| 1. |
- Nyholm, Tufve, et al.
(författare)
-
A national approach for automated collection of standardized and population-based radiation therapy data in Sweden
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Radiotherapy and Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-8140 .- 1879-0887. ; 119:2, s. 344-350
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To develop an infrastructure for structured and automated collection of interoperable radiation therapy (RT) data into a national clinical quality registry. Materials and methods: The present study was initiated in 2012 with the participation of seven of the 15 hospital departments delivering RT in Sweden. A national RT nomenclature and a database for structured unified storage of RT data at each site (Medical Information Quality Archive, MIQA) have been developed. Aggregated data from the MIQA databases are sent to a national RT registry located on the same IT platform (INCA) as the national clinical cancer registries. Results: The suggested naming convention has to date been integrated into the clinical workflow at 12 of 15 sites, and MIQA is installed at six of these. Involvement of the remaining 3/15 RT departments is ongoing, and they are expected to be part of the infrastructure by 2016. RT data collection from ARIA (R), Mosaiq (R), Eclipse (TM), and Oncentra (R) is supported. Manual curation of RT-structure information is needed for approximately 10% of target volumes, but rarely for normal tissue structures, demonstrating a good compliance to the RT nomenclature. Aggregated dose/volume descriptors are calculated based on the information in MIQA and sent to INCA using a dedicated service (MIQA2INCA). Correct linkage of data for each patient to the clinical cancer registries on the INCA platform is assured by the unique Swedish personal identity number. Conclusions: An infrastructure for structured and automated prospective collection of syntactically inter operable RT data into a national clinical quality registry for RT data is under implementation. Future developments include adapting MIQA to other treatment modalities (e.g. proton therapy and brachytherapy) and finding strategies to harmonize structure delineations. How the RT registry should comply with domain-specific ontologies such as the Radiation Oncology Ontology (ROO) is under discussion.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Widmark, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Lancet. - : Elsevier BV. - 0140-6736. ; 394:10196, s. 385-395
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer has gained increased attention due to its proposed high radiation-fraction sensitivity. Recent reports from studies comparing moderately hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy support the clinical use of moderate hypofractionation. To date, there are no published randomised studies on ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy. Here, we report the outcomes of the Scandinavian HYPO-RTPC phase 3 trial with the aim to show non-inferiority of ultra-hypofractionation compared with conventional fractionation. Methods In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial done in 12 centres in Sweden and Denmark, we recruited men up to 75 years of age with intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer and a WHO performance status between 0 and 2. Patients were randomly assigned to ultra-hypofractionation (42.7 Gy in seven fractions, 3 days per week for 2.5 weeks) or conventional fractionated radiotherapy (78.0 Gy in 39 fractions, 5 days per week for 8 weeks). No androgen deprivation therapy was allowed. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure, analysed in the per-protocol population. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 4% at 5 years, corresponding to a critical hazard ratio (HR) limit of 1.338. Physician-recorded toxicity was measured according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) morbidity scale and patient-reported outcome measurements with the Prostate Cancer Symptom Scale (PCSS) questionnaire. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN45905321. Findings Between July 1, 2005, and Nov 4, 2015, 1200 patients were randomly assigned to conventional fractionation (n=602) or ultra-hypofractionation (n=598), of whom 1180 (591 conventional fractionation and 589 ultra-hypofractionation) constituted the per-protocol population. 1054 (89%) participants were intermediate risk and 126 (11%) were high risk. Median follow-up time was 5.0 years (IQR 3.1-7.0). The estimated failure-free survival at 5 years was 84% (95% CI 80-87) in both treatment groups, with an adjusted HR of 1.002 (95% CI 0.758-1.325; log-rank p=0.99). There was weak evidence of an increased frequency of acute physician-reported RTOG grade 2 or worse urinary toxicity in the ultra-hypofractionation group at end of radiotherapy (158 [28%] of 569 patients vs 132 [23%] of 578 patients; p=0.057). There were no significant differences in grade 2 or worse urinary or bowel late toxicity between the two treatment groups at any point after radiotherapy, except for an increase in urinary toxicity in the ultra-hypofractionation group compared to the conventional fractionation group at 1-year follow-up (32 [6%] of 528 patients vs 13 [2%] of 529 patients; (p=0.0037). We observed no differences between groups in frequencies at 5 years of RTOG grade 2 or worse urinary toxicity (11 [5%] of 243 patients for the ultra-hypofractionation group vs 12 [5%] of 249 for the conventional fractionation group; p=1.00) and bowel toxicity (three [1%] of 244 patients vs nine [4%] of 249 patients; p=0.14). Patient-reported outcomes revealed significantly higher levels of acute urinary and bowel symptoms in the ultra-hypofractionation group compared with the conventional fractionation group but no significant increases in late symptoms were found, except for increased urinary symptoms at 1-year follow-up, consistent with the physician-evaluated toxicity. Interpretation Ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy is non-inferior to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for intermediate-to-high risk prostate cancer regarding failure-free survival. Early side-effects are more pronounced with ultra-hypofractionation compared with conventional fractionation whereas late toxicity is similar in both treatment groups. The results support the use of ultra-hypofractionation for radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Koivula, Lauri, et al.
(författare)
-
Intensity-based dual model method for generation of synthetic CT images from standard T2-weighted MR images - Generalized technique for four different MR scanners
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Radiotherapy and Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-8140. ; 125:3, s. 411-419
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and purpose: Recent studies have shown that it is possible to conduct entire radiotherapy treatment planning (RTP) workflow using only MR images. This study aims to develop a generalized intensity-based method to generate synthetic CT (sCT) images from standard T2-weighted (T2w) MR images of the pelvis. Materials and methods: This study developed a generalized dual model HU conversion method to convert standard T2w MR image intensity values to synthetic HU values, separately inside and outside of atlas-segmented bone volume contour. The method was developed and evaluated with 20 and 35 prostate cancer patients, respectively. MR images with scanning sequences in clinical use were acquired with four different MR scanners of three vendors. Results: For the generated synthetic CT (sCT) images of the 35 prostate patients, the mean (and maximal) HU differences in soft and bony tissue volumes were 16±6HUs (34HUs) and -46±56HUs (181HUs), respectively, against the true CT images. The average of the PTV mean dose difference in sCTs compared to those in true CTs was -0.6±0.4% (-1.3%). Conclusions: The study provides a generalized method for sCT creation from standard T2w images of the pelvis. The method produced clinically acceptable dose calculation results for all the included scanners and MR sequences.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Robinson, D., et al.
(författare)
-
Prostate Cancer Death After Radiotherapy or Radical Prostatectomy: A Nationwide Population-based Observational Study
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838 .- 1873-7560. ; 73:4, s. 502-511
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: There are no conclusive results from randomized trials on radiotherapy (RT) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer. Numerous observational studies have suggested that RP is associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer death, but whether results have been biased due to limited adjustments for confounding factors is unknown. Objective: To compare the risk of prostate cancer death after RT versus RP. Design, setting, and participants: Nationwide population-based observational study of men in the Prostate Cancer data Base Sweden 3.0 who had undergone RT or RP between 1998 and 2012. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Prostate cancer deaths were compared. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated in Cox regression models, including clinical T stage, M stage, Gleason grade group, serum levels of prostate-specific antigen, proportion of biopsy cores with cancer, mode of detection, comorbidity, age, educational level, and civil status. Period analysis with left truncation was performed. Results and limitations: Primary treatment was RT or RP for 41 503 men. Treatment effect was associated with disease severity. In univariate analysis of RT versus RP, risk of prostate cancer death was higher after RT-low-and intermediate-risk cancer, HR 1.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53-2.16), and high-risk cancer, HR 1.57 (95% CI: 1.33-1.85). After full adjustment in period analysis, this difference between the treatments was attenuated-low-and intermediate-risk cancer, HR 1.24 (95% CI: 0.97-1.58), and high-risk cancer, HR 1.03 (95% CI: 0.81-1.31). Confounding remained due to nonrandom allocation to treatment. Conclusions: In comparison with previous studies, the difference in prostate cancer mortality after RT and RP was much smaller. Patient summary: The difference in prostate cancer mortality after contemporary radiotherapy and radical prostatectomy was small in contrast to previous studies, indicating that potential side effects should be more emphasized when selecting treatment.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
