Purpose
Cardiac toxicity is an important sequela of breast radiotherapy. However, the relationship between dose to cardiac structures and subsequent toxicity has not been well defined, partially due to variation in substructure delineation, which can lead to inconsistent dose reporting and the failure to detect potential correlations. Here we have developed a heart atlas and evaluated its effect on contour accuracy and concordance.
Methods and Materials
A detailed cardiac CT atlas was developed jointly by cardiology, cardiac radiology, and radiation oncology. Seven radiation oncologists were recruited to delineate the whole heart (WH), left main (LM), left anterior descending interventricular branch (LAD), and right coronary arteries (RCA) on four cases before and after studying the atlas. Contour accuracy was assessed by percent overlap with gold standard (GS) atlas volumes. The concordance index (CI) was also calculated. Standard radiation fields were applied. Doses to observer-contoured cardiac (OC) structures were calculated, and compared with GS contour doses. Pre- and post- atlas values were analyzed using a paired t-test.
Results
The cardiac atlas significantly improved contour accuracy and concordance. Percent overlap and CI of OC and GS volumes improved for all structures, by up to 2.3-fold (p<0.002). After application of the atlas, reported WH, LM, LAD, and RCA mean doses were within 0.1, 0.9, 2.6, and 0.6 Gy of GS doses.
Conclusions
This validated University of Michigan cardiac atlas may serve as a useful tool in future studies assessing cardiac toxicity and in clinical trials which include dose volume constraints to the heart.
Data guiding selection of nonsurgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are lacking. We therefore compared outcomes between stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for HCC.
Patients and MethodsFrom 2004 to 2012, 224 patients with inoperable, nonmetastatic HCC underwent RFA (n = 161) to 249 tumors or image-guided SBRT (n = 63) to 83 tumors. We applied inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for imbalances in treatment assignment. Freedom from local progression (FFLP) and toxicity were retrospectively analyzed.Results RFA and SBRT groups were similar with respect to number of lesions treated per patient, type of underlying liver disease, and tumor size (median, 1.8 v 2.2 cm in maximum diameter; P = .14). However, the SBRT group had lower pretreatment Child-Pugh scores (P = .003), higher pretreatment alpha-fetoprotein levels (P = .04), and a greater number of prior liver-directed treatments (P , .001). One-and 2-year FFLP for tumors treated with RFA were 83.6% and 80.2% v 97.4% and 83.8% for SBRT. Increasing tumor size predicted for FFLP in patients treated with RFA (hazard ratio [HR], 1.54 per cm; P = .006), but not with SBRT (HR, 1.21 per cm; P = .617). For tumors $ 2 cm, there was decreased FFLP for RFA compared with SBRT (HR, 3.35; P = .025). Acute grade 3+ complications occurred after 11% and 5% of RFA and SBRT treatments, respectively (P = .31). Overall survival 1 and 2 years after treatment was 70% and 53% after RFA and 74% and 46% after SBRT.
ConclusionBoth RFA and SBRT are effective local treatment options for inoperable HCC. Although these data are retrospective, SBRT appears to be a reasonable first-line treatment of inoperable, larger HCC.
Chemoradiotherapy with IMRT aiming to reduce dysphagia can be performed safely for OPC and has high locoregional tumor control rates. On average, long-term patient-reported, observer-rated, and objective measures of swallowing were only slightly worse than pretherapy measures, representing potential improvement compared with previous studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.