Engineering topics
Miller, R
Publications and source records attributed to Miller, R.
SU-C-204-05: Magnetic Resonance-Induced Adaptive Response to Orthovoltage Radiation Therapy in FSa and SA-NH Mouse Tumor Cell Lines
Purpose: To assess the effect of pre-treatment Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) on cell survival following orthovoltage radiation therapy. Methods: This in vitro study examined the survival of FSa cells (extracted from methylcholanthrene-induced fibrosarcoma in the flank of a C3H female mouse) and SA-NH cells (derived from a spontaneously arising murine sarcoma tumor) having undergone an MRI scan prior to radiation exposure. Cell cultures were kept at 37 C, in a humidified environment with 5% CO2, and were grown to confluence prior to the start of the experiment. Each cell culture underwent two, 25 minute MRIs spaced 24 hours apart using a standard brain imaging protocol. The cultures were exposed to a 2 Gy dose of radiation beginning 15 minutes after the end of each MRI scan. Irradiations were performed by a Philips RT250 X-ray generator at 250 kVp and 15 mA. All MR imaging was performed on a 1.5 T Philips Achieva scanner using a head and neck vasculature coil. Results: Cells given an MRI scan prior to radiation exhibited an increase in mean surviving fraction of 10.8% and 9.6% in FSa and SA-NH cells, respectively. The difference was found to be statistically significant in both cell types by a student two-tailed t test with P = 0.011 and P < 0.001 for FSa and SA-NH, respectively. Conclusion: MRI may cause an increase in radio-resistance in FSa and SA-NH cells. If this biological effect is found to be consistent across other cell types and voltage ranges, these results could help inform treatment planning by improving our understanding of the joint effects of MRI and ionizing radiation. This work was supported in part under NIH grant numbers T32 EB002103, NCI R01-CA 132998, DOE Low Dose Program/Project Grant DE-413 SC0001271. DJ Grdina is a paid consultant to Pinnacle Biologics. DJ Grdina and JS Murley are minority equity partners in Pinnacle Oncology LLC.
SU-E-P-22: AAPM Task Group 263 Tackling Standardization of Nomenclature for Radiation Therapy
Purpose: There is growing recognition of need for increased clarity and consistency in the nomenclatures used for body and organ structures, DVH metrics, toxicity, dose and volume units, etc. Standardization has multiple benefits; e.g. facilitating data collection for clinical trials, enabling the pooling of data between institutions, making transfers (i.e. hand-offs) between centers safer, and enabling vendors to define “default” settings. Towards this goal, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) formed a task group (TG263) in July of 2014, operating under the Work Group on Clinical Trials to develop consensus statements. Guiding principles derived from the investigation and example nomenclatures will be presented for public feedback. Methods: We formed a multi-institutional and multi-vendor collaborative group of 39 physicists, physicians and others involved in clinical use and electronic transfer of information. Members include individuals from IROC, NRG, IHE-RO, DICOM WG-7, ASTRO and EORTC groups with overlapping interests to maximize the quality of the consensus and increase the likelihood of adoption. Surveys of group and NRG members were used to define current nomenclatures and requirements. Technical requirements of vendor systems and the proposed DICOM standards were examined. Results: There is a marked degree of inter and intra institutional variation in current approaches, resulting from inter-vendor differences in capabilities, clinic specific conceptualizations and inconsistencies. Using a consensus approach, the group defined optimal formats for the naming of targets and normal structures. A formal objective assessment of 13 existing clinically-used software packages show that all had capabilities to accommodate these recommended nomenclatures. Conclusions: A multi-stakeholder effort is making significant steps forward in developing a standard nomenclature that will work across platforms. Our current working list includes > 550 structures. Outreach efforts are ongoing to ensure broader participation in evaluating and testing the principles as they are developed by TG263.
WE-G-9A-01: Radiation Oncology Outcomes Informatics
The construction of databases and support software to enable routine and systematic aggregation, analysis and reporting of patient outcomes data is emerging as an important area. “How have results for our patients been affected by the improvements we have made in our practice and in the technologies we use?” To answer this type of fundamental question about the overall pattern of efficacy observed, it is necessary to systematically gather and analyze data on all patients treated within a clinic. Clinical trials answer, in great depth and detail, questions about outcomes for the subsets of patients enrolled in a given trial. However, routine aggregation and analysis of key treatment parameter data and outcomes information for all patients is necessary to recognize emergent patterns that would be of interest from a public health or practice perspective and could better inform design of clinical trials or the evolution of best practice principals. To address these questions, Radiation Oncology outcomes databases need to be constructed to enable combination essential data from a broad group of data types including: diagnosis and staging, dose volume histogram metrics, patient reported outcomes, toxicity metrics, performance status, treatment plan parameters, demographics, DICOM data and demographics. Developing viable solutions to automate aggregation and analysis of this data requires multidisciplinary efforts to define nomenclatures, modify clinical processes and develop software and database tools requires detailed understanding of both clinical and technical issues. This session will cover the developing area of Radiation Oncology Outcomes Informatics. Learning Objectives: Audience will be able to speak to the technical requirements (software, database, web services) which must be considered in designing an outcomes database. Audience will be able to understand the content and the role of patient reported outcomes as compared to traditional toxicity measures. Audience will be understand approaches, clinical process changes, consensus building efforts and standardizations which must be addressed to succeed in a multi-disciplinary effort to aggregate data for all patients. Audience will be able to discuss technical and process issues related to pooling data among institutions in the context of collaborative studies among the presenting institutions.
SU-E-T-257: Output Constancy: Reducing Measurement Variations in a Large Practice Group
Purpose: To standardize output constancy check procedures in a large medical physics practice group covering multiple sites, in order to identify and reduce small systematic errors caused by differences in equipment and the procedures of multiple physicists. Methods: A standardized machine output constancy check for both photons and electrons was instituted within the practice group in 2010. After conducting annual TG-51 measurements in water and adjusting the linac to deliver 1.00 cGy/MU at Dmax, an acrylic phantom (comparable at all sites) and PTW farmer ion chamber are used to obtain monthly output constancy reference readings. From the collected charge reading, measurements of air pressure and temperature, and chamber Ndw and Pelec, a value we call the Kacrylic factor is determined, relating the chamber reading in acrylic to the dose in water with standard set-up conditions. This procedure easily allows for multiple equipment combinations to be used at any site. The Kacrylic factors and output results from all sites and machines are logged monthly in a central database and used to monitor trends in calibration and output. Results: The practice group consists of 19 sites, currently with 34 Varian and 8 Elekta linacs (24 Varian and 5 Elekta linacs in 2010). Over the past three years, the standard deviation of Kacrylic factors measured on all machines decreased by 20% for photons and high energy electrons as systematic errors were found and reduced. Low energy electrons showed very little change in the distribution of Kacrylic values. Small errors in linac beam data were found by investigating outlier Kacrylic values. Conclusion: While the use of acrylic phantoms introduces an additional source of error through small differences in depth and effective depth, the new standardized procedure eliminates potential sources of error from using many different phantoms and results in more consistent output constancy measurements.