1
|
Lau B, Wu YF, Cui S, Fu J, Jackson S, Pham D, Dubrowski P, Eswarappa S, Skinner L, Shirato H, Taguchi H, Gensheimer MF, Gee H, Chin AL, Diehn M, Loo BW, Moiseenko V, Vitzthum LK. Chest wall pain after single-fraction thoracic stereotactic ablative Radiotherapy: Dosimetric analysis from the iSABR trial. Radiother Oncol 2024:110317. [PMID: 38679202 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110317] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2024] [Revised: 04/22/2024] [Accepted: 04/23/2024] [Indexed: 05/01/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Concerns over chest wall toxicity has led to debates on treating tumors adjacent to the chest wall with single-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). We performed a secondary analysis of patients treated on the prospective iSABR trial to determine the incidence and grade of chest wall pain and modeled dose-response to guide radiation planning and estimate risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS This analysis included 99 tumors in 92 patients that were treated with 25 Gy in one fraction on the iSABR trial which individualized dose by tumor size and location. Toxicity events were prospectively collected and graded based on the CTCAE version 4. Dose-response modeling was performed using a logistic model with maximum likelihood method utilized for parameter fitting. RESULTS There were 22 grade 1 or higher chest wall pain events, including five grade 2 events and zero grade 3 or higher events. The volume receiving at least 11 Gy (V11Gy) and the minimum dose to the hottest 2 cc (D2cc) were most highly correlated with toxicity. When dichotomized by an estimated incidence of ≥ 20 % toxicity, the D2cc > 17 Gy (36.6 % vs. 3.7 %, p < 0.01) and V11Gy > 28 cc (40.0 % vs. 8.1 %, p < 0.01) constraints were predictive of chest wall pain, including among a subset of patients with tumors abutting or adjacent to the chest wall. CONCLUSION For small, peripheral tumors, single-fraction SABR is associated with modest rates of low-grade chest wall pain. Proximity to the chest wall may not contraindicate single fractionation when using highly conformal, image-guided techniques with sharp dose gradients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brianna Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Yufan F Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Sunan Cui
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Jie Fu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Scott Jackson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Daniel Pham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Piotr Dubrowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Shaila Eswarappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Michael F Gensheimer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Harriet Gee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia; University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Alexander L Chin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Maximilian Diehn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Billy W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Vitali Moiseenko
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Lucas K Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Simiele E, Romero IO, Wang JY, Chen Y, Lozko Y, Severyn Y, Skinner L, Yang Y, Xing L, Gibbs I, Hiniker SM, Kovalchuk N. Automated contouring, treatment planning, and quality assurance for VMAT craniospinal irradiation (VMAT-CSI). Front Oncol 2024; 14:1378449. [PMID: 38660134 PMCID: PMC11039907 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1378449] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2024] [Accepted: 03/18/2024] [Indexed: 04/26/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose Create a comprehensive automated solution for pediatric and adult VMAT-CSI including contouring, planning, and plan check to reduce planning time and improve plan quality. Methods Seventy-seven previously treated CSI patients (age, 2-67 years) were used for creation of an auto-contouring model to segment 25 organs at risk (OARs). The auto-contoured OARs were evaluated using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), 95% Hausdorff Distance (HD95), and a qualitative ranking by one physician and one physicist (scale: 1-acceptable, 2-minor edits, 3-major edits). The auto-planning script was developed using the Varian Eclipse Scripting API and tested with 20 patients previously treated with either low-dose VMAT-CSI (12 Gy) or high-dose VMAT-CSI (36 Gy + 18 Gy boost). Clinically relevant metrics, planning time, and blinded physician review were used to evaluate significance of differences between the auto and manual plans. Finally, the plan preparation for treatment and plan check processes were automated to improve efficiency and safety of VMAT-CSI. Results The auto-contours achieved an average DSC of 0.71 ± 0.15, HD95 of 4.81 ± 4.68, and reviewers' ranking of 1.22 ± 0.39, indicating close to "acceptable-as-is" contours. Compared to the manual CSI plans, the auto-plans for both dose regimens achieved statistically significant reductions in body V50% and Dmean for parotids, submandibular, and thyroid glands. The variance in the dosimetric parameters decreased for the auto-plans as compared to the manual plans indicating better plan consistency. From the blinded review, the auto-plans were marked as equivalent or superior to the manual-plans 88.3% of the time. The required time for the auto-contouring and planning was consistently between 1-2 hours compared to an estimated 5-6 hours for manual contouring and planning. Conclusions Reductions in contouring and planning time without sacrificing plan quality were obtained using the developed auto-planning process. The auto-planning scripts and documentation will be made freely available to other institutions and clinics.
Collapse
|
3
|
Ashraf MR, Melemenidis S, Liu K, Grilj V, Jansen J, Velasquez B, Connell L, Schulz JB, Bailat C, Libed A, Manjappa R, Dutt S, Soto L, Lau B, Garza A, Larsen W, Skinner L, Yu AS, Surucu M, Graves EE, Maxim PG, Kry SF, Vozenin MC, Schüler E, Loo BW. Multi-Institutional Audit of FLASH and Conventional Dosimetry With a 3D Printed Anatomically Realistic Mouse Phantom. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024:S0360-3016(24)00433-4. [PMID: 38493902 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.03.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2023] [Revised: 03/03/2024] [Accepted: 03/10/2024] [Indexed: 03/19/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE We conducted a multi-institutional dosimetric audit between FLASH and conventional dose rate (CONV) electron irradiations by using an anatomically realistic 3-dimensional (3D) printed mouse phantom. METHODS AND MATERIALS A computed tomography (CT) scan of a live mouse was used to create a 3D model of bony anatomy, lungs, and soft tissue. A dual-nozzle 3D printer was used to print the mouse phantom using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (∼1.02 g/cm3) and polylactic acid (∼1.24 g/cm3) simultaneously to simulate soft tissue and bone densities, respectively. The lungs were printed separately using lightweight polylactic acid (∼0.64 g/cm3). Hounsfield units (HU), densities, and print-to-print stability of the phantoms were assessed. Three institutions were each provided a phantom and each institution performed 2 replicates of irradiations at selected anatomic regions. The average dose difference between FLASH and CONV dose distributions and deviation from the prescribed dose were measured with radiochromic film. RESULTS Compared with the reference CT scan, CT scans of the phantom demonstrated mass density differences of 0.10 g/cm3 for bone, 0.12 g/cm3 for lung, and 0.03 g/cm3 for soft tissue regions. Differences in HU between phantoms were <10 HU for soft tissue and bone, with lung showing the most variation (54 HU), but with minimal effect on dose distribution (<0.5%). Mean differences between FLASH and CONV decreased from the first to the second replicate (4.3%-1.2%), and differences from the prescribed dose decreased for both CONV (3.6%-2.5%) and FLASH (6.4%-2.7%). Total dose accuracy suggests consistent pulse dose and pulse number, although these were not specifically assessed. Positioning variability was observed, likely due to the absence of robust positioning aids or image guidance. CONCLUSIONS This study marks the first dosimetric audit for FLASH using a nonhomogeneous phantom, challenging conventional calibration practices reliant on homogeneous phantoms. The comparison protocol offers a framework for credentialing multi-institutional studies in FLASH preclinical research to enhance reproducibility of biologic findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Ramish Ashraf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Stavros Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Kevin Liu
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Veljko Grilj
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Jeannette Jansen
- Radiation Oncology Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, Lausanne, University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Brett Velasquez
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Luke Connell
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Joseph B Schulz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Claude Bailat
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Aaron Libed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Rakesh Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Suparna Dutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Luis Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Brianna Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Aaron Garza
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - William Larsen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Amy S Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Edward E Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Peter G Maxim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, California
| | - Stephen F Kry
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
| | - Marie-Catherine Vozenin
- Radiation Oncology Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, Lausanne, University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland; Radiotherapy and Radiobiology Sector, Radiation Therapy Service, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
| | - Emil Schüler
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| | - Billy W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Fu J, Yang Z, Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Dutt S, Manjappa R, Lau B, Soto LA, Ashraf MR, Skinner L, Yu SJ, Surucu M, Casey KM, Rankin EB, Graves E, Lu W, Loo BW, Gu X. Exploring Deep Learning for Estimating the Isoeffective Dose of FLASH Irradiation From Mouse Intestinal Histological Images. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024:S0360-3016(23)08306-2. [PMID: 38171387 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.12.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2023] [Revised: 12/09/2023] [Accepted: 12/23/2023] [Indexed: 01/05/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Ultrahigh-dose-rate (FLASH) irradiation has been reported to reduce normal tissue damage compared with conventional dose rate (CONV) irradiation without compromising tumor control. This proof-of-concept study aims to develop a deep learning (DL) approach to quantify the FLASH isoeffective dose (dose of CONV that would be required to produce the same effect as the given physical FLASH dose) with postirradiation mouse intestinal histology images. METHODS AND MATERIALS Eighty-four healthy C57BL/6J female mice underwent 16 MeV electron CONV (0.12 Gy/s; n = 41) or FLASH (200 Gy/s; n = 43) single fraction whole abdominal irradiation. Physical dose ranged from 12 to 16 Gy for FLASH and 11 to 15 Gy for CONV in 1 Gy increments. Four days after irradiation, 9 jejunum cross-sections from each mouse were hematoxylin and eosin stained and digitized for histological analysis. CONV data set was randomly split into training (n = 33) and testing (n = 8) data sets. ResNet101-based DL models were retrained using the CONV training data set to estimate the dose based on histological features. The classical manual crypt counting (CC) approach was implemented for model comparison. Cross-section-wise mean squared error was computed to evaluate the dose estimation accuracy of both approaches. The validated DL model was applied to the FLASH data set to map the physical FLASH dose into the isoeffective dose. RESULTS The DL model achieved a cross-section-wise mean squared error of 0.20 Gy2 on the CONV testing data set compared with 0.40 Gy2 of the CC approach. Isoeffective doses estimated by the DL model for FLASH doses of 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 Gy were 12.19 ± 0.46, 12.54 ± 0.37, 12.69 ± 0.26, 12.84 ± 0.26, and 13.03 ± 0.28 Gy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Our proposed DL model achieved accurate CONV dose estimation. The DL model results indicate that in the physical dose range of 13 to 16 Gy, the biologic dose response of small intestinal tissue to FLASH irradiation is represented by a lower isoeffective dose compared with the physical dose. Our DL approach can be a tool for studying isoeffective doses of other radiation dose modifying interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jie Fu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Zi Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Medical Artificial Intelligence and Automation (MAIA) Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Stavros Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Vignesh Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Suparna Dutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Rakesh Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Brianna Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Luis A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - M Ramish Ashraf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Shu-Jung Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Kerriann M Casey
- Department of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Erinn B Rankin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Edward Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Weiguo Lu
- Medical Artificial Intelligence and Automation (MAIA) Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Billy W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
| | - Xuejun Gu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Barghouth PG, Melemenidis S, Montay-Gruel P, Ollivier J, Viswanathan V, Jorge PG, Soto LA, Lau BC, Sadeghi C, Edlabadkar A, Zhang R, Ru N, Baulch JE, Manjappa R, Wang J, Le Bouteiller M, Surucu M, Yu A, Bush K, Skinner L, Maxim PG, Loo BW, Limoli CL, Vozenin MC, Frock RL. FLASH-RT does not affect chromosome translocations and junction structures beyond that of CONV-RT dose-rates. Radiother Oncol 2023; 188:109906. [PMID: 37690668 PMCID: PMC10591966 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109906] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2023] [Revised: 09/01/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The impact of radiotherapy (RT) at ultra high vs conventional dose rate (FLASH vs CONV) on the generation and repair of DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) is an important question that remains to be investigated. Here, we tested the hypothesis as to whether FLASH-RT generates decreased chromosomal translocations compared to CONV-RT. MATERIALS AND METHODS We used two FLASH validated electron beams and high-throughput rejoin and genome-wide translocation sequencing (HTGTS-JoinT-seq), employing S. aureus and S. pyogenes Cas9 "bait" DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) in HEK239T cells, to measure differences in bait-proximal repair and their genome-wide translocations to "prey" DSBs generated after various irradiation doses, dose rates and oxygen tensions (normoxic, 21% O2; physiological, 4% O2; hypoxic, 2% and 0.5% O2). Electron irradiation was delivered using a FLASH capable Varian Trilogy and the eRT6/Oriatron at CONV (0.08-0.13 Gy/s) and FLASH (1x102-5x106 Gy/s) dose rates. Related experiments using clonogenic survival and γH2AX foci in the 293T and the U87 glioblastoma lines were also performed to discern FLASH-RT vs CONV-RT DSB effects. RESULTS Normoxic and physioxic irradiation of HEK293T cells increased translocations at the cost of decreasing bait-proximal repair but were indistinguishable between CONV-RT and FLASH-RT. Although no apparent increase in chromosome translocations was observed with hypoxia-induced apoptosis, the combined decrease in oxygen tension with IR dose-rate modulation did not reveal significant differences in the level of translocations nor in their junction structures. Furthermore, RT dose rate modality on U87 cells did not change γH2AX foci numbers at 1- and 24-hours post-irradiation nor did this affect 293T clonogenic survival. CONCLUSION Irrespective of oxygen tension, FLASH-RT produces translocations and junction structures at levels and proportions that are indistinguishable from CONV-RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul G Barghouth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Stavros Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Pierre Montay-Gruel
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Jonathan Ollivier
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Vignesh Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Patrik G Jorge
- Institute of Radiation Physics/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland
| | - Luis A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Brianna C Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Cheyenne Sadeghi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Anushka Edlabadkar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Richard Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Ning Ru
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Janet E Baulch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Rakesh Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Jinghui Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Marie Le Bouteiller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Amy Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Karl Bush
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Peter G Maxim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Billy W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Charles L Limoli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Marie-Catherine Vozenin
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Richard L Frock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
No HJ, Wu YF, Dworkin ML, Manjappa R, Skinner L, Ashraf MR, Lau B, Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Yu ASJ, Surucu M, Schüler E, Graves EE, Maxim PG, Loo BW. Clinical Linear Accelerator-Based Electron FLASH: Pathway for Practical Translation to FLASH Clinical Trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:482-492. [PMID: 37105403 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.04.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2022] [Revised: 03/03/2023] [Accepted: 04/11/2023] [Indexed: 04/29/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Ultrahigh-dose-rate (UHDR) radiation therapy (RT) has produced the FLASH effect in preclinical models: reduced toxicity with comparable tumor control compared with conventional-dose-rate RT. Early clinical trials focused on UHDR RT feasibility using specialized devices. We explore the technical feasibility of practical electron UHDR RT on a standard clinical linear accelerator (LINAC). METHODS AND MATERIALS We tuned the program board of a decommissioned electron energy for UHDR electron delivery on a clinical LINAC without hardware modification. Pulse delivery was controlled using the respiratory gating interface. A short source-to-surface distance (SSD) electron setup with a standard scattering foil was configured and tested on an anthropomorphic phantom using circular blocks with 3- to 20-cm field sizes. Dosimetry was evaluated using radiochromic film and an ion chamber profiler. RESULTS UHDR open-field mean dose rates at 100, 80, 70, and 59 cm SSD were 36.82, 59.52, 82.01, and 112.83 Gy/s, respectively. At 80 cm SSD, mean dose rate was ∼60 Gy/s for all collimated field sizes, with an R80 depth of 6.1 cm corresponding to an energy of 17.5 MeV. Heterogeneity was <5.0% with asymmetry of 2.2% to 6.2%. The short SSD setup was feasible under realistic treatment conditions simulating broad clinical indications on an anthropomorphic phantom. CONCLUSIONS Short SSD and tuning for high electron beam current on a standard clinical LINAC can deliver flat, homogenous UHDR electrons over a broad, clinically relevant range of field sizes and depths with practical working distances in a configuration easily reversible to standard clinical use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hyunsoo Joshua No
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Yufan Fred Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Michael Louis Dworkin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Rakesh Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - M Ramish Ashraf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Brianna Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Stavros Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Vignesh Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Amy Shu-Jung Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Emil Schüler
- Department of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Edward Elliot Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Peter Gregor Maxim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California
| | - Billy W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Dubrowski P, Gibson CT, Schulz JB, Skinner L, Yu SJ. Closing the Loop: Toward Sustainable 3D Print Recycling in the Clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e661-e662. [PMID: 37785960 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.2098] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) THREE-DIMENSIONAL (: 3D) printing is becoming ubiquitous in Radiation Therapy resulting in large amounts of plastic waste generated. We report on the feasibility, workflows, material properties and cost effectiveness of 3D print recycling to increase sustainability of 3D printing in clinics. MATERIALS/METHODS Polylactic acid (PLA) prints were recycled using a consumer-grade recycling system consisting of i) plastic shredder to granulate used prints ii) heated extruder to melt material into filament iii) fan-cooled path for rapid cooling iv) spooling rig and v) pelletizer to cut filament into more regularized pellets as input material for step ii). The recovery percentage of material was characterized after each step by weighing inputs/outputs; timing and workloads were also recorded. Resulting recycled filaments were characterized in diameter and tensile strength and were compared between two different extruder nozzle configurations and with vs without pelletization to find an optimal recycling process. Recycled filament was finally used to create clinical items and evaluated. Lastly, a cost analysis over the past 1 year of recycling use was performed to determine the cost effectiveness of the recycling system. RESULTS PLA prints were recycled with an overall efficiency of 79.3 ± 12.2% (standard deviation) between color batch runs. The best recycled filament quality was produced using the pelletization process and wider 3.25mm extruder nozzle. Relative to new filament, tensile strength testing showed recycled filament strength was 79% vs 70% (pelletized vs unpelletized) and 86% vs 60% (3.25mm vs 2.85mm nozzle). Extrusion and spooling procedures proved difficult to optimize, requiring lots of operator supervision (∼45 minutes per spool, mean 475g) and achieved a best filament diameter of 2.85 ± 0.09mm. A cost analysis shows that without accounting for operator time, it would require over 25 years to recoup the cost of the recycling system. CONCLUSION Over the past 1-year, clinical 3D printing at our site consisted of 40 patient boluses and 25 electron cutouts, consuming about 6.5kg of PLA. Due to infection control concerns only 35% of this material was eligible for recycling, however 3.5 times that amount was collected from other printing activities. Recycling reduced new filament use by 56% ($470). Recycling workflows proved difficult to streamline and resulted in filament diameter that was marginally outside common industry standards and about 20% less strong but deemed adequate for clinical printing. Although the cost savings analysis indicates a poor return on investment, increasing the scale of the operation would be beneficial. To achieve this, we plan to recycle PLA boluses after disinfection and solicit other clinics in our hospital network and local 3D printing hobbyist community to recycle their prints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Dubrowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - C T Gibson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford Health Care, Stanford, CA
| | - J B Schulz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S J Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Jiang H, Fu J, Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Dutt S, Lau B, Soto LA, Manjappa R, Skinner L, Yu SJ, Surucu M, Graves EE, Casey K, Rankin E, Lu W, Loo BW, Gu X. An Online AI-Powered Interactive Histological Image Annotation Platform for Analyzing Intestinal Regenerating Crypts in Post-Irradiated Mice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e676. [PMID: 37785993 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.2130] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) The goal of this project is to build an online AI-powered interactive annotation platform to accurately and efficiently annotate intestinal regenerating crypts in histological images of mice after abdominal irradiation. MATERIALS/METHODS The proposed platform is developed by the seamless integration of a front-end web client and a back-end server. Such client/server design allows the users to access the platform without software installation on local computers. Our front-end client is developed with SvelteJS + WebGL technology stack, allowing access from any common web browsers and enabling user interaction, such as image importing/visualization, interactive crypt annotating, and annotation saving/deleting. The back-end server is responsible for executing the tasks requested from the web client, for instance, image pre-processing, AI-based crypts automatic identification, and database management. The image preprocessing is designed to extract a single cross section image using morphological operations because multiple hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained jejunum cross sections from post-irradiated mice are scanned within one slide. The auto-crypt identification is powered by a trained and validated AI engine U-Net, classifying image grid tiles into two groups with and without regenerating crypts. The database is implemented with the self-contained SQLite to support recording and indexing the annotated grid tiles with regenerating crypts. The workflow for crypt analysis on this interactive platform has 5 steps: 1) manually import a whole H&E slide image; 2) auto-preprocess the slide by extracting single cross-section images; 3) auto-identify regenerating crypts with an AI engine; 4) interactively annotate (add, delete, modify) auto-identified crypt markers; 5) save and/or output the annotation to the database or the local drive. RESULTS The performance of the developed interactive crypt analysis platform was evaluated in aspects of accuracy and efficiency. The AI-powered crypt auto-identification accuracy was assessed by computing the mean absolute error (MAE) on crypt number per cross section between manual and auto annotation using a testing dataset containing 80 cross sections. It achieved an MAE of 3.5±4.8 crypts per cross section, and 81.25% of the cross sections have no more than 5 crypts difference. The efficiency was assessed under two conditions with the server on the cloud and a local computer. It took about 2-3 minutes to finish the entire workflow on the cloud, while 1-2 minutes on the local by saving ∼1 minute on image uploading. CONCLUSION The developed web client/server platform enables online automatic identification and interactive annotation of mice crypts in minutes. It is a convenient tool that allows accurate and efficient crypt analysis and can be extended for other histologic image analyses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - J Fu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - V Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Dutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - B Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - R Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S J Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E E Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - K Casey
- Department of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E Rankin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - W Lu
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - B W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - X Gu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Fu J, Jiang H, Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Dutt S, Lau B, Soto LA, Manjappa R, Skinner L, Yu SJ, Surucu M, Graves EE, Casey K, Rankin E, Lu W, Loo BW, Gu X. Deep Learning-Based Pipeline for Automatic Identification of Intestinal Regenerating Crypts in Mouse Histological Images. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:S117-S118. [PMID: 37784305 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.451] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) A classical approach for evaluating normal tissue radiation response is to count the number of intestinal regenerating crypts in mouse histological images acquired after abdominal radiation. However, manual counting is time-consuming and subject to inter-observer variations. The goal of this study is to build a deep learning-based pipeline for automatically identifying intestinal regenerating crypts to facilitate high-throughput studies. MATERIALS/METHODS Sixty-six healthy C57BL/6 female mice underwent 16 MeV whole abdominal electron irradiation. The small bowel was collected from each mouse 4 days post-irradiation, and 9 jejunal cross-sections from each were processed together in a single slide. The slides were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and subsequently scanned (x20), providing one electronic histological image per mouse. Regenerating crypts, consisting of more than 10 basophilic crypt epithelial cells, were manually identified using point annotations in histological images. The pipeline was built to take the input of the image containing 9 cross sections and automatically identify the regenerating crypts on each cross section. It mainly consists of two components, cross section segmentation using intensity thresholding and morphological operations and crypt identification using a UNet. The dataset was randomly split into 46, 10, and 10 slide images for UNet training, validation, and testing. Each slide image was split into grid tiles with a voxel size of 200 × 200, and 40 × 40 square masks were placed with centers at manual point annotations on tiles with regenerating crypts. 5203/5198 tiles (w/wo crypt mask) were extracted to train UNet by minimizing dice loss. The mask probability map generated by the UNet was post-processed to identify the crypt position. Postprocessing hyperparameters were tuned using the validation dataset. The model accuracy was evaluated using the testing dataset by computing the mean absolute error (MAE) of the crypt number averaged across all cross sections. RESULTS The number of regenerating crypts on testing cross sections ranges from 1 to 63. The testing cross-section-wise MAE achieved by the platform is 3.5±4.8 crypts. 81.25% of testing cross sections have absolute number differences less than or equal to 5 crypts. CONCLUSION Our established deep learning-based pipeline can accurately count the number of regenerating crypts in mouse intestinal histological images. We have integrated it into an online platform that enables automatic crypt identification and allows users to interactively modify auto-identified crypt annotations. The acquired annotations from the platform will be used to finetune the deep learning model to achieve better identification performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Fu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | | | - S Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - V Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Dutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - B Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - R Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S J Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E E Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - K Casey
- Department of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E Rankin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - W Lu
- University of Texas Southwestern Department of Radiation Oncology, Dallas, TX
| | - B W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - X Gu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Yang Z, Fu J, Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Dutt S, Lau B, Soto LA, Manjappa R, Skinner L, Yu SJ, Surucu M, Casey K, Rankin E, Lu W, Jr BWL, Gu X. Equivalent Dose Estimation in FLASH Irradiation with a Deep Learning Approach. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e272. [PMID: 37785029 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.1241] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Ultra-high dose rate (FLASH) irradiation has been reported to provide decreased normal tissue toxicity without compromising tumor control compared with conventional (CONV) irradiation. However, a comprehensive understanding of the FLASH biological effect requires precise quantification of radiobiology. The study is to explore whether deep learning (DL) can tackle the task. As a proof of concept, we investigate a DL model for estimating FLASH dose to its equivalent CONV dose. MATERIALS/METHODS Healthy C57Bl/6 female mice underwent FLASH (200Gy/s; n = 43) or CONV (0.12Gy/s; n = 41) whole abdominal irradiation using ∼16 MeV electron beams with a dose escalation scheme of 5 groups (n = 8 or 9) at 1Gy increments: 12-16Gy FLASH, 11-15Gy CONV. 4 days post-irradiation, 9 jejunum cross-sections per mouse were H&E stained for histological analysis. Each cross-section image was processed to remove lumen background and oversampled into multiple large-scale and small-scale patches along jejunal circumference. In CONV dataset, we randomly selected the data of 32 mice (80%) for model training and the rest (20%) for model validation. A ResNet101-based DL model, pre-trained with an unsupervised contrastive learning scheme, was retrained with only CONV training set to estimate corresponding CONV dose. For comparison, a crypt counting (CC) approach was implemented by manually counting the number of regenerating crypts on each cross-section image. An exponential function of dose vs crypt number was fitted with the CONV training set and used for dose estimation on the testing set. Mean squared error (MSE) was used to assess the accuracy of DL and CC approaches in estimating dose levels in CONV irradiation. The validated DL model was applied to the FLASH set to project FLASH dose into corresponding CONV dose that results in equivalent biological response. RESULTS The CONV dose estimated by DL and CC approaches and DL-estimated FLASH equivalent dose were summarized in Table 1. The DL model achieved an MSE of 0.21 Gy2 on CONV testing set compared with 0.32 Gy2 of the CC approach. FLASH equivalent dose estimated by DL model for 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16Gy were 12.16±0.40, 12.53±0.32, 12.72±0.24, 12.85±0.20 and 13.04±0.27 Sv, respectively. CONCLUSION Our proposed DL model can accurately estimate the CONV dose based on histological images. The DL predictions of FLASH dataset demonstrate that FLASH may reduce normal tissue toxicity with a lower equivalent dose, especially at high irradiated dose levels. Our study indicates that deep learning can be potentially used to assess the equivalent dose of FLASH irradiation to normal tissue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Z Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - J Fu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - V Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Dutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - B Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - R Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S J Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - K Casey
- Department of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E Rankin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - W Lu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | - B W Loo Jr
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - X Gu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Ashraf MR, Melemenidis S, Liu K, Velasquez BD, Manjappa R, Soto LA, Dutt S, Skinner L, Yu SJ, Surucu M, Graves EE, Maxim PG, Schueler E, Loo BW. Anatomically Realistic 3D Printed Mouse Phantom for Multi-Institutional Benchmarking of FLASH and CONV Irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e697. [PMID: 37786044 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.2178] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) It is reported that about US$28B/year is spent on pre-clinical studies that are not reproducible. FLASH studies may suffer from the same reproducibility crisis due to the non-standard nature of the FLASH beamlines and the lack of dosimeters that can function at ultra-high dose-rates. There have been reports of different outcomes with regard to the FLASH effect across different institutions, even though similar beamlines, temporal structure, and nominal dose levels were used. This brings up the question of the accuracy of dosimetry under FLASH conditions for a fair comparison between FLASH and CONV. To answer this question, we develop and characterize an anatomically realistic 3D-printed mouse phantom to be used in a multi-institutional dosimetric benchmarking effort. MATERIALS/METHODS Mesh files for bony anatomy, lungs, and soft tissue derived from a CT scan of a mouse were converted to an editable 3D model. The 3D model was cut along the coronal plane and modified to allow the inclusion of radiographic film. A multi-material approach was employed to print the phantom. A dual-nozzle 3D printer was used, where one of the nozzles used Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) to mimic soft tissue and the other nozzle used Polyactic acid (PLA) to mimic bone density. The two materials were used together in a single print. Lungs were approximated by lightweight PLA and were printed separately and inserted into corresponding cavities in the phantom. Hounsfield Units (HU) and print-to-print stability were verified. Radiographic films were laser cut for different anatomical sites. Two institutes took part in this study with data pending from 3 more institutions. The institutes were instructed to deliver 10 Gy to the plane of the film for the whole abdomen, whole lung, and brain irradiations. 2D dose maps were compared between FLASH and CONV, and the deviation from the prescribed dose was also measured. RESULTS The 3D-printed soft tissue, bone, and lung densities were measured to be ∼ 1.01 g/cc, 1.22 g/cc, and 0.44 g/cc, respectively. For soft tissue and bone, the Hounsfield unit (HU) difference from one print to another was < 10 HU. The greatest variation was within the lungs (54 HU), but this had a minimal effect on the dose distribution (<1%). For the two institutions that completed the survey, the maximum average difference between FLASH and CONV for all irradiations was 0.75 Gy (7.48%). The maximum average difference from the prescribed dose for all irradiations was 0.7 Gy (7.20%) across both institutions. The largest discrepancy was generally observed to be for lung irradiation, indicating that lack of treatment planning systems limits our ability to prescribe accurately in areas of inhomogeneities. CONCLUSION A 3D printed anatomically realistic mouse phantom was developed, characterized, and used in a multi-institutional dosimetric benchmarking effort. Such a study is paramount for the clinical translation of FLASH as it facilitates reduced variability from one institution to another.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M R Ashraf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
| | - S Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - K Liu
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - B D Velasquez
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - L A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Dutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S J Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E E Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - P G Maxim
- University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA
| | | | - B W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Ashraf MR, Skinner L, Melemenidis S, Dworkin ML, Wu YF, No HJ, Manjappa R, Yu SJ, Surucu M, Graves EE, Maxim PG, Loo BW. Technical Infrastructure for Clinical Translation of Electron FLASH. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e639. [PMID: 37785904 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.2046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) For safe clinical translation of electron FLASH, hardware tools for real-time beam control and software tools for treatment planning are necessary. The purpose of this study is to prototype high-throughput hardware for real-time beam control, along with accurate beam modeling of a modern clinical Linac configured to deliver FLASH dose-rates. MATERIALS/METHODS For real-time beam current monitoring, a beam current transformer (BCT) was initially coupled to a fast digitizer and its linearity was established by varying dose per pulse. The radiation pulse width was modified, and this change was measured using the BCT. The BCT was then used to measure the variability of dose per pulse and pulse width due to a mistuned linear accelerator system. Next, the BCT was interfaced with a field programmable gate array (FPGA) which provides the ability for high-throughput and deterministic control of the Linac based on dose accumulation. For beam modeling, the program, TOol for PArticle Simulation (TOPAS), was used to obtain beam parameters by using Bayesian optimization of the beam energy, source size, angular, and energy spread via comparison of simulated and representative dose profiles. The beam model would then be employed to calculate 3D dose distribution in a CT scan of a 3D-printed anatomically realistic mouse phantom. RESULTS The area under the current-time curve from the BCT exhibited excellent linearity (response = 12.80 nC/Gy) up to 2.5 Gy/Pulse (R2 = 0.99). The peak beam current for the electron FLASH beam was measured to be ∼10 mA for an instantaneous dose-rate of ∼5×105 Gy/s. The measured radiation pulse width agreed with the expected value (3.7 μs). The pulse width was then shortened and the measurement by the BCT indicated pulse widths of 1.8 μs and 0.5 μs corresponding to 0.7 Gy/pulse and 0.3 Gy/pulse, respectively. The beamline exhibited a ramp-up in dose per pulse and pulse width when using the automatic frequency controller (AFC). For the first pulse, the dose delivered was ∼0.1-0.3 Gy and the pulse width was 0.6 μs. The output stabilized to nominal values of dose and pulse width after 3-4 pulses. This ramp-up was mitigated by manually tuning the RF resonance with the AFC disabled, after which the BCT exhibited constant output and pulse width. The beam modeling work is in progress. CONCLUSION We demonstrated that a BCT can provide real-time measurement of per-pulse output suitable as input for FLASH beam control based on dose accumulation. The next steps are to quantify the accuracy of the dose control mechanism with the FPGA-based hardware. Potential failure modes will be identified and mitigated in parallel with the development of the hardware. A 3D-printed mouse phantom has been constructed to facilitate beam modeling work for treatment planning (in progress). On completion of this work, it is expected that we will have key infrastructure elements needed to move towards an eventual FDA investigational device exemption for clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M R Ashraf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M L Dworkin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - Y F Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - H J No
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - R Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S J Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E E Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - P G Maxim
- University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA
| | - B W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Butler SS, Raclin T, Lau B, Raja N, Chin AL, Skinner L, Diehn M, Loo BW, Vitzthum L. Hyperfractionated Reirradiation for Locally Recurrent Thoracic Tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e9. [PMID: 37786208 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.666] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) For patients with locally recurrent thoracic tumors or second primaries within previously irradiated volumes, hyperfractionated reirradiation (re-RT) may mitigate late toxicity compared to conventional fractionation, but clinical outcomes have not been extensively studied. We herein report our institutional experience with thoracic hyperfractionated reirradiation. MATERIALS/METHODS We identified 26 cases among 23 patients treated with re-RT to either primary or metastatic thoracic tumors, 60 Gy in 50 fractions, twice daily over 5 weeks using highly conformal image guided RT with motion management. Nineteen patients had dosimetry data available. The primary outcome was Grade (G2) or higher toxicity rates per CTCAEv5.0. Secondary endpoints were 12-month local control (LC), progression free survival (PFS)-determined by treating physician and/or multidisciplinary tumor board-and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Median follow-up was 13 months. Half had non-small cell lung cancer, 95.8% had ultracentral tumors, 57.7% had single prior thoracic RT course; 38.5%, 11.5% and 11.5% received concurrent chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted agents, respectively. Minimum and median intervals between RT courses were 10 and 39.5 months, respectively; 94.7% of re-irradiation plans had overlapping 80% isodose volumes. Median OS and PFS were 13 and 10 months, respectively. Crude 12-month LC was 73.1%. Of those with a recurrence, the first recurrence occurred locally in 6 (54.6%), regionally in 3 (27.3%), and distantly in 8 (72.7%) patients. ≥G2 and ≥G3 toxicity rates were 30.8% and 7.69%, respectively (one G3 atrial fibrillation; one G5 pneumonitis). Using the American Radium Society guidelines for thoracic reirradiation, only 10.5% met all dose volume constraint recommendations. CONCLUSION Definitive hyperfractionated thoracic re-RT was well tolerated with promising local control. ≥G3 toxicities were rare. Patients should be counseled on the low but potential risk of life-threatening toxicity. Consensus guidelines for dose constraints may be difficult to meet in reirradiation setting; in this cohort, rates of severe toxicity were low despite exceeding putative constraints in most patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S S Butler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - T Raclin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - B Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - N Raja
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - A L Chin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Diehn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - B W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Lozko Y, Simiele EA, Skinner L, Yang Y, Hui C, Binkley MS, Hiniker SM, Kovalchuk N. VMAT TBI Technique Using Autoplanning Scripts. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e528. [PMID: 37785640 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.1806] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Evident by the Children's Oncology Group (COG) survey of pediatric total body irradiation (TBI) practice, 100% of physicians were open to refining the conventional TBI technique to lower the lung dose and 75% of respondents were interested in implementing VMAT or a 3-D CRT and IMRT system TBI. Unfortunately, only a handful of COG institutions have implemented VMAT or Tomo TBI. We created the autoplanning scripts and shared them with the public to make the VMAT TBI more wide-spread. Here, we report on our initial experience of treating Stanford VMAT TBI technique using the scripts. MATERIALS/METHODS From October 2019 to February 2023, 75 patients were treated with VMAT TBI at our institution. Organ sparing depended on the regimen: myeloablative (lungs, kidneys, and lenses); non-myeloablative (lungs, kidneys, lenses, gonads, brain, and thyroid). Treatment planning was performed using Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface (ESAPI) auto-planning scripts. Data on patient, treatment details, and dosimetric indices were collected. Treatment was delivered using IGRT for every isocenter and every fraction. In-vivo measurements were performed on the matchline between the VMAT and AP/PA fields and on the testes for the first fraction. RESULTS Median patient age was 13 years (range, 1 - 64). The patient height and width range were 83.6-197.3 cm and 24.9-60.3 cm, respectively. Forty-eight percent of patients were treated using myeloablative and 52% nonmyeloablative regimens. For all patients the lungs, lungs-1cm, and kidneys Dmean were consistently spared to 59.8±4.7%, 43.0±6.5%, and 70.9±7.7% of the prescription dose, respectively. Gonadal sparing (Dmean = 31.5±5.9%) was achieved for all patients with benign disease. In addition, brain and thyroid was spared for these patients. For nine patients, VMAT TBI offered additional organ sparing (liver, heart, and previously irradiated areas) and possibility to perform the simultaneously integrated boost. The average PTV D1cc was 120.3±6.6% for all patients. PTV D1cc correlated with patient height and width (R2 = 0.62 and 0.53). Sixteen patients (21.3%) with height <116cm were treated with 3-isocenter VMAT only plans, 59 patients (78.6%) were treated with 3-4 isocenter VMAT plans in head-first-supine position and 1-3 AP/PA plan in feet-first-supine position. Rotational platform was used to change the patient orientation. The average matchline dose measurement indicated patient setup was reproducible (96.1±4.5% relative to planned dose). For the first 35 patients, treatment time, including patient setup and beam-on, was 47.5±9.5 min. CONCLUSION VMAT TBI is a modern alternative to conventional 2D TBI treatment offering the possibility of organ sparing, dose painting, and accurate treatment using IGRT. The automated scripts enable streamline planning with consistent plan quality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Y Lozko
- Stanford Cancer Institute Palo Alto, Palo Alto, CA
| | - E A Simiele
- University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - Y Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - C Hui
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M S Binkley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S M Hiniker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - N Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Wu YF, Lau B, Fu J, Cui S, Pham D, Dubrowski P, Eswarappa S, Zgrabik J, Candow L, Skinner L, Shirato H, Taguchi H, Gensheimer MF, Gee HE, Diehn M, Chin AL, Loo BW, Vitzthum L. Predicting Local Control with Dosimetric Parameters in Patients Receiving Individualized Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Lung Tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e76. [PMID: 37786175 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.814] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is an effective treatment option for lung tumors. The individualized lung tumor SABR (iSABR) trial was a phase II single-arm study that personalized lung tumor SABR dose and fractionation based on tumor size, location, and histology with very low rates of local recurrence (LR). A secondary analysis of this trial was conducted to assess for potential dosimetric predictors of LR, in order to help guide future clinical treatment planning. MATERIALS/METHODS From 2011 to 2018, local, regional and distant recurrence data were prospectively collected from 204 patients (261 lung SABR treatments) enrolled in a prospective trial. Baseline characteristics and treatment details were evaluated. Dosimetric and treatment plan parameters were evaluated for their potential to predict LR, using logistic regression and chi-squared analyses. RESULTS The majority of treated tumors were peripheral (71%, vs 29% central), primary lesions (76%, versus 24% metastatic), and of adenocarcinoma histology (67%, versus 13% squamous cell carcinoma and 19% other). The median follow-up was 24 months (range 2-95). Twenty-seven (10.3%) LRs occurred, with a median time to LR of 15 months (range 6-81 months). There were no significant associations between the overall cohort and the dosimetric parameters. However, for the multi-fraction cohort, an increased proportion of the PTV receiving 110% and 115% of the prescription dose were associated with lower LR (p = 0.01 and p = 0.01 respectively). Specifically for the 50 Gy in 4 fraction cohort, an increased D1cc, D0.03cc, as well as the proportion of the PTV receiving 110%, 115%, and 120% of the prescription dose were associated with lower LR (p < 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.003, p < 0.001, p = 0.004, respectively). There was no association of LR with prescription dose expressed as biologically effective dose using an alpha/beta of 10 Gy (BED10), D99%, or single- versus multi-fraction regimens. CONCLUSION SABR for lung tumors using the individualized protocol on this trial showed excellent LR rates. We identified dosimetric parameters that were associated with LR, including V110% and V115% within the multi-fraction cohort, as well as the 50 Gy in 4 fraction cohort the D1cc, D0.03cc, and proportions of the PTV receiving 110%, 115%, and 120% of the prescription dose in the 50 Gy in 4 fraction cohort. Optimal thresholds for these parameters will be identified in further analyses. There did not appear to be an association with LR and BED10, D99%, or comparing single- vs multi-fraction regimens.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Y F Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - B Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - J Fu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Cui
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - D Pham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - P Dubrowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | | | | | - L Candow
- MIM Software Inc., Beachwood, OH
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - H Shirato
- Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
| | - H Taguchi
- Obihiro Kosei Hospital, Obihiro, Japan
| | - M F Gensheimer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - H E Gee
- Children's Medical Research Institute, Sydney, Australia
| | - M Diehn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - A L Chin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - B W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Dutt S, Manjappa R, Ashraf MR, Soto LA, Skinner L, Yu SJ, Surucu M, Graves EE, Loo B, Dirbas FM. Comparison of Tumor Control between FLASH and CONV in an Orthotopic Breast Cancer Model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:e251-e252. [PMID: 37784977 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.1194] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Post-lumpectomy radiotherapy (RT) reduces in-breast tumor recurrence by eradicating residual, occult breast cancer (BC) that may be in the mm size scale. The ability of FLASH-RT to eradicate BC relative to conventional dose rate (CONV) RT is unknown. ∼ 20Gy RT is currently used clinically for single-fraction breast IORT. Determine the effectiveness of FLASH compared to CONV in eradicating small tumors in an orthotopic, syngeneic model of BC using single-fraction 20 or 30Gy RT. MATERIALS/METHODS Radiation sensitive, mammary tumor cell line Py117 from the transgenic model of the mouse mammary tumor virus promoter driving the polyoma middle T antigen (MMTV- PyMT) efficiently forms non-metastatic, orthotopic tumors in C57BL/6 mice. 106 Py117 cells were injected orthotopically into the left 4th mammary fat pad of C57Bl/6J mice. Radiotherapy was performed with a custom jig that allows for fixed positioning of the target volume (2x2cm radiation field) with 5mm of margin into surrounding tissue. Tumors were irradiated at ∼30mm3 volume or, for comparison, at a range of greater volumes (200-800mm3) with 20 or 30Gy FLASH or CONV with 16-17 MeV electrons. RESULTS Small 30mm3 tumors regressed until ∼ day 15 after 20Gy single fraction RT then regrew for both FLASH and CONV. 30mm3 tumors were eradicated with both FLASH and CONV at 30Gy with no regrowth up to day 35 post-RT. Larger tumors irradiated with 30Gy regressed until ∼ day 12 post-RT then regrew for both FLASH and CONV. There was no significant difference in growth delay or tumor eradication between FLASH and CONV in any cohort. CONCLUSION FLASH was as effective as CONV in controlling growth and eradicating murine BC. Based on other preclinical studies, single-fraction doses between 20 and 30Gy, as well as hypofractioned RT schedules, may identify FLASH doses that achieve comparable tumor control with less toxicity than CONV. Such findings would encourage clinical trials of FLASH in human BC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - V Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S Dutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - R Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA; Stanford University, Stanford
| | - M R Ashraf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA
| | - L A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - S J Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - E E Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - B Loo
- TibaRay, Inc., STANFORD, CA
| | - F M Dirbas
- Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Simiele EA, Han B, Skinner L, Pham D, Lewis J, Gensheimer MF, Vitzthum L, Chang DT, Surucu M, Kovalchuk N. Mitigation of IMRT/SBRT Treatment Planning Errors on the First Biology-Guided Radiotherapy System Using FMEA within Six Sigma Framework. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:S145. [PMID: 37784370 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.560] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) Utilize the Six Sigma methodology and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) to prevent and mitigate errors in IMRT/SBRT treatment planning with the first clinical installation of biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT) system. MATERIALS/METHODS The Six Sigma approach consisted of five phases: Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control. The Define-Measure-Analyze phases consisted of process mapping and an FMEA of the IMRT/SBRT treatment planning process on the BgRT system. The multidisciplinary team outlined the workflow process and identified the failure modes associated with the plan check items using AAPM TG-100 recommendations. Items with the highest average risk priority numbers (RPN) and Severity ≥7 were prioritized for automation using the treatment planning system scripting API (ESAPI). The Improve phase consisted of developing ESAPI scripts prior to the launch of the BgRT system to improve efficiency and safety. In the Control phase, the FMEA ranking was re-evaluated 1-year post-clinical launch. RESULTS Overall, 100 plan check items were identified where the RPN values ranged from 10.2 to 429.0. Fifty of these items (50%) were suitable for automation within ESAPI. Of the 10 highest-risk items (Table 1), 8 were suitable for automation. Based on the results of the FMEA, two scripts were developed: Planning Assistant used by the planner during preparation for planning and the Automated Plan Check used by the planner and the plan checker during plan preparation for treatment. At 1-year post-clinical launch, the scripts were used for 80 patients successfully treated in 1747 fractions. During this period only 3 errors were reported: omitted bolus during treatment, nomenclature error in the BgRT system plan prescription, and dose tracking plan not approved following physics plan check. The average RPN pre-scripts was 138.0 compared to the average post-scripts RPN of 47.8 (p < 0.05) signifying a safer process. CONCLUSION Implementing new technology into the clinic can be an error-prone process where the likelihood of errors increases with increasing pressure to implement the technology quickly. To limit errors in the clinical implementation of the first BgRT system, the Six Sigma methodology was utilized to identify failure modes, establish quality control checks, and re-evaluate these checks 1-year post-clinical launch.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E A Simiele
- University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
| | - B Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - D Pham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - J Lewis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - M F Gensheimer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - L Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - D T Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - M Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - N Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Ashraf MR, Melemenidis S, Liu K, Grilj V, Jansen J, Velasquez B, Connell L, Schulz JB, Bailat C, Libed A, Manjappa R, Dutt S, Soto L, Lau B, Garza A, Larsen W, Skinner L, Yu AS, Surucu M, Graves EE, Maxim PG, Kry SF, Vozenin MC, Schüler E, Jr BWL. Multi-Institutional Audit of FLASH and Conventional Dosimetry with a 3D-Printed Anatomically Realistic Mouse Phantom. ArXiv 2023:arXiv:2309.16836v1. [PMID: 37808098 PMCID: PMC10557797] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/10/2023]
Abstract
We conducted a multi-institutional audit of dosimetric variability between FLASH and conventional dose rate (CONV) electron irradiations by using an anatomically realistic 3D-printed mouse phantom. A CT scan of a live mouse was used to create a 3D model of bony anatomy, lungs, and soft tissue. A dual-nozzle 3D printer was used to print the mouse phantom using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene ($~1.02 g/cm^3$) and polylactic acid ($~1.24 g/cm^3$) simultaneously to simulate soft tissue and bone densities, respectively. The lungs were printed separately using lightweight polylactic acid ($~0.64 g/cm^3$). Hounsfield units (HU) and densities were compared with the reference CT scan of the live mouse. Print-to-print reproducibility of the phantom was assessed. Three institutions were each provided a phantom, and each institution performed two replicates of irradiations at selected mouse anatomic regions. The average dose difference between FLASH and CONV dose distributions and deviation from the prescribed dose were measured with radiochromic film. Compared to the reference CT scan, CT scans of the phantom demonstrated mass density differences of $0.10 g/cm^3$ for bone, $0.12 g/cm^3$ for lung, and $0.03 g/cm^3$ for soft tissue regions. Between phantoms, the difference in HU for soft tissue and bone was <10 HU from print to print. Lung exhibited the most variation (54 HU) but minimally affected dose distribution (<0.5% dose differences between phantoms). The mean difference between FLASH and CONV from the first replicate to the second decreased from 4.3% to 1.2%, and the mean difference from the prescribed dose decreased from 3.6% to 2.5% for CONV and 6.4% to 2.7% for FLASH. The framework presented here is promising for credentialing of multi-institutional studies of FLASH preclinical research to maximize the reproducibility of biological findings.
Collapse
|
19
|
Gutkin PM, Skinner L, Jiang A, Donaldson SS, Loo BW, Oh J, Wang YP, von Eyben R, Snyder J, Bredfeldt JS, Breneman JC, Constine LS, Faught AM, Haas-Kogan D, Holmes JA, Krasin M, Larkin C, Marcus KJ, Maxim PG, McClelland S, Murphy B, Palmer JD, Perkins SM, Shen CJ, Terezakis S, Bush K, Hiniker SM. Feasibility of the Audio-Visual Assisted Therapeutic Ambience in Radiotherapy (AVATAR) System for Anesthesia Avoidance in Pediatric Patients: A Multicenter Trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:96-104. [PMID: 37001762 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.03.063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2023] [Revised: 03/12/2023] [Accepted: 03/22/2023] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The Audio-Visual Assisted Therapeutic Ambience in Radiotherapy (AVATAR) system was the first published radiation therapy (RT)-compatible system to reduce the need for pediatric anesthesia through video-based distraction. We evaluated the feasibility of AVATAR implementation and effects on anesthesia use, quality of life, and anxiety in a multicenter pediatric trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS Pediatric patients 3 to 10 years of age preparing to undergo RT at 10 institutions were prospectively enrolled. Children able to undergo at least 1 fraction of RT using AVATAR without anesthesia were considered successful (S). Patients requiring anesthesia for their entire treatment course were nonsuccessful (NS). The PedsQL3.0 Cancer Module (PedsQL) survey assessed quality of life and was administered to the patient and guardian at RT simulation, midway through RT, and at final treatment. The modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale (mYPAS) assessed anxiety and was performed at the same 3 time points. Success was evaluated using the χ2 test. PedsQL and mYPAS scores were assessed using mixed effects models with time points evaluated as fixed effects and a random intercept on the subject. RESULTS Eighty-one children were included; median age was 7 years. AVATAR was successful at all 10 institutions and with photon and proton RT. There were 63 (78%) S patients; anesthesia was avoided for a median of 20 fractions per patient. Success differed by age (P = .04) and private versus public insurance (P < .001). Both patient (P = .008) and parent (P = .006) PedsQL scores significantly improved over the course of RT for patients aged 5 to 7. Anxiety in the treatment room decreased for both S and NS patients over RT course (P < .001), by age (P < .001), and by S versus NS patients (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS In this 10-center prospective trial, anesthesia avoidance with AVATAR was 78% in children aged 3 to 10 years, higher than among age-matched historical controls (49%; P < .001). AVATAR implementation is feasible across multiple institutions and should be further studied and made available to patients who may benefit from video-based distraction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paulina M Gutkin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Medical College of Wisconsin, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Alice Jiang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Sarah S Donaldson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Billy W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Justin Oh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Yi Peng Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Rie von Eyben
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - John Snyder
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Jeremy S Bredfeldt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - John C Breneman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Louis S Constine
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Pediatrics, James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Austin M Faught
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Daphne Haas-Kogan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Jordan A Holmes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Matthew Krasin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Charlene Larkin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Karen J Marcus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Peter G Maxim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, California
| | - Shearwood McClelland
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Neurologic Surgery, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Blair Murphy
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Joshua D Palmer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ohio State University School of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Stephanie M Perkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Colette J Shen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Stephanie Terezakis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Karl Bush
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Susan M Hiniker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Schulz JB, Gibson C, Dubrowski P, Marquez CM, Million L, Qian Y, Skinner L, Yu AS. Shaping success: clinical implementation of a 3D-printed electron cutout program in external beam radiation therapy. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1237037. [PMID: 37621682 PMCID: PMC10445153 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1237037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2023] [Accepted: 07/18/2023] [Indexed: 08/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose The integration of 3D-printing technology into radiation therapy (RT) has allowed for a novel method to develop personalized electron field-shaping blocks with improved accuracy. By obviating the need for handling highly toxic Cerrobend molds, the clinical workflow is significantly streamlined. This study aims to expound upon the clinical workflow of 3D-printed electron cutouts in RT and furnish one year of in-vivo dosimetry data. Methods and materials 3D-printed electron cutouts for 6x6 cm, 10x10 cm, and 15x15 cm electron applicators were designed and implemented into the clinical workflow after dosimetric commissioning to ensure congruence with the Cerrobend cutouts. The clinical workflow consisted of four parts: i) the cutout aperture was extracted from the treatment planning system (TPS). A 3D printable cutout was then generated automatically through custom scripts; ii) the cutout was 3D-printed with PLA filament, filled with tungsten ball bearings, and underwent quality assurance (QA) to verify density and dosimetry; iii) in-vivo dosimetry was performed with optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) for a patient's first treatment and compared to the calculated dose in the TPS; iv) after treatment completion, the 3D-printed cutout was recycled. Results QA and in-vivo OSLD measurements were conducted (n=40). The electron cutouts produced were 6x6 cm (n=3), 10x10 cm (n=30), and 15x15 cm (n=7). The expected weight of the cutouts differed from the measured weight by 0.4 + 1.1%. The skin dose measured with the OSLDs was compared to the skin dose in the TPS on the central axis. The difference between the measured and TPS doses was 4.0 + 5.2%. Conclusion The successful clinical implementation of 3D-printed cutouts reduced labor, costs, and removed the use of toxic materials in the workplace while meeting clinical dosimetric standards.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Amy S. Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Fahimian BP, Liu W, Skinner L, Yu AS, Phillips T, Steers JM, DeMarco J, Fraass BA, Kamrava M. 3D printing in brachytherapy: A systematic review of gynecological applications. Brachytherapy 2023; 22:446-460. [PMID: 37024350 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2023.02.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2022] [Revised: 12/27/2022] [Accepted: 02/02/2023] [Indexed: 04/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To provide a systematic review of the applications of 3D printing in gynecological brachytherapy. METHODS Peer-reviewed articles relating to additive manufacturing (3D printing) from the 34 million plus biomedical citations in National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI/PubMed), and 53 million records in Web of Science (Clarivate) were queried for 3D printing applications. The results were narrowed sequentially to, (1) all literature in 3D printing with final publications prior to July 2022 (in English, and excluding books, proceedings, and reviews), and then to applications in, (2) radiotherapy, (3) brachytherapy, (4) gynecological brachytherapy. Brachytherapy applications were reviewed and grouped by disease site, with gynecological applications additionally grouped by study type, methodology, delivery modality, and device type. RESULTS From 47,541 3D printing citations, 96 publications met the inclusion criteria for brachytherapy, with gynecological clinical applications compromising the highest percentage (32%), followed by skin and surface (19%), and head and neck (9%). The distribution of delivery modalities was 58% for HDR (Ir-192), 35% for LDR (I-125), and 7% for other modalities. In gynecological brachytherapy, studies included design of patient specific applicators and templates, novel applicator designs, applicator additions, quality assurance and dosimetry devices, anthropomorphic gynecological applicators, and in-human clinical trials. Plots of year-to-year growth demonstrate a rapid nonlinear trend since 2014 due to the improving accessibility of low-cost 3D printers. Based on these publications, considerations for clinical use are provided. CONCLUSIONS 3D printing has emerged as an important clinical technology enabling customized applicator and template designs, representing a major advancement in the methodology for implantation and delivery in gynecological brachytherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin P Fahimian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
| | - Wu Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
| | - Amy S Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
| | - Tiffany Phillips
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Jennifer M Steers
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - John DeMarco
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Benedick A Fraass
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Mitchell Kamrava
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Barghouth PG, Melemenidis S, Montay-Gruel P, Ollivier J, Viswanathan V, Jorge PG, Soto LA, Lau BC, Sadeghi C, Edlabadkar A, Manjappa R, Wang J, Le Bouteiller M, Surucu M, Yu A, Bush K, Skinner L, Maxim PG, Loo BW, Limoli CL, Vozenin MC, Frock RL. FLASH-RT does not affect chromosome translocations and junction structures beyond that of CONV-RT dose-rates. bioRxiv 2023:2023.03.27.534408. [PMID: 37034651 PMCID: PMC10081175 DOI: 10.1101/2023.03.27.534408] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/19/2023]
Abstract
The molecular and cellular mechanisms driving the enhanced therapeutic ratio of ultra-high dose-rate radiotherapy (FLASH-RT) over slower conventional (CONV-RT) radiotherapy dose-rate remain to be elucidated. However, attenuated DNA damage and transient oxygen depletion are among several proposed models. Here, we tested whether FLASH-RT under physioxic (4% O 2 ) and hypoxic conditions (≤2% O 2 ) reduces genome-wide translocations relative to CONV-RT and whether any differences identified revert under normoxic (21% O 2 ) conditions. We employed high-throughput rejoin and genome-wide translocation sequencing ( HTGTS-JoinT-seq ), using S. aureus and S. pyogenes Cas9 "bait" DNA double strand breaks (DSBs), to measure differences in bait-proximal repair and their genome-wide translocations to "prey" DSBs generated by electron beam CONV-RT (0.08-0.13Gy/s) and FLASH-RT (1×10 2 -5×10 6 Gy/s), under varying ionizing radiation (IR) doses and oxygen tensions. Normoxic and physioxic irradiation of HEK293T cells increased translocations at the cost of decreasing bait-proximal repair but were indistinguishable between CONV-RT and FLASH-RT. Although no apparent increase in chromosome translocations was observed with hypoxia-induced apoptosis, the combined decrease in oxygen tension with IR dose-rate modulation did not reveal significant differences in the level of translocations nor in their junction structures. Thus, Irrespective of oxygen tension, FLASH-RT produces translocations and junction structures at levels and proportions that are indistinguishable from CONV-RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul G. Barghouth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Stavros Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Pierre Montay-Gruel
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology. Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Jonathan Ollivier
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology. Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Vignesh Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Patrik G. Jorge
- Institute of Radiation Physics/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland
| | - Luis A. Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Brianna C. Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Cheyenne Sadeghi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Anushka Edlabadkar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Rakesh Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Jinghui Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Marie Le Bouteiller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Amy Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Karl Bush
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Peter G. Maxim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Billy W. Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Charles L. Limoli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2695, USA
| | - Marie-Catherine Vozenin
- Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology. Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Richard L. Frock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Wu YF, Skinner L, Lewis J, Khodadoust MS, Kim YH, Kwong BY, Weng WK, Hoppe RT, Sodji Q, Hui C, Kastelowitz N, Fernandez-Pol S, Hiniker SM. Radiation Therapy for Primary Cutaneous Gamma Delta Lymphoma Prior to Stem Cell Transplantation. Cancer Invest 2023; 41:1-8. [PMID: 33899635 DOI: 10.1080/07357907.2021.1919696] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2021] [Accepted: 04/16/2021] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
We present a patient with widespread PCGD-TCL of the bilateral arms and legs, who underwent radiotherapy with 34 Gy in 17 fractions using circumferential VMAT and 3-D printed bolus to the four extremities prior to planned stem cell transplant, who was then found to have progression in the liver, lung, and skin, followed by drastic regression of all in and out-of-field lesions on imaging 1.5 months later. The cause of regression may be related to a radiation-induced abscopal effect from the immunomodulatory effects of radiation, or related to immune reactivation in the setting of cessation of systemic immunosuppressive agents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yufan F Wu
- Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Jonathan Lewis
- Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Michael S Khodadoust
- Internal Medicine, Medical Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Youn H Kim
- Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Bernice Y Kwong
- Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Wen-Kai Weng
- Stem Cell Transplantation, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Richard T Hoppe
- Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Quaovi Sodji
- Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Caressa Hui
- Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Noah Kastelowitz
- Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| | | | - Susan M Hiniker
- School of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Simiele E, Han B, Skinner L, Pham D, Lewis J, Gensheimer M, Vitzthum L, Chang D, Surucu M, Kovalchuk N. Mitigation of IMRT/SBRT treatment planning errors on the novel RefleXion X1 system using FMEA within Six Sigma framework. Adv Radiat Oncol 2023; 8:101186. [PMID: 37035034 PMCID: PMC10073615 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101186] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2022] [Accepted: 01/16/2023] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study was to apply the Six Sigma methodology and failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to mitigate errors in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatment planning with the first clinical installation of RefleXion X1. Methods and Materials The Six Sigma approach consisted of 5 phases: define, measure, analyze, improve, and control. The define, measure, and analyze phases consisted of process mapping and an FMEA of IMRT and SBRT treatment planning on the X1. The multidisciplinary team outlined the workflow process and identified and ranked the failure modes associated with the plan check items using the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 100 recommendations. Items with the highest average risk priority numbers (RPNs) and severity ≥7 were prioritized for automation using the Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface (ESAPI). The "improve" phase consisted of developing ESAPI scripts before the clinical launch of X1 to improve efficiency and safety. In the "control" phase, the FMEA ranking was re-evaluated 1 year after clinical launch. Results Overall, 100 plan check items were identified in which the RPN values ranged from 10.2 to 429.0. Fifty of these items (50%) were suitable for automation within ESAPI. Of the 10 highest-risk items, 8 were suitable for automation. Based on the results of the FMEA, 2 scripts were developed: Planning Assistant, used by the planner during preparation for planning, and Automated Plan Check, used by the planner and the plan checker during plan preparation for treatment. After 12 months of clinical use of the X1 and developed scripts, only 3 errors were reported. The average prescript RPN was 138.0, compared with the average postscript RPN of 47.8 (P < .05), signifying a safer process. Conclusions Implementing new technology in the clinic can be an error-prone process in which the likelihood of errors increases with increasing pressure to implement the technology quickly. To limit errors in clinical implementation of the novel RefleXion X1 system, the Six Sigma method was used to identify failure modes, establish quality control checks, and re-evaluate these checks 1 year after clinical implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric Simiele
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Bin Han
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Daniel Pham
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Jonathan Lewis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Michael Gensheimer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Lucas Vitzthum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Daniel Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Nataliya Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
- Corresponding author: Nataliya Kovalchuk, PhD
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Wu Y, No H, Dworkin M, Manjappa R, Ashraf R, Skinner L, Lau B, Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Yu S, Surucu M, Schueler E, Graves E, Maxim P, Loo B. Assessing Clinical Feasibility of a LINAC-Based Electron FLASH Radiotherapy System Using an Anthropomorphic Phantom under Realistic Clinical Conditions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.07.605] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
26
|
No H, Wu Y, Dworkin M, Ashraf R, Manjappa R, Skinner L, Lau B, Melemenidis S, Viswanathan V, Yu S, Surucu M, Schueler E, Graves E, Maxim P, Loo B. Clinical LINAC-Based Electron FLASH: Pathway for Practical Translation to Trials of FLASH Radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.07.2152] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/31/2022]
|
27
|
Gutkin P, Skinner L, Jiang A, Donaldson S, Loo B, Oh J, Von Eyben R, Bredfeldt J, Breneman J, Constine L, Faught A, Haas-Kogan D, Holmes J, Krasin M, Larkin C, Marcus K, Maxim P, Murphy B, Palmer J, Perkins S, Terezakis S, Bush K, Hiniker S. A 10-Center Prospective Clinical Trial of the Audio-Visual Assisted Therapeutic Ambience in Radiotherapy (AVATAR) System for Anesthesia Avoidance in Pediatric Patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.07.463] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/31/2022]
|
28
|
Jorge PG, Melemenidis S, Grilj V, Buchillier T, Manjappa R, Viswanathan V, Gondré M, Vozenin MC, Germond JF, Bochud F, Moeckli R, Limoli C, Skinner L, No HJ, Wu YF, Surucu M, Yu AS, Lau B, Wang J, Schüler E, Bush K, Graves EE, Maxim PG, Loo BW, Bailat C. Design and validation of a dosimetric comparison scheme tailored for ultra-high dose-rate electron beams to support multicenter FLASH preclinical studies. Radiother Oncol 2022; 175:203-209. [PMID: 36030934 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.08.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2022] [Revised: 08/18/2022] [Accepted: 08/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE We describe a multicenter cross validation of ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) (>= 40 Gy/s) irradiation in order to bring a dosimetric consensus in absorbed dose to water. UHDR refers to dose rates over 100-1000 times those of conventional clinical beams. UHDR irradiations have been a topic of intense investigation as they have been reported to induce the FLASH effect in which normal tissues exhibit reduced toxicity relative to conventional dose rates. The need to establish optimal beam parameters capable of achieving the in vivo FLASH effect has become paramount. It is therefore necessary to validate and replicate dosimetry across multiple sites conducting UHDR studies with distinct beam configurations and experimental set-ups. MATERIALS AND METHODS Using a custom cuboid phantom with a cylindrical cavity (5 mm diameter by 10.4 mm length) designed to contain three type of dosimeters (thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), alanine pellets, and Gafchromic films), irradiations were conducted at expected doses of 7.5 to 16 Gy delivered at UHDR or conventional dose rates using various electron beams at the Radiation Oncology Departments of the CHUV in Lausanne, Switzerland and Stanford University, CA. RESULTS Data obtained between replicate experiments for all dosimeters were in excellent agreement (±3%). In general, films and TLDs were in closer agreement with each other, while alanine provided the closest match between the expected and measured dose, with certain caveats related to absolute reference dose. CONCLUSION In conclusion, successful cross-validation of different electron beams operating under different energies and configurations lays the foundation for establishing dosimetric consensus for UHDR irradiation studies, and, if widely implemented, decrease uncertainty between different sites investigating the mechanistic basis of the FLASH effect.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrik Gonçalves Jorge
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Stavros Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Veljko Grilj
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Thierry Buchillier
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Rakesh Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Vignesh Viswanathan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Maude Gondré
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Marie-Catherine Vozenin
- CHUV - Radiation-oncology Laboratory, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Jean-François Germond
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - François Bochud
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Raphaël Moeckli
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Charles Limoli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Hyunsoo Joshua No
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Yufan Fred Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Murat Surucu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Amy S Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Brianna Lau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Jinghui Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Emil Schüler
- Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Karl Bush
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Edward E Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Peter G Maxim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
| | - Billy W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| | - Claude Bailat
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Lau B, Wu Y, Fu J, Cui S, Pham D, Gee H, Skinner L, Shirato H, Taguchi H, Chin A, Gensheimer M, Diehn M, Loo B, Vitzthum L. OA14.04 Chest Wall Toxicity after Individualized Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Lung Tumors. J Thorac Oncol 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2022.07.069] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
30
|
Kovalchuk N, Simiele E, Skinner L, Yang Y, Howell N, Lewis J, Hui C, Blomain ES, Hoppe RT, Hiniker SM. The Stanford VMAT TBI Technique. Pract Radiat Oncol 2022; 12:245-258. [PMID: 35182803 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2021.12.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2021] [Revised: 12/07/2021] [Accepted: 12/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE In this work, we describe the technical aspects of the XXX VMAT TBI technique, compare it to other VMAT TBI techniques, and share our initial experience. METHODS From September 2019 to August 2021, 35 patients were treated with VMAT TBI at our institution. Treatment planning was performed using in-house developed automated planning scripts. Organ sparing depended on the regimen: myeloablative (lungs, kidneys, and lenses); non-myeloablative with benign disease (lungs, kidneys, lenses, gonads, brain, and thyroid). Quality assurance was performed using EPID portal dosimetry and Mobius3D. Robustness was evaluated for the first ten patients by performing local and global isocenter shifts of 5 mm. Treatment was delivered using IGRT for every isocenter and every fraction. In-vivo measurements were performed on the matchline between the VMAT and AP/PA fields and on the testes for the first fraction. RESULTS The lungs, lungs-1cm, and kidneys Dmean were consistently spared to 57.6±4.4%, 40.7±5.5%, and 70.0±9.9% of the prescription dose, respectively. Gonadal sparing (Dmean=0.69±0.13 Gy) was performed for all patients with benign disease. The average PTV D1cc was 120.7±6.4% for all patients. The average Gamma passing rate for the VMAT plans was 98.1±1.6% (criteria of 3%/2mm). Minimal differences were observed between Mobius3D- and EclipseAAA-calculated PTV Dmean (0.0±0.3%) and lungs Dmean (-2.5±1.2%). Robustness evaluation showed that the PTV Dmax and lungs Dmean are insensitive to small positioning deviations between the VMAT isocenters (1.1±2.4% and 1.2±1.0%, respectively). The average matchline dose measurement indicated patient setup was reproducible (96.1±4.5% relative to prescription dose). Treatment time, including patient setup and beam-on, was 47.5±9.5 min. CONCLUSIONS The XXX VMAT TBI technique, from simulation to treatment delivery, was presented and compared to other VMAT TBI techniques. Together with publicly shared autoplanning scripts, our technique may provide the gateway for wider adaptation of this technology and the possibility of multi-institutional studies in the cooperative group setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nataliya Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States
| | - Eric Simiele
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States
| | - Yong Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States
| | - Nicole Howell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States
| | - Jonathan Lewis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States
| | - Caressa Hui
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States
| | - Erik S Blomain
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States
| | - Richard T Hoppe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States
| | - Susan M Hiniker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Dworkin M, No HJ, Wu Y, Binkley M, Rieger K, Graves E, Barcellos-Hoff M, Von Eyben R, Ashraf R, Manjappa R, Yu A, Skinner L, Surucu M, Kim Y, Loo B, Hoppe R. A RANDOMIZED SPLIT-BODY FEASIBILITY TRIAL OF SINGLE-FRACTION FLASH VS CONVENTIONAL ELECTRON RADIOTHERAPY USING A STANDARD CLINICAL LINEAR ACCELERATOR FOR ADULTS WITH MULTILESIONAL PRIMARY CUTANEOUS LYMPHOMAS. Phys Med 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/s1120-1797(22)01654-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
|
32
|
Blomain E, Capaldi D, Panjwani N, Skinner L, Loo B. Development of a Smartphone-Based Virtual Reality Platform for Radiation Oncology Patient Education. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.621] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
|
33
|
No H, Wu Y, Manjappa R, Skinner L, Lau B, Melemenidis S, Yu S, Surucu M, Schueler E, Bush K, Graves E, Maxim P, Loo B. Feasibility of Clinically Practical Ultra-High Dose Rate (FLASH) Radiation Delivery by a Reversible Configuration of a Standard Clinical-Use Linear Accelerator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.099] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
|
34
|
Kovalchuk N, Blomain E, Ngo N, Simiele E, Skinner L, Hoppe R, Hiniker S. Improved Organ Sparing with Autoplanned VMAT TBI. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.609] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
|
35
|
Simiele E, Skinner L, Yang Y, Blomain E, Hoppe R, Hiniker S, Kovalchuk N. A Step Towards Making VMAT TBI More Prevalent: Automating the Treatment Planning Process. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.140] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
36
|
Wu Y, No H, Manjappa R, Skinner L, Yu S, Lau B, Surucu M, Schueler E, Bush K, Graves E, Maxim P, Loo B. Validation of a Novel Cone-Less Set-up for Electron FLASH Radiation Delivery on a Clinical-Use Linear Accelerator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.314] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
|
37
|
Abstract
Purpose The goal of this work was to develop and test nontoxic electron collimation technologies for clinical use. Methods Two novel technologies were investigated: tungsten‐silicone composite and 3D printed electron cutouts. Transmission, dose uniformity, and profiles were measured for the tungsten‐silicone. Surface dose, relative dose output, and field size were measured for the 3D printed cutouts and compared with the standard cerrobend cutouts in current clinical use. Quality assurance tests including mass measurements, Megavoltage (MV) imaging, and drop testing were developed for the 3D printed cutouts as a guide to safe clinical implementation. Results Dose profiles of the flexible tungsten‐silicone skin shields had an 80–20 penumbra values of 2–3 mm compared to 7–8 mm for cerrobend. In MV transmission image measurements of the tungsten‐silicone, 80% of the pixels had a transmission value within 2% of the mean. An ∼90% reduction in electron intensity was measured for 6 MeV and a 6.4 mm thickness of tungsten‐silicone and 12.7 mm thickness for 16 MeV. The maximum difference in 3D printed cutout versus cerrobend output, surface dose, and full width at half‐maximum (FWHM) was 1.7%, 1.2%, and 1.5%, respectively, for the 10 cm × 10 cm cutouts. Conclusions Both flexible tungsten‐silicone and 3D printed cutouts were found to be feasible for clinical use. The flexible tungsten‐silicone was of adequate density, flexibility, and uniformity to serve as skin shields for electron therapy. The 3D printed cutouts were dosimetrically equivalent to standard cerrobend cutouts and were robust enough for handling in the clinical environment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Stephanie Lo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Amy Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Skinner L, Knopp R, Wang YC, Dubrowski P, Bush KK, Limmer A, Trakul N, Million L, Marquez CM, Yu AS. CT-less electron radiotherapy simulation and planning with a consumer 3D camera. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2021; 22:128-136. [PMID: 34042253 PMCID: PMC8292688 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13283] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2020] [Revised: 04/15/2021] [Accepted: 04/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Electron radiation therapy dose distributions are affected by irregular body surface contours. This study investigates the feasibility of three‐dimensional (3D) cameras to substitute for the treatment planning computerized tomography (CT) scan by capturing the body surfaces to be treated for accurate electron beam dosimetry. Methods Dosimetry was compared for six electron beam treatments to the nose, toe, eye, and scalp using full CT scan, CT scan with Hounsfield Unit (HU) overridden to water (mimic 3D camera cases), and flat‐phantom techniques. Radiation dose was prescribed to a depth on the central axis per physician’s order, and the monitor units (MUs) were calculated. The 3D camera spatial accuracy was evaluated by comparing the 3D surface of a head phantom captured by a 3D camera and that generated with the CT scan in the treatment planning system. A clinical case is presented, and MUs were calculated using the 3D camera body contour with HU overridden to water. Results Across six cases the average change in MUs between the full CT and the 3Dwater (CT scan with HU overridden to water) calculations was 1.3% with a standard deviation of 1.0%. The corresponding hotspots had a mean difference of 0.4% and a standard deviation of 1.9%. The 3D camera captured surface of a head phantom was found to have a 0.59 mm standard deviation from the surface derived from the CT scan. In‐vivo dose measurements (213 ± 8 cGy) agreed with the 3D‐camera planned dose of 209 ± 6 cGy, compared to 192 ± 6 cGy for the flat‐phantom calculation (same MUs). Conclusions Electron beam dosimetry is affected by irregular body surfaces. 3D cameras can capture irregular body contours which allow accurate dosimetry of electron beam treatment as an alternative to costly CT scans with no extra exposure to radiation. Tools and workflow for clinical implementation are provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Rick Knopp
- Stanford Radiation oncology, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Karl K Bush
- Stanford Radiation oncology, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Amy S Yu
- Stanford Radiation oncology, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Rahimy E, Skinner L, Kim YH, Hoppe RT. Technical report: 3D-printed patient-specific scalp shield for hair preservation in total skin electron beam therapy. Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol 2021; 18:12-15. [PMID: 33997322 PMCID: PMC8091539 DOI: 10.1016/j.tipsro.2021.03.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2021] [Revised: 03/04/2021] [Accepted: 03/23/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
•Techniques for non-lead scalp-shielding in total skin therapy are lacking.•3D-printing is a promising technique for patient-specific conformal shielding.•We present a case of effective scalp shielding with 3D-printing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elham Rahimy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Youn H Kim
- Department of Dermatology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Richard T Hoppe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Gutkin PM, Donaldson SS, Skinner L, Callejas M, Cimino J, Lore J, Bush K, Hiniker SM. Use of Audiovisual Assisted Therapeutic Ambience in Radiotherapy (AVATAR) for Anesthesia Avoidance in a Pediatric Patient With Down Syndrome. Adv Radiat Oncol 2021; 6:100637. [PMID: 33732961 PMCID: PMC7941013 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2020.100637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2020] [Revised: 11/16/2020] [Accepted: 11/19/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sarah S Donaldson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Michelle Callejas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Jaclyn Cimino
- Child Life Department, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford, California
| | - Jacob Lore
- Child Life Department, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford, California
| | - Karl Bush
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| | - Susan M Hiniker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Simiele E, Skinner L, Yang Y, Blomain ES, Hoppe RT, Hiniker SM, Kovalchuk N. A Step Toward Making VMAT TBI More Prevalent: Automating the Treatment Planning Process. Pract Radiat Oncol 2021; 11:415-423. [PMID: 33711488 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2021.02.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2020] [Revised: 02/08/2021] [Accepted: 02/26/2021] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Our purpose was to automate the treatment planning process for total body irradiation (TBI) with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS AND MATERIALS Two scripts were developed to facilitate autoplanning: the binary plug-in script automating the creation of optimization structures, plan generation, beam placement, and setting of the optimization constraints and the stand-alone executable performing successive optimizations. Ten patients previously treated in our clinic with VMAT TBI were used to evaluate the efficacy of the proposed autoplanning process. Paired t tests were used to compare the dosimetric indices of the produced auto plans to the manually generated clinical plans. In addition, 3 physicians were asked to evaluate the manual and autoplans for each patient in a blinded retrospective review. RESULTS No significant differences were observed between the manual and autoplan global Dmax (P < .893), planning target volume V110% (P < .734), kidneys Dmean (P < .351), and bowel Dmax (P < .473). Significant decreases in the Dmean to the lungs and lungs-1cm (ie, lungs with 1-cm inner margin) volumes of 5.4% ± 6.4% (P < .024) and 6.8% ± 7.4% (P < .017), respectively, were obtained with the autoplans compared with the manual plans. The autoplans were selected 77% of the time by the reviewing physicians as equivalent or superior to the manual plans. The required time for treatment planning was estimated to be 2 to 3 days for the manual plans compared with approximately 3 to 5 hours for the autoplans. CONCLUSIONS Large reductions in planning time without sacrificing plan quality were obtained using the developed autoplanning process compared with manual planning, thus reducing the required effort of the treatment planning team. Superior lung sparing with the same target coverage and similar global Dmax were observed with the autoplans as compared with the manual treatment plans. The developed scripts have been made open-source to improve access to VMAT TBI at other institutions and clinics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E Simiele
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - L Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Y Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - E S Blomain
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - R T Hoppe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - S M Hiniker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - N Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Soto LA, Casey KM, Wang J, Blaney A, Manjappa R, Breitkreutz D, Skinner L, Dutt S, Ko RB, Bush K, Yu AS, Melemenidis S, Strober S, Englemann E, Maxim PG, Graves EE, Loo BW. FLASH Irradiation Results in Reduced Severe Skin Toxicity Compared to Conventional-Dose-Rate Irradiation. Radiat Res 2021; 194:618-624. [PMID: 32853385 DOI: 10.1667/rade-20-00090] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2020] [Accepted: 06/18/2020] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
Radiation therapy, along with surgery and chemotherapy, is one of the main treatments for cancer. While radiotherapy is highly effective in the treatment of localized tumors, its main limitation is its toxicity to normal tissue. Previous preclinical studies have reported that ultra-high dose-rate (FLASH) irradiation results in reduced toxicity to normal tissues while controlling tumor growth to a similar extent relative to conventional-dose-rate (CONV) irradiation. To our knowledge this is the first report of a dose-response study in mice comparing the effect of FLASH irradiation vs. CONV irradiation on skin toxicity. We found that FLASH irradiation results in both a lower incidence and lower severity of skin ulceration than CONV irradiation 8 weeks after single-fraction hemithoracic irradiation at high doses (30 and 40 Gy). Survival was also higher after FLASH hemithoracic irradiation (median survival >180 days at doses of 30 and 40 Gy) compared to CONV irradiation (median survival 100 and 52 days at 30 and 40 Gy, respectively). No ulceration was observed at doses 20 Gy or below in either FLASH or CONV. These results suggest a shifting of the dose-response curve for radiation-induced skin ulceration to the right for FLASH, compared to CONV irradiation, suggesting the potential for an enhanced therapeutic index for radiation therapy of cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luis A Soto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305.,Cancer Biology Program, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| | - Kerriann M Casey
- Department of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| | - Jinghui Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| | - Alexandra Blaney
- Department of Comparative Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| | - Rakesh Manjappa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| | - Dylan Breitkreutz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| | - Suparna Dutt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305.,Department of Medicine, Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| | - Ryan B Ko
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| | - Karl Bush
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| | - Amy S Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| | - Stavros Melemenidis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| | - Samuel Strober
- Department of Medicine, Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305.,Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| | - Edgar Englemann
- Department of Medicine, Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305.,Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305.,Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| | - Peter G Maxim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202
| | - Edward E Graves
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305.,Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305.,Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| | - Billy W Loo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305.,Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305.,Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Jia M, Li X, Wu Y, Yang Y, Kasimbeg P, Skinner L, Wang L, Xing L. Deep learning-augmented radiotherapy visualization with a cylindrical radioluminescence system. Phys Med Biol 2021; 66:045014. [PMID: 33361563 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/abd673] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
This study aims to demonstrate a low-cost camera-based radioluminescence imaging system (CRIS) for high-quality beam visualization that encourages accurate pre-treatment verifications on radiation delivery in external beam radiotherapy. To ameliorate the optical image that suffers from mirror glare and edge blurring caused by photon scattering, a deep learning model is proposed and trained to learn from an on-board electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Beyond the typical purposes of an on-board EPID, the developed system maintains independent measurement with co-planar detection ability by involving a cylindrical receptor. Three task-aware modules are integrated into the network design to enhance its robustness against the artifacts that exist in an EPID running at the cine mode for efficient image acquisition. The training data consists of various designed beam fields that were modulated via the multi-leaf collimator (MLC). Validation experiments are performed for five regular fields ranging from 2 × 2 cm2 to 10 × 10 cm2 and three clinical IMRT cases. The captured CRIS images are compared to the high-quality images collected from an EPID running at the integration-mode, in terms of gamma index and other typical similarity metrics. The mean 2%/2 mm gamma pass rate is 99.14% (range between 98.6% and 100%) and 97.1% (ranging between 96.3% and 97.9%), for the regular fields and IMRT cases, respectively. The CRIS is further applied as a tool for MLC leaf-end position verification. A rectangular field with introduced leaf displacement is designed, and the measurements using CRIS and EPID agree within 0.100 mm ± 0.072 mm with maximum of 0.292 mm. Coupled with its simple system design and low-cost nature, the technique promises to provide viable choice for routine quality assurance in radiation oncology practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mengyu Jia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto 94304, United States of America
| | - Xiaomeng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto 94304, United States of America
| | - Yan Wu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto 94304, United States of America
| | - Yong Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto 94304, United States of America
| | - Priya Kasimbeg
- School of Engineering, Stanford University, Palo Alto 94304, United States of America
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto 94304, United States of America
| | - Lei Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto 94304, United States of America
| | - Lei Xing
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Palo Alto 94304, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Blomain E, Skinner L, Simiele E, Yang Y, Howell N, Hiniker S, Hoppe R. Improved Lung Sparing During Total Body Irradiation Using a VMAT Technique Versus a 2D Lung Block Approach: Preliminary Single-institutional Experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.07.2372] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
|
45
|
Skinner L, Niedermayr T, Perl J, Prionas N, Benjamin F, Kidd E. OC-1036: Intensity Modulated Ir-192 Brachytherapy Using 3D Printed Shielded Applicators. Radiother Oncol 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(21)01975-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
46
|
Kim TJ, Cheng K, Zhang H, Liu S, Skinner L, Xing L. Second window near-infrared dosimeter (NIR2D) system for radiation dosimetry. Phys Med Biol 2020; 65:175013. [PMID: 32869751 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab9b56] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Fiber-coupled scintillation dosimeters are a cost-effective alternative to the conventional ion chambers in radiation dosimetry. However, stem effects from optical fibers such as Cerenkov radiation incur significant errors in the readout signal. Here we introduce a second near-infrared window dosimeter, dubbed as NIR2D, that can potentially be used as real-time radiation detector for clinical megavoltage beams. Lanthanide-based rare-earth NaYF4 nano-phosphors doped with both erbium and cerium elements were synthesized, and a compact 3D printed reader device integrated with a photodetector and data acquisition system was designed. The performance of the NIR2D was tested using a pre-clinical orthovoltage radiation source and a clinical megavoltage radiation source. The system was tested for dose linearity (100, 200, 600 MU), dose rate dependency (100, 200, 400, 600 MU min-1), and energy dependency (6, 10, 15 MV). Test results with the clinical linear accelerator demonstrated excellent dose linearity and dose rate independency when exposed to 6 MV linac beams-both data follows a linear trendline with R2 > 0.99. On the other hand, the NIR2D was energy dependent, where the readout dropped by 9% between 6 and 15 MV. For stem effects, we observed a finite Cerenkov contribution of 1%-3% when exposed between 100-600 MU min-1 (6 MV) and 3%-6% when exposed between 5-15 MV (600 MU min-1). While the stem effects were still observable, we expect that enhancing the current optical setup will simultaneously improve the scintillation signal and reduce the stem effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tae Jin Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, United States of America. These authors contributed equally to this work
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Natarajan S, Levy K, Wang J, Chow S, Eggold J, Loo P, Manjappa R, Lartey FM, Schüler E, Skinner L, Rafat M, Ko R, Kim A, Rawi DA, von Eyben R, Dorigo O, Casey KM, Graves EE, Bush K, Yu AS, Koong AC, Maxim PG, Loo BW, Rankin EB. Abstract 5351: FLASH irradiation enhances the therapeutic index of abdominal radiotherapy in mice. Cancer Res 2020. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2020-5351] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Radiation therapy is the most effective cytotoxic cancer therapy available for the treatment of localized tumors. However, radiation-induced toxicity to normal tissues limits the radiation dose and therefore the curative potential of radiotherapy. In particular, the highly radiosensitive intestine greatly limits the use of radiation for patients with intra-abdominal tumor diseases including women with ovarian cancer. Here we sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of FLASH radiation therapy in the treatment of widespread ovarian cancer peritoneal metastases. We performed abdominal irradiation on healthy and ovarian tumor-bearing mice at conventional (CONV, (0.07 Gy/sec)) or FLASH (200 Gy/sec) dose rates and examined gut function by stool counts, DNA damage in crypt cells by γ-H2AX staining, cell death and proliferation by TUNEL/ caspase-3 staining and BrdU immunohistochemistry respectively. We report that ultrahigh dose rate FLASH irradiation causes significantly less radiation-induced intestinal injury in both healthy and tumor-bearing mice compared to CONV dose rate irradiation. Abdominal FLASH reduced the mortality from gastrointestinal syndrome, preserved gut function and epithelial integrity as reflected by their stool counts and FITC-Dextran analysis. In addition, we found decreased cell death and enhanced proliferation of crypt base columnar cells (CBCs) following FLASH irradiation in comparison to CONV irradiation. We also detected reduced number of γ-H2AX foci in crypt cells indicating less DNA damage and/or increased DNA repair after FLASH compared to CONV irradiation. Importantly, FLASH and CONV irradiation have similar efficacy in the reduction of ovarian cancer peritoneal metastases. These findings suggest that FLASH irradiation has biological advantages compared to conventional dose rate irradiation in reducing radiation-induced intestinal injury within the irradiation field and therefore may be an effective strategy to enhance the therapeutic index of radiotherapy for the treatment of abdominal and pelvic tumor disease.
Citation Format: Suchitra Natarajan, Karen Levy, Jinghui Wang, Stephanie Chow, Joshua Eggold, Phoebe Loo, Rakesh Manjappa, Frederick M. Lartey, Emil Schüler, Lawrie Skinner, Marjan Rafat, Ryan Ko, Anna Kim, Duaa Al Rawi, Rie von Eyben, Oliver Dorigo, Kerriann M. Casey, Edward E. Graves, Karl Bush, Amy S. Yu, Albert C. Koong, Peter G. Maxim, Billy W. Loo, Erinn B. Rankin. FLASH irradiation enhances the therapeutic index of abdominal radiotherapy in mice [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 5351.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Marjan Rafat
- 2Department of Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN
| | - Ryan Ko
- 1Stanford University, Stanford, CA
| | - Anna Kim
- 1Stanford University, Stanford, CA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Peter G. Maxim
- 4Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Blomain ES, Kovalchuk N, Neilsen BK, Skinner L, Hoppe RT, Hiniker SM. A Preliminary Report of Gonadal-Sparing TBI Using a VMAT Technique. Pract Radiat Oncol 2020; 11:e134-e138. [PMID: 32795616 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2020.07.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2020] [Revised: 06/19/2020] [Accepted: 07/24/2020] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
Reproductive toxicity is common after total body irradiation (TBI) and has major quality of life implications for patients. In that context, this is the first report of gonadal-sparing volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) TBI, successfully delivered in a boy and a girl with aplastic anemia. Both patients' VMAT TBI plans demonstrated improved gonadal sparing versus simulated conventional 2-dimensional (2D) approach (mean testes dose, 0.45 Gy VMAT vs 0.72 Gy 2D; mean ovary dose, 0.64 Gy VMAT vs 1.47 Gy 2D). Planning target volume coverage was also improved for both cases with the VMAT plan versus conventional 2D plan (2 Gy D90% vs 1.9 Gy D90%, respectively). Given these dosimetric advantages, the present study can serve as a proof-of-concept for further prospective studies evaluating this technique for wider applications in populations receiving TBI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erik S Blomain
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Nataliya Kovalchuk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Beth K Neilsen
- College of Medicine, University of Nebraska, Omaha, Nebraska
| | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Richard T Hoppe
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Susan M Hiniker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Liu S, Bush K, Bertini J, FU Y, Lewis J, Pham D, Yang Y, Niedermayr T, Skinner L, Xing L, Beadle B, Hsu A, Kovalchuk N. Optimizing Efficiency and Safety in External Beam Radiotherapy Using Automated Plan Check (APC) Tool and Six Sigma Methodology. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.422] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
|
50
|
Liu S, Bush KK, Bertini J, Fu Y, Lewis JM, Pham DJ, Yang Y, Niedermayr TR, Skinner L, Xing L, Beadle BM, Hsu A, Kovalchuk N. Optimizing efficiency and safety in external beam radiotherapy using automated plan check (APC) tool and six sigma methodology. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2019; 20:56-64. [PMID: 31423729 PMCID: PMC6698761 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2019] [Revised: 05/20/2019] [Accepted: 06/11/2019] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To develop and implement an automated plan check (APC) tool using a Six Sigma methodology with the aim of improving safety and efficiency in external beam radiotherapy. METHODS The Six Sigma define-measure-analyze-improve-control (DMAIC) framework was used by measuring defects stemming from treatment planning that were reported to the departmental incidence learning system (ILS). The common error pathways observed in the reported data were combined with our departmental physics plan check list, and AAPM TG-275 identified items. Prioritized by risk priority number (RPN) and severity values, the check items were added to the APC tool developed using Varian Eclipse Scripting Application Programming Interface (ESAPI). At 9 months post-APC implementation, the tool encompassed 89 check items, and its effectiveness was evaluated by comparing RPN values and rates of reported errors. To test the efficiency gains, physics plan check time and reported error rate were prospectively compared for 20 treatment plans. RESULTS The APC tool was successfully implemented for external beam plan checking. FMEA RPN ranking re-evaluation at 9 months post-APC demonstrated a statistically significant average decrease in RPN values from 129.2 to 83.7 (P < .05). After the introduction of APC, the average frequency of reported treatment-planning errors was reduced from 16.1% to 4.1%. For high-severity errors, the reduction was 82.7% for prescription/plan mismatches and 84.4% for incorrect shift note. The process shifted from 4σ to 5σ quality for isocenter-shift errors. The efficiency study showed a statistically significant decrease in plan check time (10.1 ± 7.3 min, P = .005) and decrease in errors propagating to physics plan check (80%). CONCLUSIONS Incorporation of APC tool has significantly reduced the error rate. The DMAIC framework can provide an iterative and robust workflow to improve the efficiency and quality of treatment planning procedure enabling a safer radiotherapy process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shi Liu
- Department of Radiation OncologyStanford UniversityStanfordCAUSA
| | - Karl K. Bush
- Department of Radiation OncologyStanford UniversityStanfordCAUSA
| | | | - Yabo Fu
- Department of Radiation OncologyWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisMOUSA
| | | | - Daniel J. Pham
- Department of Radiation OncologyStanford UniversityStanfordCAUSA
| | - Yong Yang
- Department of Radiation OncologyStanford UniversityStanfordCAUSA
| | | | - Lawrie Skinner
- Department of Radiation OncologyStanford UniversityStanfordCAUSA
| | - Lei Xing
- Department of Radiation OncologyStanford UniversityStanfordCAUSA
| | - Beth M. Beadle
- Department of Radiation OncologyStanford UniversityStanfordCAUSA
| | - Annie Hsu
- Department of Radiation OncologyStanford UniversityStanfordCAUSA
| | | |
Collapse
|