in practice at each center, was quantified into two parameters: "Intra-center variation", the distribution of responses within the center, and "Variation between centers", the difference between the center's response and the provincial mean. These metrics were correlated with center characteristics to identify factors that impacted on variations in practice. RESULTS Bolus and heterogeneity correction were the only two items checked by all physicists in all centers. In more than half of the centers, image registration and DVH binning are not likely checked by physics. A significant difference in the variation between centers is observed for centers that used a single vendor's products. Centers that used an official checklist indicated higher levels and a wider range of Intra-center variation. Higher workload did not affect the variation in checking patterns between physicists in the same center. CONCLUSIONS The effect of a center's resources on their checking practice suggest that local environment and workflow be accounted for when implementing TG275 guidelines. The observation that standardized checklists did not reduce checking variability point to the importance of following the checklist development guidelines in MPPG4 to avoid ineffective checklists.
Collapse
|
4
|
Bitterman DS, Miller TA, Mak RH, Savova GK. Clinical Natural Language Processing for Radiation Oncology: A Review and Practical Primer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 110:641-655. [PMID: 33545300 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.01.044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2020] [Revised: 12/22/2020] [Accepted: 01/23/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Natural language processing (NLP), which aims to convert human language into expressions that can be analyzed by computers, is one of the most rapidly developing and widely used technologies in the field of artificial intelligence. Natural language processing algorithms convert unstructured free text data into structured data that can be extracted and analyzed at scale. In medicine, this unlocking of the rich, expressive data within clinical free text in electronic medical records will help untap the full potential of big data for research and clinical purposes. Recent major NLP algorithmic advances have significantly improved the performance of these algorithms, leading to a surge in academic and industry interest in developing tools to automate information extraction and phenotyping from clinical texts. Thus, these technologies are poised to transform medical research and alter clinical practices in the future. Radiation oncology stands to benefit from NLP algorithms if they are appropriately developed and deployed, as they may enable advances such as automated inclusion of radiation therapy details into cancer registries, discovery of novel insights about cancer care, and improved patient data curation and presentation at the point of care. However, challenges remain before the full value of NLP is realized, such as the plethora of jargon specific to radiation oncology, nonstandard nomenclature, a lack of publicly available labeled data for model development, and interoperability limitations between radiation oncology data silos. Successful development and implementation of high quality and high value NLP models for radiation oncology will require close collaboration between computer scientists and the radiation oncology community. Here, we present a primer on artificial intelligence algorithms in general and NLP algorithms in particular; provide guidance on how to assess the performance of such algorithms; review prior research on NLP algorithms for oncology; and describe future avenues for NLP in radiation oncology research and clinics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Danielle S Bitterman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Computational Health Informatics Program, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Program, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
| | - Timothy A Miller
- Computational Health Informatics Program, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Raymond H Mak
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Program, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Guergana K Savova
- Computational Health Informatics Program, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hooshangnejad H, Youssefian S, Guest JK, Ding K. FEMOSSA: Patient-specific finite element simulation of the prostate-rectum spacer placement, a predictive model for prostate cancer radiotherapy. Med Phys 2021; 48:3438-3452. [PMID: 34021606 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14990] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2021] [Revised: 05/04/2021] [Accepted: 05/05/2021] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Major advances in delivery systems in recent years have turned radiotherapy (RT) into a more effective way to manage prostate cancer. Still, adjacency of organs at risk (OARs) can severely limit RT benefits. Rectal spacer implant in recto-prostatic space provides sufficient separation between prostate and rectum, and therefore, the opportunity for potential dose escalation to the target and reduction of OAR dose. Pretreatment simulation of spacer placement can potentially provide decision support to reduce the risks and increase the efficacy of the spacer placement procedure. METHODS A novel finite element method-oriented spacer simulation algorithm, FEMOSSA, was developed in this study. We used the finite element (FE) method to model and predict the deformation of rectum and prostate wall, stemming from hydrogel injection. Ten cases of prostate cancer, which undergone hydrogel placement before the RT treatment, were included in this study. We used the pre-injection organ contours to create the FE model and post-injection spacer location to estimate the distribution of the virtual spacer. Material properties and boundary conditions specific to each patient's anatomy were assigned. The FE analysis was then performed to determine the displacement vectors of regions of interest (ROIs), and the results were validated by comparing the virtually simulated contours with the real post-injection contours. To evaluate the different aspects of our method's performance, we used three different figures of merit: dice similarity coefficient (DSC), nearest neighbor distance (NND), and overlapped volume histogram (OVH). Finally, to demonstrate a potential dosimetric application of FEMOSSA, the predicted rectal dose after virtual spacer placement was compared against the predicted post-injection rectal dose. RESULTS Our simulation showed a realistic deformation of ROIs. The post-simulation (virtual spacer) created the same separation between prostate and rectal wall, as post-injection spacer. The average DSCs for prostate and rectum were 0.87 and 0.74, respectively. Moreover, there was a statistically significant increase in rectal contour similarity coefficient (P < 0.01). Histogram of NNDs showed the same overall shape and a noticeable shift from lower to higher values for both post-simulation and post-injection, indicative of the increase in distance between prostate and rectum. There was less than 2.2- and 2.1-mm averaged difference between the mean and fifth percentile NNDs. The difference between the OVH distances and the corresponding predicted rectal dose was, on average, less than 1 mm and 1.5 Gy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS FEMOSSA provides a realistic simulation of the hydrogel injection process that can facilitate spacer placement planning and reduce the associated uncertainties. Consequently, it increases the robustness and success rate of spacer placement procedure that in turn improves prostate cancer RT quality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hamed Hooshangnejad
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Sina Youssefian
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.,Department of Civil and Systems Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - James K Guest
- Department of Civil and Systems Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Kai Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Vapiwala N, Thomas CR, Grover S, Yap ML, Mitin T, Shulman LN, Gospodarowicz MK, Longo J, Petereit DG, Ennis RD, Hayman JA, Rodin D, Buchsbaum JC, Vikram B, Abdel-Wahab M, Epstein AH, Okunieff P, Goldwein J, Kupelian P, Weidhaas JB, Tucker MA, Boice JD, Fuller CD, Thompson RF, Trister AD, Formenti SC, Barcellos-Hoff MH, Jones J, Dharmarajan KV, Zietman AL, Coleman CN. Enhancing Career Paths for Tomorrow's Radiation Oncologists. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 105:52-63. [PMID: 31128144 PMCID: PMC7084166 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.05.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2018] [Revised: 05/03/2019] [Accepted: 05/08/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Neha Vapiwala
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
| | - Charles R Thomas
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Surbhi Grover
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana
| | - Mei Ling Yap
- Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Ingham Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, Australia; School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia
| | - Timur Mitin
- Department of Radiation Medicine Director, Program in Global Radiation Medicine, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Lawrence N Shulman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Mary K Gospodarowicz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Cancer Clinical Research Unit, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - John Longo
- Department of Radiation Oncology Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| | - Daniel G Petereit
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rapid City Regional Cancer Care Institute, Rapid City, South Dakota
| | - Ronald D Ennis
- Clinical Network for Radiation Oncology, Rutgers and Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - James A Hayman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Danielle Rodin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jeffrey C Buchsbaum
- Radiation Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Bhadrasain Vikram
- Clinical Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - May Abdel-Wahab
- Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria
| | - Alan H Epstein
- Uniformed Service University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Paul Okunieff
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, Florida
| | - Joel Goldwein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Patrick Kupelian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California
| | - Joanne B Weidhaas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; MiraDx, Los Angeles, California
| | - Margaret A Tucker
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - John D Boice
- National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland; Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Clifton David Fuller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Reid F Thompson
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon; VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon
| | - Andrew D Trister
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Silvia C Formenti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, New York
| | | | - Joshua Jones
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Kavita V Dharmarajan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York
| | - Anthony L Zietman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - C Norman Coleman
- National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Antoine M, Ralite F, Soustiel C, Marsac T, Sargos P, Cugny A, Caron J. Use of metrics to quantify IMRT and VMAT treatment plan complexity: A systematic review and perspectives. Phys Med 2019; 64:98-108. [PMID: 31515041 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.05.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2019] [Revised: 05/24/2019] [Accepted: 05/26/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Fixed-field intensity modulated radiation therapy (FF-IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) beams complexity is due to fluence fluctuation. Pre-treatment Quality Assurance (PTQA) failure could be linked to it. Several plan complexity metrics (PCM) have been published to quantify this complexity but in a heterogeneous formalism. This review proposes to gather different PCM and to discuss their eventual PTQA failure identifier abilities. METHODS AND MATERIALS A systematic literature search and outcome extraction from MEDLINE/PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information, NCBI) was performed. First, a list and a synthesis of available PCM is made in a homogeneous formalism. Second, main results relying on the link between PCM and PTQA results but also on other uses are listed. RESULTS A total of 163 studies were identified and n = 19 were selected after inclusion and exclusion criteria application. Difference is made between fluence and degree of freedom (DOF)-based PCM. Results about the PCM potential as PTQA failure identifier are described and synthesized. Others uses are also found in quality, big data, machine learning and audit procedure. CONCLUSIONS A state of the art is made thanks to this homogeneous PCM classification. For now, PCM should be seen as a planning procedure quality indicator although PTQA failure identifier results are mitigated. However limited clinical use seems possible for some cases. Yet, addressing the general PTQA failure prediction case could be possible with the big data or machine learning help.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mikaël Antoine
- Service d'onco-radiothérapie, Polyclinique de Bordeaux Nord, 33000 Bordeaux, France; Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, F-33000 Bordeaux, France.
| | - Flavien Ralite
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, F-33000 Bordeaux, France; SUBATECH, IMT-Atlantique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France
| | - Charles Soustiel
- Department of Radiotherapy, Centre Hospitalier de Dax, Dax, France
| | - Thomas Marsac
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, F-33000 Bordeaux, France
| | - Paul Sargos
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, F-33000 Bordeaux, France
| | - Audrey Cugny
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, F-33000 Bordeaux, France
| | - Jérôme Caron
- Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Bergonié, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, F-33000 Bordeaux, France
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kairn T, Crowe SB. Retrospective analysis of breast radiotherapy treatment plans: Curating the 'non-curated'. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2019; 63:517-529. [PMID: 31081603 DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12892] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2018] [Accepted: 03/24/2019] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION This paper provides a demonstration of how non-curated data can be retrospectively cleaned, so that existing repositories of radiotherapy treatment planning data can be used to complete bulk retrospective analyses of dosimetric trends and other plan characteristics. METHODS A non curated archive of 1137 radiotherapy treatment plans accumulated over a 12-month period, from five radiotherapy centres operated by one institution, was used to investigate and demonstrate a process of clinical data cleansing, by: identifying and translating inconsistent structure names; correcting inconsistent lung contouring; excluding plans for treatments other than breast tangents and plans without identifiable PTV, lung and heart structures; and identifying but not excluding plans that deviated from the local planning protocol. PTV, heart and lung dose-volume metrics were evaluated, in addition to a sample of personnel and linac load indicators. RESULTS Data cleansing reduced the number of treatment plans in the sample by 35.7%. Inconsistent structure names were successfully identified and translated (e.g. 35 different names for lung). Automatically separating whole lung structures into left and right lung structures allowed the effect of contralateral and ipsilateral lung dose to be evaluated, while introducing some small uncertainties, compared to manual contouring. PTV doses were indicative of prescription doses. Breast treatment work was unevenly distributed between oncologists and between metropolitan and regional centres. CONCLUSION This paper exemplifies the data cleansing and data analysis steps that may be completed using existing treatment planning data, to provide individual radiation oncology departments with access to information on their own patient populations. Clearly, the well-planned and systematic recording of new, high quality data is the preferred solution, but the retrospective curation of non-curated data may be a useful interim solution, for radiation oncology departments where the systems for recording of new data have yet to be designed and agreed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tanya Kairn
- Genesis Cancer Care, Auchenflower, Queensland, Australia.,Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Scott B Crowe
- Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,Cancer Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Haas-Kogan D, Indelicato D, Paganetti H, Esiashvili N, Mahajan A, Yock T, Flampouri S, MacDonald S, Fouladi M, Stephen K, Kalapurakal J, Terezakis S, Kooy H, Grosshans D, Makrigiorgos M, Mishra K, Poussaint TY, Cohen K, Fitzgerald T, Gondi V, Liu A, Michalski J, Mirkovic D, Mohan R, Perkins S, Wong K, Vikram B, Buchsbaum J, Kun L. National Cancer Institute Workshop on Proton Therapy for Children: Considerations Regarding Brainstem Injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 101:152-168. [PMID: 29619963 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.01.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 117] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2017] [Revised: 12/21/2017] [Accepted: 01/01/2018] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Proton therapy can allow for superior avoidance of normal tissues. A widespread consensus has been reached that proton therapy should be used for patients with curable pediatric brain tumor to avoid critical central nervous system structures. Brainstem necrosis is a potentially devastating, but rare, complication of radiation. Recent reports of brainstem necrosis after proton therapy have raised concerns over the potential biological differences among radiation modalities. We have summarized findings from the National Cancer Institute Workshop on Proton Therapy for Children convened in May 2016 to examine brainstem injury. METHODS AND MATERIALS Twenty-seven physicians, physicists, and researchers from 17 institutions with expertise met to discuss this issue. The definition of brainstem injury, imaging of this entity, clinical experience with photons and photons, and potential biological differences among these radiation modalities were thoroughly discussed and reviewed. The 3 largest US pediatric proton therapy centers collectively summarized the incidence of symptomatic brainstem injury and physics details (planning, dosimetry, delivery) for 671 children with focal posterior fossa tumors treated with protons from 2006 to 2016. RESULTS The average rate of symptomatic brainstem toxicity from the 3 largest US pediatric proton centers was 2.38%. The actuarial rate of grade ≥2 brainstem toxicity was successfully reduced from 12.7% to 0% at 1 center after adopting modified radiation guidelines. Guidelines for treatment planning and current consensus brainstem constraints for proton therapy are presented. The current knowledge regarding linear energy transfer (LET) and its relationship to relative biological effectiveness (RBE) are defined. We review the current state of LET-based planning. CONCLUSIONS 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daphne Haas-Kogan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Daniel Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Natia Esiashvili
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Anita Mahajan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Torunn Yock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Stella Flampouri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Shannon MacDonald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Maryam Fouladi
- Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Kry Stephen
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - John Kalapurakal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Stephanie Terezakis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institute, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Hanne Kooy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - David Grosshans
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mike Makrigiorgos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Kavita Mishra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Tina Young Poussaint
- Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Kenneth Cohen
- Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins Medical Institute, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Thomas Fitzgerald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts
| | - Vinai Gondi
- Northwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Arthur Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Jeff Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Dragan Mirkovic
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Radhe Mohan
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Stephanie Perkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Kenneth Wong
- Children's Hospital of Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angles, California
| | - Bhadrasain Vikram
- Radiation Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Jeff Buchsbaum
- Radiation Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Larry Kun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
McNutt TR, Benedict SH, Low DA, Moore K, Shpitser I, Jiang W, Lakshminarayanan P, Cheng Z, Han P, Hui X, Nakatsugawa M, Lee J, Moore JA, Robertson SP, Shah V, Taylor R, Quon H, Wong J, DeWeese T. Using Big Data Analytics to Advance Precision Radiation Oncology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 101:285-291. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.02.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2017] [Revised: 02/13/2018] [Accepted: 02/20/2018] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
11
|
Les big data , généralités et intégration en radiothérapie. Cancer Radiother 2018; 22:73-84. [DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2017.04.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2017] [Revised: 04/11/2017] [Accepted: 04/19/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|
12
|
Bibault JE, Dussart S, Pommier P, Morelle M, Huguet M, Boisselier P, Coche-Dequeant B, Alfonsi M, Bardet E, Rives M, Calugaru V, Chajon E, Noel G, Mecellem H, Servagi Vernat S, Perrier L, Giraud P. Clinical Outcomes of Several IMRT Techniques for Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: A Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 99:929-937. [PMID: 28864403 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.2456] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2016] [Revised: 03/09/2017] [Accepted: 06/19/2017] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The Advanced Radiotherapy Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie (ART-ORL) study (NCT02024035) was performed to prospectively evaluate the clinical and economic aspects of helical TomoTherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) for patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Fourteen centers participated in this prospective comparative study. Randomization was not possible based on the availability of equipment. Patients with epidermoid or undifferentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma or epidermoid carcinoma of the oropharynx and oral cavity (T1-T4, M0, N0-N3) were included between February 2010 and February 2012. Only the results of the clinical study are presented in this report, as the results of the economic assessment have been published previously. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score analysis was undertaken in an effort to adjust for potential bias due to nonrandomization. Locoregional control, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival assessed 18 months after treatment, as well as long-term toxicity and salivary function, were evaluated. RESULTS The analysis included 166 patients. The following results are given after inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment. The locoregional control rate at 18 months was significantly better in the TomoTherapy group: 83.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.5%-90.2%) versus 72.7% (95% CI, 62.1%-80.8%) in the RapidArc group (P=.025). The cancer-specific survival rate was better in the TomoTherapy group: 97.2% (95% CI, 89.3%-99.3%) versus 85.5% (95% CI, 75.8%-91.5%) in the RapidArc group (P=.014). No significant difference was shown in progression-free or overall survival. TomoTherapy induced fewer acute salivary disorders (P=.012). Posttreatment salivary function degradation was worse in the RapidArc group (P=.012). CONCLUSIONS TomoTherapy provided better locoregional control and cancer-specific survival than RapidArc treatment, with fewer salivary disorders. No significant difference was shown in progression-free and overall survival. These results should be explored in a randomized trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jean-Emmanuel Bibault
- Radiation Oncology Department, Paris Descartes University, Paris Sorbonne Cité, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France
| | - Sophie Dussart
- Radiation Oncology Department, Leon Berard Cancer Centre, Lyon, France
| | - Pascal Pommier
- Radiation Oncology Department, Leon Berard Cancer Centre, Lyon, France
| | - Magali Morelle
- GATE L-SE UMR 5824, Lyon University, Léon Bérard Cancer Center, F-69008, Lyon, France
| | - Marius Huguet
- GATE L-SE UMR 5824, Lyon University, Lumière Lyon 2 University, F-69130 Écully, France
| | - Pierre Boisselier
- Radiation Oncology Department, Montpellier Cancer Institute, Montpellier, France
| | | | - Marc Alfonsi
- Radiation Oncology Department, Sainte Catherine Institute, Avignon, France
| | - Etienne Bardet
- Radiation Oncology Department, René Gauducheau Cancer Centre, Saint-Herblain, France
| | - Michel Rives
- Radiation Oncology Department, Claudius Regaud Institute, Toulouse, France
| | | | - Enrique Chajon
- Radiation Oncology Department, Eugène Marquis Cancer Centre, Rennes, France
| | - Georges Noel
- Radiation Oncology Department, Paul Strauss Cancer Centre, Strasbourg, France
| | - Hinda Mecellem
- Radiation Oncology Department, Lorraine Institute of Oncology, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France
| | | | - Lionel Perrier
- GATE L-SE UMR 5824, Lyon University, Léon Bérard Cancer Center, F-69008, Lyon, France
| | - Philippe Giraud
- Radiation Oncology Department, Paris Descartes University, Paris Sorbonne Cité, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Guihard S, Thariat J, Clavier JB. [Big data and their perspectives in radiation therapy]. Bull Cancer 2016; 104:147-156. [PMID: 27914589 DOI: 10.1016/j.bulcan.2016.10.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2016] [Revised: 10/21/2016] [Accepted: 10/21/2016] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
The concept of big data indicates a change of scale in the use of data and data aggregation into large databases through improved computer technology. One of the current challenges in the creation of big data in the context of radiation therapy is the transformation of routine care items into dark data, i.e. data not yet collected, and the fusion of databases collecting different types of information (dose-volume histograms and toxicity data for example). Processes and infrastructures devoted to big data collection should not impact negatively on the doctor-patient relationship, the general process of care or the quality of the data collected. The use of big data requires a collective effort of physicians, physicists, software manufacturers and health authorities to create, organize and exploit big data in radiotherapy and, beyond, oncology. Big data involve a new culture to build an appropriate infrastructure legally and ethically. Processes and issues are discussed in this article.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sébastien Guihard
- Centre Paul-Strauss, service de radiothérapie, 3, rue de la Porte-de-l'Hôpital, BP 30042, 67065 Strasbourg cedex, France.
| | - Juliette Thariat
- Centre Lacassagne, service de radiothérapie, 227, avenue de la Lanterne, 06200 Nice, France
| | - Jean-Baptiste Clavier
- Centre Paul-Strauss, service de radiothérapie, 3, rue de la Porte-de-l'Hôpital, BP 30042, 67065 Strasbourg cedex, France
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Mayo CS, Kessler ML, Eisbruch A, Weyburne G, Feng M, Hayman JA, Jolly S, El Naqa I, Moran JM, Matuszak MM, Anderson CJ, Holevinski LP, McShan DL, Merkel SM, Machnak SL, Lawrence TS, Ten Haken RK. The big data effort in radiation oncology: Data mining or data farming? Adv Radiat Oncol 2016; 1:260-271. [PMID: 28740896 PMCID: PMC5514231 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2016.10.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2016] [Revised: 09/23/2016] [Accepted: 10/05/2016] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Although large volumes of information are entered into our electronic health care records, radiation oncology information systems and treatment planning systems on a daily basis, the goal of extracting and using this big data has been slow to emerge. Development of strategies to meet this goal is aided by examining issues with a data farming instead of a data mining conceptualization. Using this model, a vision of key data elements, clinical process changes, technology issues and solutions, and role for professional societies is presented. With a better view of technology, process and standardization factors, definition and prioritization of efforts can be more effectively directed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles S Mayo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Marc L Kessler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Avraham Eisbruch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Grant Weyburne
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Mary Feng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - James A Hayman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Shruti Jolly
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Issam El Naqa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Jean M Moran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Martha M Matuszak
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Carlos J Anderson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Lynn P Holevinski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Daniel L McShan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Sue M Merkel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Sherry L Machnak
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Theodore S Lawrence
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Randall K Ten Haken
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| |
Collapse
|