Survival analysis of longevity in siblings

Do siblings of centenarians tend to have longer life spans? To answer this question, life spans of 184 siblings for 42 centenarians have been evaluated. Two important questions have been addressed in analyzing the sibling data. First, a standard needs to be established, to which the life spans of 184 siblings are compared. In this report, an external reference population is constructed from the U.S. life tables. Its estimated mortality rates are treated as baseline hazards from which the relative mortality of the siblings are estimated. Second, the standard survival models which assume independent observations are invalid when correlation within family exists, underestimating the true variance. Methods that allow correlations are illustrated by three different methods. First, the cumulative relative excess mortality between siblings and their comparison group is calculated and used as an effective graphic tool, along with the Product Limit estimator of the survival function. The variance estimator of the cumulative relative excess mortality is adjusted for the potential within family correlation using Taylor linearization approach. Second, approaches that adjust for the inflated variance are examined. They are adjusted one-sample log-rank test using design effect originally proposed by Rao and Scott in the correlated binomial or Poisson distribution setting and the robust variance estimator derived from the log-likelihood function of a multiplicative model. Nether of these two approaches provide correlation estimate within families, but the comparison with the comparison with the standard remains valid under dependence. Last, using the frailty model concept, the multiplicative model, where the baseline hazards are known, is extended by adding a random frailty term that is based on the positive stable or the gamma distribution. Comparisons between the two frailty distributions are performed by simulation. Based on the results from various approaches, it is concluded that the siblings of centenarians had significant lower mortality rates as compared to their cohorts. The frailty models also indicate significant correlations between the life spans of the siblings. ^

Electron intensity modulation for mixed-beam radiation therapy with an x-ray multi-leaf collimator

The current standard treatment for head and neck cancer at our institution uses intensity-modulated x-ray therapy (IMRT), which improves target coverage and sparing of critical structures by delivering complex fluence patterns from a variety of beam directions to conform dose distributions to the shape of the target volume. The standard treatment for breast patients is field-in-field forward-planned IMRT, with initial tangential fields and additional reduced-weight tangents with blocking to minimize hot spots. For these treatment sites, the addition of electrons has the potential of improving target coverage and sparing of critical structures due to rapid dose falloff with depth and reduced exit dose. In this work, the use of mixed-beam therapy (MBT), i.e., combined intensity-modulated electron and x-ray beams using the x-ray multi-leaf collimator (MLC), was explored. The hypothesis of this study was that addition of intensity-modulated electron beams to existing clinical IMRT plans would produce MBT plans that were superior to the original IMRT plans for at least 50% of selected head and neck and 50% of breast cases. Dose calculations for electron beams collimated by the MLC were performed with Monte Carlo methods. An automation system was created to facilitate communication between the dose calculation engine and the treatment planning system. Energy and intensity modulation of the electron beams was accomplished by dividing the electron beams into 2x2-cm2 beamlets, which were then beam-weight optimized along with intensity-modulated x-ray beams. Treatment plans were optimized to obtain equivalent target dose coverage, and then compared with the original treatment plans. MBT treatment plans were evaluated by participating physicians with respect to target coverage, normal structure dose, and overall plan quality in comparison with original clinical plans. The physician evaluations did not support the hypothesis for either site, with MBT selected as superior in 1 out of the 15 head and neck cases (p=1) and 6 out of 18 breast cases (p=0.95). While MBT was not shown to be superior to IMRT, reductions were observed in doses to critical structures distal to the target along the electron beam direction and to non-target tissues, at the expense of target coverage and dose homogeneity. ^