| 1. |
- Colvill, Emma, et al.
(author)
-
A dosimetric comparison of real-time adaptive and non-adaptive radiotherapy : A multi-institutional study encompassing robotic, gimbaled, multileaf collimator and couch tracking
- 2016
-
In: Radiotherapy and Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-8140. ; 119:1, s. 159-165
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose A study of real-time adaptive radiotherapy systems was performed to test the hypothesis that, across delivery systems and institutions, the dosimetric accuracy is improved with adaptive treatments over non-adaptive radiotherapy in the presence of patient-measured tumor motion. Methods and materials Ten institutions with robotic(2), gimbaled(2), MLC(4) or couch tracking(2) used common materials including CT and structure sets, motion traces and planning protocols to create a lung and a prostate plan. For each motion trace, the plan was delivered twice to a moving dosimeter; with and without real-time adaptation. Each measurement was compared to a static measurement and the percentage of failed points for γ-tests recorded. Results For all lung traces all measurement sets show improved dose accuracy with a mean 2%/2 mm γ-fail rate of 1.6% with adaptation and 15.2% without adaptation (p < 0.001). For all prostate the mean 2%/2 mm γ-fail rate was 1.4% with adaptation and 17.3% without adaptation (p < 0.001). The difference between the four systems was small with an average 2%/2 mm γ-fail rate of <3% for all systems with adaptation for lung and prostate. Conclusions The investigated systems all accounted for realistic tumor motion accurately and performed to a similar high standard, with real-time adaptation significantly outperforming non-adaptive delivery methods.
|
|
| 2. |
- Movahed, Allen, et al.
(author)
-
International multi-institutional bench mark study on dosimetric and volumetric modulation using helical tomotherapy treatment planning for malignant pleural mesothelioma tumors
- 2015
-
In: World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, 2015. - Cham : Springer International Publishing. - 9783319193861 - 9783319193878 ; 51, s. 381-383
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Determining the most desirable and achievable target dose and organ at risk (OAR) sparing using helical TomoTherapy planning system for mesothelioma treatment plans. A range of planning parameters was used. The reviewers’ ranking assessment (Ranking in Groups: 1 = Good, 2 = Above Average, 3 = Average, 4 = Poor).The overall rankings revealed that a plan with a balanced tradeoff among all planning objectives was preferred by most participants and reviewers. Other studies found low doses to the contralateral lung to be limiting. This was not the case in our study, with TomoTherapy we found the dose to contra lateral lung to be as low as V5Gy=0.87%. A pitch value of 0.287 or 0.43 would provide better result. A delivered modulation factor of above 1.7 and a treatment time around 500 sec will be beneficial consideration in planning.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ringborg, Ulrik, et al.
(author)
-
Improvement of European translational cancer research : Collaboration between comprehensive cancer centers
- 2008
-
In: Tumori (Milano). - : SAGE Publications. - 0300-8916 .- 2038-2529. ; 94:2, s. 143-146
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Even though the increasing incidence of cancer is mainly a consequence of a population with a longer life span, part of this augmentation is related to the increasing prevalence of patients living with a chronic cancer disease. To fight the problem, improved preventive strategies are mandatory in combination with an innovative health care provision that is driven by research. To overcome the weakness of translational research the OECI is proposing a practical approach as part of a strategy foreseen by the EUROCAN+PLUS feasibility study, which was launched by the EC in order to identify mechanisms for the coordination of cancer research in Europe.
|
|
| 4. |
- Sullivan, Richard, et al.
(author)
-
Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries
- 2011
-
In: The Lancet Oncology. - London : Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 12:10, s. 933-980
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.
|
|
