Engineering topics

DeWeese, Theodore

Publications and source records attributed to DeWeese, Theodore.

3 records

DOE OSTI2015

Hydrogel Spacer Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Pivotal Trial: Dosimetric and Clinical Effects of Perirectal Spacer Application in Men Undergoing Prostate Image Guided Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

Purpose: Perirectal spacing, whereby biomaterials are placed between the prostate and rectum, shows promise in reducing rectal dose during prostate cancer radiation therapy. A prospective multicenter randomized controlled pivotal trial was performed to assess outcomes following absorbable spacer (SpaceOAR system) implantation. Methods and Materials: Overall, 222 patients with clinical stage T1 or T2 prostate cancer underwent computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans for treatment planning, followed with fiducial marker placement, and were randomized to receive spacer injection or no injection (control). Patients received postprocedure CT and MRI planning scans and underwent image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (79.2 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions). Spacer safety and impact on rectal irradiation, toxicity, and quality of life were assessed throughout 15 months. Results: Spacer application was rated as “easy” or “very easy” 98.7% of the time, with a 99% hydrogel placement success rate. Perirectal spaces were 12.6 ± 3.9 mm and 1.6 ± 2.0 mm in the spacer and control groups, respectively. There were no device-related adverse events, rectal perforations, serious bleeding, or infections within either group. Pre-to postspacer plans had a significant reduction in mean rectal V70 (12.4% to 3.3%, P<.0001). Overall acute rectal adverse event rates were similar between groups, with fewer spacer patients experiencing rectal pain (P=.02). A significant reduction in late (3-15 months) rectal toxicity severity in the spacer group was observed (P=.04), with a 2.0% and 7.0% late rectal toxicity incidence in the spacer and control groups, respectively. There was no late rectal toxicity greater than grade 1 in the spacer group. At 15 months 11.6% and 21.4% of spacer and control patients, respectively, experienced 10-point declines in bowel quality of life. MRI scans at 12 months verified spacer absorption. Conclusions: Spacer application was well tolerated. Increased perirectal space reduced rectal irradiation, reduced rectal toxicity severity, and decreased rates of patients experiencing declines in bowel quality of life. The spacer appears to be an effective tool, potentially enabling advanced prostate RT protocols.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2014

A streamlined failure mode and effects analysis

Purpose: Explore the feasibility and impact of a streamlined failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) using a structured process that is designed to minimize staff effort. Methods: FMEA for the external beam process was conducted at an affiliate radiation oncology center that treats approximately 60 patients per day. A structured FMEA process was developed which included clearly defined roles and goals for each phase. A core group of seven people was identified and a facilitator was chosen to lead the effort. Failure modes were identified and scored according to the FMEA formalism. A risk priority number,RPN, was calculated and used to rank failure modes. Failure modes with RPN > 150 received safety improvement interventions. Staff effort was carefully tracked throughout the project. Results: Fifty-two failure modes were identified, 22 collected during meetings, and 30 from take-home worksheets. The four top-ranked failure modes were: delay in film check, missing pacemaker protocol/consent, critical structures not contoured, and pregnant patient simulated without the team's knowledge of the pregnancy. These four failure modes hadRPN > 150 and received safety interventions. The FMEA was completed in one month in four 1-h meetings. A total of 55 staff hours were required and, additionally, 20 h by the facilitator. Conclusions: Streamlined FMEA provides a means of accomplishing a relatively large-scale analysis with modest effort. One potential value of FMEA is that it potentially provides a means of measuring the impact of quality improvement efforts through a reduction in risk scores. Future study of this possibility is needed.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2014

Prospective Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy With or Without Oncolytic Adenovirus-Mediated Cytotoxic Gene Therapy in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

Purpose: To assess the safety and efficacy of combining oncolytic adenovirus-mediated cytotoxic gene therapy (OAMCGT) with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Forty-four men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive either OAMCGT plus IMRT (arm 1; n=21) or IMRT only (arm 2; n=23). The primary phase 2 endpoint was acute (≤90 days) toxicity. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QOL), prostate biopsy (12-core) positivity at 2 years, freedom from biochemical/clinical failure (FFF), freedom from metastases, and survival. Results: Men in arm 1 exhibited a greater incidence of low-grade influenza-like symptoms, transaminitis, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia than men in arm 2. There were no significant differences in gastrointestinal or genitourinary events or QOL between the 2 arms. Two-year prostate biopsies were obtained from 37 men (84%). Thirty-three percent of men in arm 1 were biopsy-positive versus 58% in arm 2, representing a 42% relative reduction in biopsy positivity in the investigational arm (P=.13). There was a 60% relative reduction in biopsy positivity in the investigational arm in men with <50% positive biopsy cores at baseline (P=.07). To date, 1 patient in each arm exhibited biochemical failure (arm 1, 4.8%; arm 2, 4.3%). No patient developed hormone-refractory or metastatic disease, and none has died from prostate cancer. Conclusions: Combining OAMCGT with IMRT does not exacerbate the most common side effects of prostate radiation therapy and suggests a clinically meaningful reduction in positive biopsy results at 2 years in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗