1
|
Abbott NL, Chauvie S, Marcu L, DeJean C, Melidis C, Wientjes R, Gasnier A, Lisbona A, Luzzara M, Mazzoni LN, O'Doherty J, Koutsouveli E, Appelt A, Hansen CR. The role of medical physics experts in clinical trials: A guideline from the European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics. Phys Med 2024; 126:104821. [PMID: 39361978 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2024.104821] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2023] [Revised: 08/26/2024] [Accepted: 09/22/2024] [Indexed: 10/05/2024] Open
Abstract
The EFOMP working group on the Role of Medical Physics Experts (MPEs) in Clinical Trials was established in 2010, with experts from across Europe and different areas of medical physics. Their main aims were: (1) To develop a consensus guidance document for the work MPEs do in clinical trials across Europe. (2) Complement the work by American colleagues in AAPM TG 113 and guidance from National Member Organisations. (3) To cover external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, nuclear medicine, molecular radiotherapy, and imaging. This document outlines the main output from this working group. Giving guidance to MPEs, and indeed all Medical Physicists (MP) and MP trainees wishing to work in clinical trials. It also gives guidance to the wider multidisciplinary team, advising where MPEs must legally be involved, as well as highlighting areas where MPEs skills and expertise can really add value to clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie Louise Abbott
- King George V Building, St. Bartholomews Hospital, West Smithfield, London EC1A 7BE, UK; National RTTQA Group, Cardiff & London, UK.
| | - Stephane Chauvie
- Medical Physics Division, Santa Croce e Carle Hospital, Cuneo, Italy
| | - Loredana Marcu
- Faculty of Informatics and Science, University of Oradea, Oradea 410087, Romania; UniSA Allied Health & Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide SA 5001, Australia
| | | | - Christos Melidis
- CAP Santé, Radiation Therapy, Clinique Maymard. Bastia, France; milliVolt.eu, a Health Physics Company. Bastia, France
| | | | - Anne Gasnier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Henri Becquerel Cancer Centre, Rouen, France
| | - Albert Lisbona
- MP emeritus, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Saint Herblain, France
| | | | | | - Jim O'Doherty
- Siemens Medical Solutions, Malvern, PA, United States; Radiography & Diagnostic Imaging, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Department of Radiology & Radiological Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States
| | - Efi Koutsouveli
- Department of Medical Physics, Hygeia Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Ane Appelt
- Leeds Institution of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Department of Medical Physics, Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Christian Rønn Hansen
- Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark; Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Nowicka-Matus K, Friborg J, Hansen C, Bernsdorf M, Elstrøm U, Farhadi M, Grau C, Eriksen J, Johansen J, Nielsen M, Holm A, Samsøe E, Sibolt P, Smulders B, Jensen K. Acute toxicities in proton therapy for head and neck cancer - A matched analysis of the DAHANCA 35 feasibility study. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 48:100835. [PMID: 39189000 PMCID: PMC11345689 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100835] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2024] [Revised: 07/30/2024] [Accepted: 07/30/2024] [Indexed: 08/28/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose As preparation for a national randomized study comparing proton radiotherapy to photon radiotherapy, DAHANCA 35, we performed a non-randomized pilot study to investigate patient selection, logistics, planning, and treatment delivery. With the present study, as a comprehensive safety analysis, we want to compare toxicity during and up to two months after therapy to a historically matched group of patients treated with photon radiotherapy. Materials and methods 62 patients treated with protons were matched to 124 patients who received photon treatment outside a protocol. Available data were retrieved from the DAHANCA database. Patients were matched on treatment centre, concurrent chemotherapy, tumour site, stage, p16 status for oropharynx cancers. Selection of patients for proton therapy was based on comparative treatment plans with a NTCP reduction for dysphagia and xerostomia at six months. Results Baseline characteristics between groups were well balanced, except for the type of drug used concurrently; more photon patients received Carboplatin (21.2 % vs 5.8 %, p = 0.01). Proton therapy was associated with significantly less weight loss at the end of treatment, mean weight loss of 3 % for protons and 5 % for photons (p < 0.001). There were more grade 3 skin reactions and grade 3 mucositis after proton treatment compared with photons at the end of treatment, Risk Ratio (RR) 1.9 (95 % CI: 1.01-3.5, p = 0.04) and RR 1.5 (95 % CI: 1.3-1.7, p < 0.001), respectively. All differences resolved at follow up two months after treatment. There were no significant differences between groups on opioid use, use of feeding tubes, or hospitalization during the observation period. Conclusion Proton treatment resulted in excess objective mucositis and dermatitis, which was transient and did not seem to negatively influence weight or treatment compliance and intensity. Selection bias was likely especially since NTCP models were used for selection of proton treatment and photon treated patients were matched manually. We are currently including patients in a randomized controlled trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K. Nowicka-Matus
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Dept of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - J. Friborg
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Dept of Oncology, Rigshospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - C.R. Hansen
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - M. Bernsdorf
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Dept of Oncology, Rigshospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - U.V. Elstrøm
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - M. Farhadi
- Dept of Oncology, Zealand University Hospital, Naestved, Denmark
| | - C. Grau
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Dept of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - J.G. Eriksen
- Dept of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Dept of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - J. Johansen
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Dept of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - M.S. Nielsen
- Dept of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - A. Holm
- Dept of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - E. Samsøe
- Dept of Oncology, Zealand University Hospital, Naestved, Denmark
| | - P. Sibolt
- Dept of Oncology, Herlev Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
| | - B. Smulders
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Dept of Oncology, Rigshospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - K. Jensen
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Dok R, Vanderwaeren L, Verstrepen KJ, Nuyts S. Radiobiology of Proton Therapy in Human Papillomavirus-Negative and Human Papillomavirus-Positive Head and Neck Cancer Cells. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:1959. [PMID: 38893080 PMCID: PMC11171379 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16111959] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2024] [Revised: 05/19/2024] [Accepted: 05/20/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024] Open
Abstract
Photon-based radiotherapy (XRT) is one of the most frequently used treatment modalities for HPV-negative and HPV-positive locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). However, locoregional recurrences and normal RT-associated toxicity remain major problems for these patients. Proton therapy (PT), with its dosimetric advantages, can present a solution to the normal toxicity problem. However, issues concerning physical delivery and the lack of insights into the underlying biology of PT hamper the full exploitation of PT. Here, we assessed the radiobiological processes involved in PT in HPV-negative and HPV-positive HNSCC cells. We show that PT and XRT activate the DNA damage-repair and stress response in both HPV-negative and HPV-positive cells to a similar extent. The activation of these major radiobiological mechanisms resulted in equal levels of clonogenic survival and mitotic cell death. Altogether, PT resulted in similar biological effectiveness when compared to XRT. These results emphasize the importance of dosimetric parameters when exploiting the potential of increased clinical effectiveness and reduced normal tissue toxicity in PT treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rüveyda Dok
- Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, University of Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Laura Vanderwaeren
- Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, University of Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Kevin J. Verstrepen
- Laboratory for Systems Biology, VIB-KU Leuven Center for Microbiology, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
- Laboratory of Genetics and Genomics, Centre for Microbial and Plant Genetics, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Sandra Nuyts
- Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, University of Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, UZ Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Gunewardena R, Hall L, Li M, Drum G, Le D, Nigro E, Houlder B, Phillips C, Wheeler G, Wiltshire K, Kron T, Yeo A. Developing a comparative photon-proton planning service in Victoria: the experience at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. J Med Radiat Sci 2024; 71 Suppl 2:82-89. [PMID: 38305062 PMCID: PMC11011588 DOI: 10.1002/jmrs.754] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2023] [Accepted: 01/06/2024] [Indexed: 02/03/2024] Open
Abstract
Proton-beam therapy (PBT) is a cutting-edge radiation therapy modality that is currently not available in Australia. Comparative photon-proton (CPP) planning is required for the medical treatment overseas programme (MTOP) and will be required for access to PBT in Australia in the future. Comparative planning brings professional development benefits to all members of the radiation therapy team. This service was also created to support future proposals for a PBT facility in Victoria. We report our experience developing an in-house CPP service at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. A set of resources to support CPP planning was established. Training of relevant staff was undertaken after which an in-house training programme was developed. A standard protocol for PBT planning parameters was established. All CPP plans were reviewed. Future goals for the CPP planning programme were described. In total, 62 cases were comparatively planned over 54 months. Of these, 60% were paediatric cases, 14% were adolescents and young adults (15-25 years) and 26% were adults. The vast majority (over 75%) of patients comparatively planned required irradiation to the central nervous system including brain and cranio-spinal irradiation. A variety of proton plans were reviewed by international PBT experts to confirm their deliverability. Our team at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre has gained significant experience in CPP planning and will continue to develop this further. Local expertise will help support decentralisation of patient selection for proton treatments in the near future and the PBT business case in Victoria.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Lisa Hall
- Peter MacCallum Cancer CentreMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Michelle Li
- Peter MacCallum Cancer CentreMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of OncologyUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | | | - Dianna Le
- Peter MacCallum Cancer CentreMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Emily Nigro
- Peter MacCallum Cancer CentreMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | | | - Claire Phillips
- Peter MacCallum Cancer CentreMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of OncologyUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Greg Wheeler
- Peter MacCallum Cancer CentreMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of OncologyUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Kirsty Wiltshire
- Peter MacCallum Cancer CentreMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of OncologyUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Tomas Kron
- Peter MacCallum Cancer CentreMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of OncologyUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- School of Applied ScienceRMIT UniversityMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| | - Adam Yeo
- Peter MacCallum Cancer CentreMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of OncologyUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
- School of Applied ScienceRMIT UniversityMelbourneVictoriaAustralia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Friborg J, Jensen K, Eriksen JG, Samsøe E, Maare C, Farhadi M, Sibolt P, Nielsen M, Andersen M, Holm AIS, Skyt P, Smulders B, Johansen J, Overgaard J, Grau C, Hansen CR. Considerations for study design in the DAHANCA 35 trial of protons versus photons for head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 2024; 190:109958. [PMID: 37871751 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109958] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2022] [Revised: 08/10/2023] [Accepted: 09/26/2023] [Indexed: 10/25/2023]
Abstract
Proton radiotherapy offers a dosimetric advantage compared to photon therapy in sparing normal tissue, but the clinical evidence for toxicity reductions in the treatment of head and neck cancer is limited. The Danish Head and Neck Cancer Group (DAHANCA) has initiated the DAHANCA 35 randomised trial to clarify the value of proton therapy (NCT04607694). The DAHANCA 35 trial is performed in an enriched population of patients selected by an anticipated benefit of proton therapy to reduce the risk of late dysphagia or xerostomia based on normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) modelling. We present our considerations on the trial design and a test of the selection procedure conducted before initiating the randomised study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Friborg
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Denmark. %
| | - K Jensen
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - J G Eriksen
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Aarhus University Hospital, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Denmark
| | - E Samsøe
- Department of Oncology, Zealand University Hospital Næstved, Denmark
| | - C Maare
- Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark
| | - M Farhadi
- Department of Oncology, Zealand University Hospital Næstved, Denmark
| | - P Sibolt
- Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Herlev and Gentofte, Denmark
| | - M Nielsen
- Department of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark
| | - M Andersen
- Department of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark
| | - A I S Holm
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - P Skyt
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - B Smulders
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Denmark
| | - J Johansen
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark
| | - J Overgaard
- Aarhus University Hospital, Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Denmark
| | - C Grau
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - C R Hansen
- Danish Center of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Holm AIS, Elstrøm UV, Nielsen SB, Jensen K. Dose planning study of proton versus photon radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary in the primary and recurrent setting. Acta Oncol 2023; 62:1412-1417. [PMID: 37815913 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2023.2263156] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2023] [Accepted: 09/20/2023] [Indexed: 10/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary (HNCUP) are often treated with extensive radiotherapy (RT). Frequently, the bilateral nodal clinical target volume (nCTV) and the volumes of suspected mucosal primary sites (mCTV) of the pharynx and larynx is irradiated. This treatment is effective but toxic. New data suggest that omission of the contralateral nCTV and mCTV, results in few recurrences. The present study explores photon versus proton therapy, in the primary and recurrent setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS An analysis of twelve patients previously treated for HNCUP was performed. A fictitious recurrence was defined in patients treated for unilateral disease. Independently a volumetric arc photon plan and an intensity-modulated proton plan was made for all cases and scenarios. RESULTS Compared to the standard bilateral treatment this study shows that limiting the target to unilateral nCTV leads to a significant decrease in dysphagia of 18% and 17% and xerostomia of 4.0% and 5% for photon and protons, respectively. Comparing photon RT directly to proton RT shows a small and often insignificant gain, using protons for both bilateral and unilateral targets. Focusing on re-irradiation, benefits from using protons in both the primary setting and at re-irradiation were limited. However, using protons for re-irradiation only leads to a decrease in the tissue volume receiving a specific dose outside the target overlapping region, e.g., V90Gymean was 31, 25, and 22 cm3 for photons-photons, photons-protons, and protons-protons, respectively. For V100Gy of the ipsilateral carotid artery, no differences were observed. CONCLUSION Omitting contralateral nCTV irradiation and mCTV irradiation will significantly reduce toxicity. The accumulated high dose volumes can be minimised using protons for re-irradiation. However, the use of protons for primary treatment provides limited benefit in most patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Signe Bergliot Nielsen
- Departments of Head and Neck Surgery & Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Kenneth Jensen
- Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Nielsen CP, Lorenzen EL, Jensen K, Sarup N, Brink C, Smulders B, Holm AIS, Samsøe E, Nielsen MS, Sibolt P, Skyt PS, Elstrøm UV, Johansen J, Zukauskaite R, Eriksen JG, Farhadi M, Andersen M, Maare C, Overgaard J, Grau C, Friborg J, Hansen CR. Consistency in contouring of organs at risk by artificial intelligence vs oncologists in head and neck cancer patients. Acta Oncol 2023; 62:1418-1425. [PMID: 37703300 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2023.2256958] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the Danish Head and Neck Cancer Group (DAHANCA) 35 trial, patients are selected for proton treatment based on simulated reductions of Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) for proton compared to photon treatment at the referring departments. After inclusion in the trial, immobilization, scanning, contouring and planning are repeated at the national proton centre. The new contours could result in reduced expected NTCP gain of the proton plan, resulting in a loss of validity in the selection process. The present study evaluates if contour consistency can be improved by having access to AI (Artificial Intelligence) based contours. MATERIALS AND METHODS The 63 patients in the DAHANCA 35 pilot trial had a CT from the local DAHANCA centre and one from the proton centre. A nationally validated convolutional neural network, based on nnU-Net, was used to contour OARs on both scans for each patient. Using deformable image registration, local AI and oncologist contours were transferred to the proton centre scans for comparison. Consistency was calculated with the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and Mean Surface Distance (MSD), comparing contours from AI to AI and oncologist to oncologist, respectively. Two NTCP models were applied to calculate NTCP for xerostomia and dysphagia. RESULTS The AI contours showed significantly better consistency than the contours by oncologists. The median and interquartile range of DSC was 0.85 [0.78 - 0.90] and 0.68 [0.51 - 0.80] for AI and oncologist contours, respectively. The median and interquartile range of MSD was 0.9 mm [0.7 - 1.1] mm and 1.9 mm [1.5 - 2.6] mm for AI and oncologist contours, respectively. There was no significant difference in Δ NTCP. CONCLUSIONS The study showed that OAR contours made by the AI algorithm were more consistent than those made by oncologists. No significant impact on the Δ NTCP calculations could be discerned.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Camilla Panduro Nielsen
- Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Ebbe Laugaard Lorenzen
- Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Kenneth Jensen
- Danish Centre of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Nis Sarup
- Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Carsten Brink
- Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Bob Smulders
- Danish Centre of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | - Eva Samsøe
- Danish Centre of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Oncology, Zealand University Hospital, Naestved, Denmark
| | | | - Patrik Sibolt
- Department of Oncology, University Hospital Herlev, Herlev, Denmark
| | | | | | - Jørgen Johansen
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Ruta Zukauskaite
- Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Jesper Grau Eriksen
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark
- Department of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Mohammad Farhadi
- Department of Oncology, Zealand University Hospital, Naestved, Denmark
| | - Maria Andersen
- Department of Oncology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Christian Maare
- Department of Oncology, University Hospital Herlev, Herlev, Denmark
| | - Jens Overgaard
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Cai Grau
- Danish Centre of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Jeppe Friborg
- Danish Centre of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Christian Rønn Hansen
- Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Danish Centre of Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|