Comparison of Tumor Shrinkage and Cumulative Dose Distribution for Lung Cancers

Background: The physical characteristic of protons is that they deliver most of their radiation dose to the target volume and deliver no dose to the normal tissue distal to the tumor. Previously, numerous studies have shown unique advantages of proton therapy over intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in conforming dose to the tumor and sparing dose to the surrounding normal tissues and the critical structures in many clinical sites. However, proton therapy is known to be more sensitive to treatment uncertainties such as inter- and intra-fractional variations in patient anatomy. To date, no study has clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of proton therapy compared with the conventional IMRT under the consideration of both respiratory motion and tumor shrinkage in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Purpose: This thesis investigated two questions for establishing a clinically relevant comparison of the two different modalities (IMRT and proton therapy). The first question was whether or not there are any differences in tumor shrinkage between patients randomized to IMRT versus passively scattered proton therapy (PSPT). Tumor shrinkage is considered a standard measure of radiation therapy response that has been widely used to gauge a short-term progression of radiation therapy. The second question was whether or not there are any differences between the planned dose and 5D dose under the influence of inter- and intra-fractional variations in the patient anatomy for both modalities. Methods: A total of 45 patients (25 IMRT patients and 20 PSPT patients) were used to quantify the tumor shrinkage in terms of the change of the primary gross tumor volume (GTVp). All patients were randomized to receive either IMRT or PSPT for NSCLC. Treatment planning goals were identical for both groups. All patients received 5 to 8 weekly repeated 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) scans during the course of radiation treatments. The original GTVp contours were propagated to T50 of weekly 4DCT images using deformable image registration and their absolute volumes were measured. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the distribution of tumor shrinkage between the two population groups. In order to investigate the difference between the planned dose and the 5D dose with consideration of both breathing motion and anatomical change, we re-calculated new dose distributions at every phase of the breathing cycle for all available weekly 4DCT data sets which resulted 50 to 80 individual dose calculations for each of the 7 patients presented in this thesis. The newly calculated dose distributions were then deformed and accumulated to T50 of the planning 4DCT for comparison with the planned dose distribution. Results: At the end of the treatment, both IMRT and PSPT groups showed mean tumor volume reductions of 23.6% ( 19.2%) and 20.9% ( 17.0 %) respectively. Moreover, the mean difference in tumor shrinkage between two groups is 3% along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval, [-8%, 14%]. The rate of tumor shrinkage was highly correlated with the initial tumor volume size. For the planning dose and 5D dose comparison study, all 7 patients showed a mean difference of 1 % in terms of target coverage for both IMRT and PSPT treatment plans. Conclusions: The results of the tumor shrinkage investigation showed no statistically significant difference in tumor shrinkage between the IMRT and PSPT patients, and the tumor shrinkage between the two modalities is similar based on the 95% confidence interval. From the pilot study of comparing the planned dose with the 5D dose, we found the difference to be only 1%. Overall impression of the two modalities in terms of treatment response as measured by the tumor shrinkage and 5D dose under the influence of anatomical change that were designed under the same protocol (i.e. randomized trial) showed similar result.

Development and implementation of a dynamic heterogeneous proton equivalent anthropomorphic thorax phantom for the assessment of scanned proton beam therapy

DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DYNAMIC HETEROGENEOUS PROTON EQUIVALENT ANTHROPOMORPHIC THORAX PHANTOM FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF SCANNED PROTON BEAM THERAPY by James Leroy Neihart, B.S. APPROVED: ______________________________David Followill, Ph.D. ______________________________Peter Balter, Ph.D. ______________________________Narayan Sahoo, Ph.D. ______________________________Kenneth Hess, Ph.D. ______________________________Paige Summers, M.S. APPROVED: ____________________________ Dean, The University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Houston DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A DYNAMIC HETEROGENEOUS PROTON EQUIVALENT ANTHROPOMORPHIC THORAX PHANTOM FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF SCANNED PROTON BEAM THERAPY A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston andThe University of TexasMD Anderson Cancer CenterGraduate School of Biomedical Sciences in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE by James Leroy Neihart, B.S. Houston, Texas Date of Graduation August, 2013 Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge my advisory committee members, chair David Followill, Ph.D., Peter Balter, Ph.D, Narayan Sahoo, Ph.D., Kenneth Hess, Ph.D., Paige Summers M.S. and, for their time and effort contributed to this project. I would additionally like to thank the faculty and staff at the PTC-H and the RPC who assisted in many aspects of this project. Falk Pӧnisch, Ph.D. for his breath hold proton therapy treatment expertise, Matt Palmer and Jaques Bluett for proton dosimetry assistance, Matt Kerr for verification plan assistance, Carrie Amador, Nadia Hernandez, Trang Nguyen, Andrea Molineu, Lynda McDonald for TLD and film dosimetry assistance. Finally, I would like to thank my wife and family for their support and encouragement during my research and studies. Development and implementation of a dynamic heterogeneous proton equivalent anthropomorphic thorax phantom for the assessment of scanned proton beam therapy By: James Leroy Neihart, B.S. Chair of Advisory Committee: David Followill, Ph.D Proton therapy has been gaining ground recently in radiation oncology. To date, the most successful utilization of proton therapy is in head and neck cases as well as prostate cases. These tumor locations do not suffer from the resulting difficulties of treatment delivery as a result of respiratory motion. Lung tumors require either breath hold or motion tracking, neither of which have been assessed with an end-to-end phantom for proton treatments. Currently, the RPC does not have a dynamic thoracic phantom for proton therapy procedure assessment. Additionally, such a phantom could be an excellent means of assessing quality assurance of the procedures of proton therapy centers wishing to participate in clinical trials. An eventual goal of this phantom is to have a means of evaluating and auditing institutions for the ability to start clinical trials utilizing proton therapy procedures for lung cancers. Therefore, the hypothesis of this study is that a dynamic anthropomorphic thoracic phantom can be created to evaluate end-to-end proton therapy treatment procedures for lung cancer to assure agreement between the measured and calculated dose within 5% / 5 mm with a reproducibility of 2%. Multiple materials were assessed for thoracic heterogeneity equivalency. The phantom was designed from the materials found to be in greatest agreement. The phantom was treated in an end-to-end treatment four times, which included simulation, treatment planning and treatment delivery. Each treatment plan was delivered three times to assess reproducibility. The dose measured within the phantom was compared to that of the treatment plan. The hypothesis was fully supported for three of the treatment plans, but failed the reproducibility requirement for the most aggressive treatment plan.

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Evaluation with the Radiological Physics Center Head and Neck Phantom

Validation of treatment plan quality and dose calculation accuracy is essential for new radiotherapy techniques, including volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). VMAT delivers intensity modulated radiotherapy treatments while simultaneously rotating the gantry, adding an additional level of complexity to both the dose calculation and delivery of VMAT treatments compared to static gantry IMRT. The purpose of this project was to compare two VMAT systems, Elekta VMAT and Varian RapidArc, to the current standard of care, IMRT, in terms of both treatment plan quality and dosimetric delivery accuracy using the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) head and neck (H&N) phantom. Clinically relevant treatment plans were created for the phantom using typical prescription and dose constraints for Elekta VMAT (planned with Pinnacle3 Smart Arc) and RapidArc and IMRT (both planned with Eclipse). The treatment plans were evaluated to determine if they were clinically comparable using several dosimetric criteria, including ability to meet dose objectives, hot spots, conformity index, and homogeneity index. The planned treatments were delivered to the phantom and absolute doses and relative dose distributions were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and radiochromic film, respectively. The measured and calculated doses of each treatment were compared to determine if they were clinically acceptable based upon RPC criteria of ±7% dose difference and 4 mm distance-to-agreement. Gamma analysis was used to assess dosimetric accuracy, as well. All treatment plans were able to meet the dosimetric objectives set by the RPC and had similar hot spots in the normal tissue. The Elekta VMAT plan was more homogenous but less conformal than the RapidArc and IMRT plans. When comparing the measured and calculated doses, all plans met the RPC ±7%/4 mm criteria. The percent of points passing the gamma analysis for each treatment delivery was acceptable. Treatment plan quality of the Elekta VMAT, RapidArc and IMRT treatments were comparable for consistent dose prescriptions and constraints. Additionally, the dosimetric accuracy of the Elekta VMAT and RapidArc treatments was verified to be within acceptable tolerances.

Goals, plans, and behavior changes: A relevant part of the post-treatment cancer experience

Background. Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors have to manage treatment side effects, psychosocial issues, and co-morbidities, as well as modify their lifestyles to decrease risk of recurrence and prolong life. Identifying survivors’ goals and key factors that influence their goals will highlight the issues cancer survivors face post-treatment and the resources needed to help them engage in health-promoting behaviors.^ Objectives and methods. This dissertation examines the health-related goals of post-treatment CRC survivors using two studies: (1) a qualitative study to identify and describe the health goals of CRC survivors during the transition from active treatment to post-treatment survivorship and follow-up care; and (2) a cross-sectional survey to identify CRC survivors’ goals, and key factors that influence their goals.^ Results. (1) The 41 qualitative interviews indicated participants’ health-related goals were to be healthy, get back to normal, and not have a cancer recurrence. Most of the CRC survivors reported they maintained healthy behaviors, made healthy behavior changes, or had goals to change their behavior. Respondents were empowered to improve their health by maintaining follow-up care and regular health screenings, and many were managing treatment side effects in an effort to improve functional abilities. (2) The cross-sectional study found that CRC survivors’ most prevalent goals were related to healthy behaviors (i.e., eat a healthy diet and engage in physical activity), and cancer care or disease management (i.e., keep up with health screenings and monitor symptoms). Goals that survivors identified as important were similar to goals they perceived were important to their providers (i.e., goals related to cancer care, disease management). Certain goals were statistically associated with age, barriers to achieving goals, social support and health-related quality of life.^ Conclusions. CRC survivors have health-promoting goals post-treatment and are interested in making health behavior changes. Goals ranged from cancer care/surveillance and disease management to healthy lifestyle modifications. Patients may need help resolving or managing treatment side effects or co-morbidities prior to implementing health promoting behaviors. Healthcare providers’ recommendations may be a powerful resource to encourage survivors to engage in health-promoting behaviors. Self-management and goal setting support could be an appropriate strategy to assist patients with achieving their post-treatment health goals.^

EVALUATION OF INTENSITY MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY (IMRT) DELIVERY ERROR DUE TO IMRT TREATMENT PLAN COMPLEXITY AND IMPROPERLY MATCHED DOSIMETRY DATA

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a technique that delivers a highly conformal dose distribution to a target volume while attempting to maximally spare the surrounding normal tissues. IMRT is a common treatment modality used for treating head and neck (H&N) cancers, and the presence of many critical structures in this region requires accurate treatment delivery. The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) acts as both a remote and on-site quality assurance agency that credentials institutions participating in clinical trials. To date, about 30% of all IMRT participants have failed the RPC’s remote audit using the IMRT H&N phantom. The purpose of this project is to evaluate possible causes of H&N IMRT delivery errors observed by the RPC, specifically IMRT treatment plan complexity and the use of improper dosimetry data from machines that were thought to be matched but in reality were not. Eight H&N IMRT plans with a range of complexity defined by total MU (1460-3466), number of segments (54-225), and modulation complexity scores (MCS) (0.181-0.609) were created in Pinnacle v.8m. These plans were delivered to the RPC’s H&N phantom on a single Varian Clinac. One of the IMRT plans (1851 MU, 88 segments, and MCS=0.469) was equivalent to the median H&N plan from 130 previous RPC H&N phantom irradiations. This average IMRT plan was also delivered on four matched Varian Clinac machines and the dose distribution calculated using a different 6MV beam model. Radiochromic film and TLD within the phantom were used to analyze the dose profiles and absolute doses, respectively. The measured and calculated were compared to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy. All deliveries met the RPC acceptance criteria of ±7% absolute dose difference and 4 mm distance-to-agreement (DTA). Additionally, gamma index analysis was performed for all deliveries using a ±7%/4mm and ±5%/3mm criteria. Increasing the treatment plan complexity by varying the MU, number of segments, or varying the MCS resulted in no clear trend toward an increase in dosimetric error determined by the absolute dose difference, DTA, or gamma index. Varying the delivery machines as well as the beam model (use of a Clinac 6EX 6MV beam model vs. Clinac 21EX 6MV model), also did not show any clear trend towards an increased dosimetric error using the same criteria indicated above.

Treatment discontinuation among breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients in Alabama

Introduction. Cancer registries provide information about treatment initiation but not the full course of treatment. In an effort to identify patient reported reasons for discontinuing cancer treatment, patients with prostate, breast, and colorectal cancer were identified from Alabama State Cancer Registry (ASCR) -Alabama Medicare linked database for interview. This study has two specific aims: (1) determine whether the ASCR-Medicare database accurately reflects patients’ treatment experiences in terms of whether they started and completed treatment when compared to patient self-report and (2) determine which patient demographic and health care system factors are related to treatment completion as defined by patient self-report. ^ Methods. The ASCR-Medicare claims dataset supplemented patient interview responses to identify treatment initiation and completion among prostate, breast, and colorectal cancer patients in Alabama from 1999-2003. Kappa statistic was used to test for concordance of treatment initiation and completion between patient self-report and Medicare claims data. Patients who reported not completing treatment were asked questions to ascertain reasons for treatment discontinuation. Logistic regression models were constructed to explore the association of patient and tumor characteristics with discontinuation of radiation and chemotherapy. ^ Results. Overall, there was a fair agreement across all cancer sites about whether one had surgery (Kappa=.382). There was fair agreement between self-report and Medicare claims data for starting radiation treatment (Kappa=.278). For starting chemotherapy there was moderate agreement (Kappa=.414). There was no agreement for completing treatment for radiation and chemotherapy between the self-report and claims data. Patients most often reported doctor’s recommendation (40% for radiation treatment and 21.4% for chemotherapy) and side effects (30% for radiation treatment and 42.8% for chemotherapy) for discontinuing treatment. Females were less likely to complete radiation than males (OR=.24, 95% CI=.11–.50). Stage I patients were more likely to drop radiation treatment than stage III patients (OR=3.34, 95% CI=1.12–9.95). Younger patients were more likely to discontinue chemotherapy than older patients (OR=2.84 95%, CI=1.08–7.69) and breast cancer patients were less likely to discontinue chemotherapy than colorectal patients (OR=.13, 95% CI=.04–.46). ^ Conclusion. This study reveals that patients recall starting treatment more accurately than completing treatment and that there are several demographic and tumor characteristics that influence treatment discontinuation. Providing patients with treatment summaries and survivorship plans can help patients their follow-up care when there are gaps in treatment recall and discontinuation of treatment.^

A qualitative and quantitative assessment of cancer patients' perceptions of barriers to treatment

This study examined barriers that cancer patients experience in obtaining treatment. The principal aim of the study was to conduct a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative assessment of barriers to cancer treatment for Texas cancer patients. The three specific aims of the study were to: (1) conduct a review and critique of published and unpublished research on barriers to cancer treatment; (2) conduct focus groups for the qualitative assessment of cancer patients' perceived barriers to cancer treatment; and (3) survey a representative sample of cancer patients regarding perceived barriers to treatment. The study was guided by the Aday and Andersen access framework of predisposing, enabling, and need determinants of care-seeking.^ To address the first specific aim, a total of 732 abstracts were examined, from which 154 articles were selected for review. Of these 154 articles, 57 that related directly to research on barriers to cancer treatment were chosen for subsequent analysis. Criteria were applied to each article to evaluate the strength of the study design, sampling and measurement procedures. The major barriers that were consistently documented to influence whether or not cancer patients sought or continued required treatment included problems with communication between the patient and provider, lack of information on side effects, the cost of treatment and associated difficulties in obtaining and maintaining insurance coverage, and the absence of formal and informal networks of social support. Access barriers were generally greater for older, minority women, and patients of lower socioeconomic status.^ To address the second specific aim, a total of eight focus groups (n = 44) were conducted across the State of Texas with cancer patients identified by the Texas Community Oncology Network, American Cancer Society, and community health centers. One important finding was that cost is the greatest hurdle that patients face. Another finding was that with the health care/insurance crisis, an increasing number of physicians are working with their patients to develop individually-tailored payment plans. For people in rural areas, travel to treatment sites is a major barrier due to the travel costs as well as work time forfeited by patients and their family members. A third major finding was the patients' family and church play important roles in providing social and emotional support for cancer patients.^ To address the third aim, a total of 910 cancer patients were surveyed during October and November, 1993. Approximately 65% of the cancer patients responded to the survey. The findings showed that the major barriers to treatment included costs of medications and diagnostic tests, transportation, lack of social support, problems understanding the written information regarding their disease as well as losing coverage or having higher premiums or copayments once they were diagnosed (particularly among blacks).^ Significant differences in reported barriers were found between racial groups. The minority respondents (i.e., blacks and Hispanics) tended to experience more barriers to treatment compared to the white respondents. More specifically, Hispanics were more likely to report transportation as a barrier to treatment than both white and blacks. Future research is needed to better understand the problems that minority cancer patients experience in receiving treatment. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) ^