Thoracic target volume delineation using various maximum-intensity projection computed tomography image sets for stereotactic body radiation therapy

The motion of lung tumors during respiration makes the accurate delivery of radiation therapy to the thorax difficult because it increases the uncertainty of target position. The adoption of four-dimensional computed tomography (4D-CT) has allowed us to determine how a tumor moves with respiration for each individual patient. Using information acquired during a 4D-CT scan, we can define the target, visualize motion, and calculate dose during the planning phase of the radiotherapy process. One image data set that can be created from the 4D-CT acquisition is the maximum-intensity projection (MIP). The MIP can be used as a starting point to define the volume that encompasses the motion envelope of the moving gross target volume (GTV). Because of the close relationship that exists between the MIP and the final target volume, we investigated four MIP data sets created with different methodologies (3 using various 4D-CT sorting implementations, and one using all available cine CT images) to compare target delineation. It has been observed that changing the 4D-CT sorting method will lead to the selection of a different collection of images; however, the clinical implications of changing the constituent images on the resultant MIP data set are not clear. There has not been a comprehensive study that compares target delineation based on different 4D-CT sorting methodologies in a patient population. We selected a collection of patients who had previously undergone thoracic 4D-CT scans at our institution, and who had lung tumors that moved at least 1 cm. We then generated the four MIP data sets and automatically contoured the target volumes. In doing so, we identified cases in which the MIP generated from a 4D-CT sorting process under-represented the motion envelope of the target volume by more than 10% than when measured on the MIP generated from all of the cine CT images. The 4D-CT methods suffered from duplicate image selection and might not choose maximum extent images. Based on our results, we suggest utilization of a MIP generated from the full cine CT data set to ensure a representative inclusive tumor extent, and to avoid geometric miss.

An Innovative Phase I Trial Design Allowing for the Identification of Multiple Potential Maximum Tolerated Doses with Combination Therapy of Targeted Agents

Treatment for cancer often involves combination therapies used both in medical practice and clinical trials. Korn and Simon listed three reasons for the utility of combinations: 1) biochemical synergism, 2) differential susceptibility of tumor cells to different agents, and 3) higher achievable dose intensity by exploiting non-overlapping toxicities to the host. Even if the toxicity profile of each agent of a given combination is known, the toxicity profile of the agents used in combination must be established. Thus, caution is required when designing and evaluating trials with combination therapies. Traditional clinical design is based on the consideration of a single drug. However, a trial of drugs in combination requires a dose-selection procedure that is vastly different than that needed for a single-drug trial. When two drugs are combined in a phase I trial, an important trial objective is to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The MTD is defined as the dose level below the dose at which two of six patients experience drug-related dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). In phase I trials that combine two agents, more than one MTD generally exists, although all are rarely determined. For example, there may be an MTD that includes high doses of drug A with lower doses of drug B, another one for high doses of drug B with lower doses of drug A, and yet another for intermediate doses of both drugs administered together. With classic phase I trial designs, only one MTD is identified. Our new trial design allows identification of more than one MTD efficiently, within the context of a single protocol. The two drugs combined in our phase I trial are temsirolimus and bevacizumab. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway which is fundamental for tumor growth and metastasis. One mechanism of tumor resistance to antiangiogenic therapy is upregulation of hypoxia inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) which mediates responses to hypoxic conditions. Temsirolimus has resulted in reduced levels of HIF-1α making this an ideal combination therapy. Dr. Donald Berry developed a trial design schema for evaluating low, intermediate and high dose levels of two drugs given in combination as illustrated in a recently published paper in Biometrics entitled “A Parallel Phase I/II Clinical Trial Design for Combination Therapies.” His trial design utilized cytotoxic chemotherapy. We adapted this design schema by incorporating greater numbers of dose levels for each drug. Additional dose levels are being examined because it has been the experience of phase I trials that targeted agents, when given in combination, are often effective at dosing levels lower than the FDA-approved dose of said drugs. A total of thirteen dose levels including representative high, intermediate and low dose levels of temsirolimus with representative high, intermediate, and low dose levels of bevacizumab will be evaluated. We hypothesize that our new trial design will facilitate identification of more than one MTD, if they exist, efficiently and within the context of a single protocol. Doses gleaned from this approach could potentially allow for a more personalized approach in dose selection from among the MTDs obtained that can be based upon a patient’s specific co-morbid conditions or anticipated toxicities.

Assessment of Collimator Jaw Optimization in Reducing Normal Tissue Irradiation with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

Purpose: To evaluate normal tissue dose reduction in step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on the Varian 2100 platform by tracking the multileaf collimator (MLC) apertures with the accelerator jaws. Methods: Clinical radiation treatment plans for 10 thoracic, 3 pediatric and 3 head and neck patients were converted to plans with the jaws tracking each segment’s MLC apertures. Each segment was then renormalized to account for the change in collimator scatter to obtain target coverage within 1% of that in the original plan. The new plans were compared to the original plans in a commercial radiation treatment planning system (TPS). Reduction in normal tissue dose was evaluated in the new plan by using the parameters V5, V10, and V20 in the cumulative dose-volume histogram for the following structures: total lung minus GTV (gross target volume), heart, esophagus, spinal cord, liver, parotids, and brainstem. In order to validate the accuracy of our beam model, MLC transmission measurements were made and compared to those predicted by the TPS. Results: The greatest change between the original plan and new plan occurred at lower dose levels. The reduction in V20 was never more than 6.3% and was typically less than 1% for all patients. The reduction in V5 was 16.7% maximum and was typically less than 3% for all patients. The variation in normal tissue dose reduction was not predictable, and we found no clear parameters that indicated which patients would benefit most from jaw tracking. Our TPS model of MLC transmission agreed with measurements with absolute transmission differences of less than 0.1 % and thus uncertainties in the model did not contribute significantly to the uncertainty in the dose determination. Conclusion: The amount of dose reduction achieved by collimating the jaws around each MLC aperture in step-and-shoot IMRT does not appear to be clinically significant.

Verification of intensity modulated stereotactic radiotherapy using Monte Carlo calculations and EPID dosimetry

The purpose of this work was to develop a comprehensive IMSRT QA procedure that examined, using EPID dosimetry and Monte Carlo (MC) calculations, each step in the treatment planning and delivery process. These steps included verification of the field shaping, treatment planning system (RTPS) dose calculations, and patient dose delivery. Verification of each step in the treatment process is assumed to result in correct dose delivery to the patient. ^ The accelerator MC model was verified against commissioning data for field sizes from 0.8 × 0.8 cm 2 to 10 × 10 cm 2. Depth doses were within 2% local percent difference (LPD) in low gradient regions and 1 mm distance to agreement (DTA) in high gradient regions. Lateral profiles were within 2% LPD in low gradient regions and 1 mm DTA in high gradient regions. Calculated output factors were within 1% of measurement for field sizes ≥1 × 1 cm2. ^ The measured and calculated pretreatment EPID dose patterns were compared using criteria of 5% LPD, 1 mm DTA, or 2% of central axis pixel value with ≥95% of compared points required to pass for successful verification. Pretreatment field verification resulted in 97% percent of the points passing. ^ The RTPS and Monte Carlo phantom dose calculations were compared using 5% LPD, 2 mm DTA, or 2% of the maximum dose with ≥95% of compared points required passing for successful verification. RTPS calculation verification resulted in 97% percent of the points passing. ^ The measured and calculated EPID exit dose patterns were compared using criteria of 5% LPD, 1 mm DTA, or 2% of central axis pixel value with ≥95% of compared points required to pass for successful verification. Exit dose verification resulted in 97% percent of the points passing. ^ Each of the processes above verified an individual step in the treatment planning and delivery process. The combination of these verification steps ensures accurate treatment delivery to the patient. This work shows that Monte Carlo calculations and EPID dosimetry can be used to quantitatively verify IMSRT treatments resulting in improved patient care and, potentially, improved clinical outcome. ^

PROJECTION OF HEALTH DEMAND IN TERMS OF HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS FOR SELECTED DIAGNOSES IN HEALTH SYSTEMS AGENCY SERVICE AREAS

The National Health Planning and Resources Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-641) requires that health systems agencies (HSAs) plan for their health service areas by the use of existing data to the maximum extent practicable. Health planning is based on the identificaton of health needs; however, HSAs are, at present, identifying health needs in their service areas in some approximate terms. This lack of specificity has greatly reduced the effectiveness of health planning. The intent of this study is, therefore, to explore the feasibility of predicting community levels of hospitalized morbidity by diagnosis by the use of existing data so as to allow health planners to plan for the services associated with specific diagnoses.^ The specific objectives of this study are (a) to obtain by means of multiple regression analysis a prediction equation for hospital admission by diagnosis, i.e., select the variables that are related to demand for hospital admissions; (b) to examine how pertinent the variables selected are; and (c) to see if each equation obtained predicts well for health service areas.^ The existing data on hospital admissions by diagnosis are those collected from the National Hospital Discharge Surveys, and are available in a form aggregated to the nine census divisions. When the equations established with such data are applied to local health service areas for prediction, the application is subject to the criticism of the theory of ecological fallacy. Since HSAs have to rely on the availability of existing data, it is imperative to examine whether or not the theory of ecological fallacy holds true in this case.^ The results of the study show that the equations established are highly significant and the independent variables in the equations explain the variation in the demand for hospital admission well. The predictability of these equations is good when they are applied to areas at the same ecological level but become poor, predominantly due to ecological fallacy, when they are applied to health service areas.^ It is concluded that HSAs can not predict hospital admissions by diagnosis without primary data collection as discouraged by Public Law 93-641. ^