A critical evaluation of secondary cancer risk models applied to Monte Carlo dose distributions of 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional conformal and hybrid intensity-modulated radiation therapy for breast cancer

The comparison of radiotherapy techniques regarding secondary cancer risk has yielded contradictory results possibly stemming from the many different approaches used to estimate risk. The purpose of this study was to make a comprehensive evaluation of different available risk models applied to detailed whole-body dose distributions computed by Monte Carlo for various breast radiotherapy techniques including conventional open tangents, 3D conformal wedged tangents and hybrid intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). First, organ-specific linear risk models developed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII committee were applied to mean doses for remote organs only and all solid organs. Then, different general non-linear risk models were applied to the whole body dose distribution. Finally, organ-specific non-linear risk models for the lung and breast were used to assess the secondary cancer risk for these two specific organs. A total of 32 different calculated absolute risks resulted in a broad range of values (between 0.1% and 48.5%) underlying the large uncertainties in absolute risk calculation. The ratio of risk between two techniques has often been proposed as a more robust assessment of risk than the absolute risk. We found that the ratio of risk between two techniques could also vary substantially considering the different approaches to risk estimation. Sometimes the ratio of risk between two techniques would range between values smaller and larger than one, which then translates into inconsistent results on the potential higher risk of one technique compared to another. We found however that the hybrid IMRT technique resulted in a systematic reduction of risk compared to the other techniques investigated even though the magnitude of this reduction varied substantially with the different approaches investigated. Based on the epidemiological data available, a reasonable approach to risk estimation would be to use organ-specific non-linear risk models applied to the dose distributions of organs within or near the treatment fields (lungs and contralateral breast in the case of breast radiotherapy) as the majority of radiation-induced secondary cancers are found in the beam-bordering regions.

Cup Implant Planning Based on 2-D/3-D Radiographic Pelvis Reconstruction-First Clinical Results.

GOAL: In the following, we will present a newly developed X-ray calibration phantom and its integration for 2-D/3-D pelvis reconstruction and subsequent automatic cup planning. Two different planning strategies were applied and evaluated with clinical data. METHODS: Two different cup planning methods were investigated: The first planning strategy is based on a combined pelvis and cup statistical atlas. Thereby, the pelvis part of the combined atlas is matched to the reconstructed pelvis model, resulting in an optimized cup planning. The second planning strategy analyzes the morphology of the reconstructed pelvis model to determine the best fitting cup implant. RESULTS: The first planning strategy was compared to 3-D CT-based planning. Digitally reconstructed radiographs of THA patients with differently severe pathologies were used to evaluate the accuracy of predicting the cup size and position. Within a discrepancy of one cup size, the size was correctly identified in 100% of the cases for Crowe type I datasets and in 77.8% of the cases for Crowe type II, III, and IV datasets. The second planning strategy was analyzed with respect to the eventually implanted cup size. In seven patients, the estimated cup diameter was correct within one cup size, while the estimation for the remaining five patients differed by two cup sizes. CONCLUSION: While both planning strategies showed the same prediction rate with a discrepancy of one cup size (87.5%), the prediction of the exact cup size was increased for the statistical atlas-based strategy (56%) in contrast to the anatomically driven approach (37.5%). SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed approach demonstrated the clinical validity of using 2-D/3-D reconstruction technique for cup planning.

Clinical evaluation of 3 overdenture concepts with tooth roots and implants: 2-year results

PURPOSE: In the present cohort study, overdentures with a combined root and implant support were evaluated and compared with either exclusively root- or implant-supported overdentures. Results of a 2-year follow-up period are reported, namely survival of implants, root copings, and prostheses, plus prosthetic complications, maintenance service, and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen patients were selected for the combined overdenture therapy and were compared with 2 patient groups in which either roots or implants provided overdenture support. Altogether, 14, 17, and 15 patients (in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively) were matched with regard to age, sex, treatment time, and observation period. The mean age was around 67 years. Periodontal parameters were recorded, radiographs were taken, and all complications and failures were registered during the entire observation time. The patients answered a 9-item questionnaire by means of a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: One implant failed and 1 tooth root was removed following longitudinal root fracture. Periodontal/peri-implant parameters gave evidence of good oral hygiene for roots and implants, and slight crestal bone resorption was measured for both. Technical complications and service performed were significantly higher in the first year (P < .04) in all 3 groups and significantly higher in the tooth root group (P < .03). The results of the VAS indicated significantly lower scores for satisfaction, speaking ability, wearing comfort, and denture stability with combined or exclusive root support (P < .05 and .02, respectively). Initial costs of overdentures with combined or root support were 10% lower than for implant overdentures. CONCLUSION: The concept of combined root and implant support can be integrated into treatment planning and overdenture design for patients with a highly reduced dentition.