X-ray volumetric imaging in image-guided radiotherapy: the new standard in on-treatment imaging.
Name:
Publisher version
Affiliation
Academic Department of Radiation Oncology, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester, England, United Kingdom. catherine.mcbain@christie-tr.nwest.nhs.ukIssue Date
2006-02-01Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
PURPOSE: X-ray volumetric imaging (XVI) for the first time allows for the on-treatment acquisition of three-dimensional (3D) kV cone beam computed tomography (CT) images. Clinical imaging using the Synergy System (Elekta, Crawley, UK) commenced in July 2003. This study evaluated image quality and dose delivered and assessed clinical utility for treatment verification at a range of anatomic sites. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Single XVIs were acquired from 30 patients undergoing radiotherapy for tumors at 10 different anatomic sites. Patients were imaged in their setup position. Radiation doses received were measured using TLDs on the skin surface. The utility of XVI in verifying target volume coverage was qualitatively assessed by experienced clinicians. RESULTS: X-ray volumetric imaging acquisition was completed in the treatment position at all anatomic sites. At sites where a full gantry rotation was not possible, XVIs were reconstructed from projection images acquired from partial rotations. Soft-tissue definition of organ boundaries allowed direct assessment of 3D target volume coverage at all sites. Individual image quality depended on both imaging parameters and patient characteristics. Radiation dose ranged from 0.003 Gy in the head to 0.03 Gy in the pelvis. CONCLUSIONS: On-treatment XVI provided 3D verification images with soft-tissue definition at all anatomic sites at acceptably low radiation doses. This technology sets a new standard in treatment verification and will facilitate novel adaptive radiotherapy techniques.Citation
X-ray volumetric imaging in image-guided radiotherapy: the new standard in on-treatment imaging. 2006, 64 (2):625-34 Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.Journal
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, PhysicsDOI
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.09.018PubMed ID
16343802Type
ArticleLanguage
enISSN
0360-3016Scopus Count
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Ovarian cancer among 8,005 women from a breast cancer family history clinic: no increased risk of invasive ovarian cancer in families testing negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2.(2013-06)Mutations in BRCA1/2 genes confer ovarian, alongside breast, cancer risk. We examined the risk of developing ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2-positive families and if this risk is extended to BRCA negative families.
-
Equivalence of three or four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin chemotherapy and of a 3- or 5-day schedule in good-prognosis germ cell cancer: a randomized study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genitourinary Tract Cancer Cooperative Group and the Medical Research Council.(2001-03-15)PURPOSE: To test the equivalence of three versus four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) and of the 5-day schedule versus 3 days per cycle in good-prognosis germ cell cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was designed as a 2 x 2 factorial trial. The aim was to rule out a 5% decrease in the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate. The study included the assessment of patient quality of life. A cycle of BEP consisted of etoposide 500 mg/m(2), administered at either 100 mg/m(2) days 1 through 5 or 165 mg/m(2) days 1 through 3, cisplatin 100 mg/m(2), administered at either 20 mg/m(2) days 1 through 5 or 50 mg/m(2) days 1 and 2. Bleomycin 30 mg was administered on days 1, 8, and 15 during cycles 1 through 3. The randomization procedure allowed some investigators to participate only in the comparison of three versus four cycles. RESULTS: From March 1995 until April 1998, 812 patients were randomly assigned to receive three or four cycles: of these, 681 were also randomly assigned to the 5-day or the 3-day schedule. Histology, marker values, and disease extent are well balanced in the treatment arms of the two comparisons. The projected 2-year PFS is 90.4% on three cycles and 89.4% on four cycles. The difference in PFS between three and four cycles is -1.0% (80% confidence limit [CL], -3.8%, +1.8%). Equivalence for three versus four cycles is claimed because both the upper and lower bounds of the 80% CL are less than 5%. In the 5- versus 3-day comparison, the projected 2-year PFS is 88.8% and 89.7%, respectively (difference, -0.9%, (80% CL, -4.1%, +2.2%). Hence, equivalence is claimed in this comparison also. Frequencies of hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities were essentially similar. Quality of life was maintained better in patients receiving three cycles; no differences were detected between 3 and 5 days of treatment. CONCLUSION: We conclude that three cycles of BEP, with etoposide at 500 mg/m(2), is sufficient therapy in good-prognosis germ cell cancer and that the administration of the chemotherapy in 3 days has no detrimental effect on the effectiveness of the BEP regimen.
-
Penetrance estimates for BRCA1 and BRCA2 based on genetic testing in a Clinical Cancer Genetics service setting: risks of breast/ovarian cancer quoted should reflect the cancer burden in the family.(2008)BACKGROUND: The identification of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in familial breast cancer kindreds allows genetic testing of at risk relatives. However, considerable controversy exists regarding the cancer risks in women who test positive for the family mutation. METHODS: We reviewed 385 unrelated families (223 with BRCA1 and 162 with BRCA2 mutations) ascertained through two regional cancer genetics services. We estimated the penetrance for both breast and ovarian cancer in female mutation carriers (904 proven mutation carriers - 1442 females in total assumed to carry the mutation) and also assessed the effect on penetrance of mutation position and birth cohort. RESULTS: Breast cancer penetrance to 70 and to 80 years was 68% (95%CI 64.7-71.3%) and 79.5% (95%CI 75.5-83.5%) respectively for BRCA1 and 75% (95%CI 71.7-78.3%) and 88% (95%CI 85.3-91.7%) for BRCA2. Ovarian cancer risk to 70 and to 80 years was 60% (95%CI 65-71%) and 65% (95%CI 75-84%) for BRCA1 and 30% (95%CI 25.5-34.5%) and 37% (95%CI 31.5-42.5%) for BRCA2. These risks were borne out by a prospective study of cancer in the families and genetic testing of unaffected relatives. We also found evidence of a strong cohort effect with women born after 1940 having a cumulative risk of 22% for breast cancer by 40 years of age compared to 8% in women born before 1930 (p = 0.0005). CONCLUSION: In high-risk families, selected in a genetics service setting, women who test positive for the familial BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation are likely to have cumulative breast cancer risks in keeping with the estimates obtained originally from large families. This is particularly true for women born after 1940.