An efficient planning technique for low dose whole lung radiation therapy for covid-19 pandemic patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yuan L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7550039 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
An efficient planning technique for low dose whole lung radiation therapy for covid-19 pandemic patients.
Yuan Lulin L Kim Siyong S Palta Jatinder J Hagan Michael P MP
Physics and imaging in radiation oncology 20201012
This study aimed to establish an efficient planning technique for low dose whole lung treatment that can be implemented rapidly and safely. The treatment technique developed here relied only on chest radiograph and a simple empirical monitor unit calculation formula. The 3D dose calculation in real patient anatomy, including both nonCOVID and COVID-19 patients, which took into account tissue heterogeneity showed that the dose delivered to lungs had reasonable uniformity even with this simple and ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeCurrently, several active clinical trials of functional lung avoidance radiation therapy using different imaging modalities for ventilation or perfusion are underway. Patients with lung cancer often show ventilation-perfusion mismatch, whereas the significance of dose-function metric remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to compare dose-ventilation metrics with dose-perfusion metrics for radiation therapy plan evaluation.Methods and materialsPretreatment 4-dimensional computed tomography and 99mTc-macroaggregated albumin single-photon emission computed tomography perfusion images of 60 patients with lung cancer treated with radiation therapy were analyzed. Ventilation images were created using the deformable image registration of 4-dimensional computed tomography image sets and image analysis for regional volume changes as a surrogate for ventilation. Ventilation and perfusion images were converted into percentile distribution images. Analyses included Pearson's correlation coefficient and comparison of agreements between the following dose-ventilation and dose-perfusion metrics: functional mean lung dose and functional percent lung function receiving 5, 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy (fV5, fV10, fV20, fV30, and fV40, respectively).ResultsOverall, the dose-ventilation metrics were greater than the dose-perfusion metrics (ie, fV20, 26.3% ± 9.9% vs 23.9% ± 9.8%). Correlations between the dose-ventilation and dose-perfusion metrics were strong (range, r = 0.94-0.97), whereas the agreements widely varied among patients, with differences as large as 6.6 Gy for functional mean lung dose and 11.1% for fV20. Paired t test indicated that the dose-ventilation and dose-perfusion metrics were significantly different.ConclusionsStrong correlations were present between the dose-ventilation and dose-perfusion metrics. However, the agreement between the dose-ventilation and dose-perfusion metrics widely varied among patients, suggesting that ventilation-based radiation therapy plan evaluation may not be comparable to that based on perfusion. Future studies should elucidate the correlation of dose-function metrics with clinical pulmonary toxicity metrics.
| S-EPMC7280081 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To investigate a weighted four-dimensional (W-4D) treatment planning strategy based on the greater clinical advantage of the conformal over the intensity-modulated technique in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).Two planning strategies (individual-phase 4D [IP-4D] and W-4D) were evaluated in eighteen lung SBRT patients. The IP-4D plan can deliver a constant fluence during whole respiratory phases. The W-4D plan's key concept was to escalate (or reduce) fluence using a 4D optimization algorithm when the tumour target was out-of-line (or in-line) with an organ-at-risk. The fluence was converted to a dynamic multi-leaf collimator leaf sequence for deliverable 4D irradiation.In all patients, the W-4D plan enabled planning tumour volume conformity comparable to the IP-4D plan. The W-4D plan yielded a significantly lower maximum dose than the IP-4D plan for the spinal cord (-11%; p<0.01), oesophagus (-14%; p<0.01), heart (-22%; p=0.01) and stomach (-23%; p=0.07), and a lower mean dose to liver (-19%; p=0.18) while maintaining the mean dose to lung (-1%; p=0.23).W-4D is a robust, practical planning approach that achieves significant dose sparing relative to non-time-resolved tracking; it may be of greater clinical benefit in radiotherapy than the spatially intensity-modulated 4D approach.
| S-EPMC5201122 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7671923 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Treatment planning for whole-brain radiation treatment is technically a simple process, but in practice it takes valuable clinical time of repetitive and tedious tasks. This report presents a method that automatically segments the relevant target and normal tissues, and creates a treatment plan in only a few minutes after patient simulation. Segmentation of target and critical structures is performed automatically through morphological operations on the soft tissue and was validated by comparing with manual clinical segmentation using the Dice coefficient and Hausdorff distance. The treatment plan is generated by searching a database of previous cases for patients with similar anatomy. In this search, each database case is ranked in terms of similarity using a customized metric designed for sensitivity by including only geometrical changes that affect the dose distribution. The database case with the best match is automatically modified to replace relevant patient info and isocenter position while maintaining original beam and MLC settings. Fifteen patients with marginally acceptable treatment plans were used to validate the method. In each of these cases the anatomy was accurately segmented, but the beams and MLC settings led to a suboptimal treatment plan by either underdosing the brain or excessively irradiating critical normal tissues. For each case, the anatomy was automatically segmented with the proposed method, and the automated and anual segmentations were then compared. The mean Dice coefficient was 0.97, with a standard deviation of 0.008 for the brain, 0.85 ± 0.009 for the eyes, and 0.67 ± 0.11 for the lens. The mean Euclidian distance was 0.13 ± 0.13 mm for the brain, 0.27± 0.31 for the eye, and 2.34 ± 7.23 for the lens. Each case was then subsequently matched against a database of 70 validated treatment plans and the best matching plan (termed autoplanned), was compared retrospectively with the clinical plans in terms of brain coverage and maximum doses to critical structures. Maximum doses were reduced by a maximum of 8.37 Gy for the left eye (mean 2.08), 11.67 for the right eye (1.90) and, respectively, 25.44 (5.59) for the left lens and 24.40 (4.85) for the right lens. Time to generate the autoplan, including the segmentation, was 3-4min. Automated database- based matching is an alternative to classical treatment planning that improves quality while providing a cost-effective solution to planning through modifying previous validated plans to match a current patient's anatomy.
| S-EPMC5690177 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposePhase 1 clinical trials have established low-dose, whole-lung radiation therapy (LD-RT) as safe for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related pneumonia. By focally dampening cytokine hyperactivation, LD-RT may improve disease outcomes through immunomodulation.Methods and materialsPatients with COVID-19-related pneumonia were treated with 1.5 Gy whole-lung LD-RT, followed for 28 days or until hospital discharge, and compared with age- and comorbidity-matched controls meeting identical disease severity criteria. Eligible patients were hospitalized, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) positive, had radiographic consolidations, and required supplemental oxygen but had not rapidly declined on admission or before drug therapy or LD-RT. Efficacy endpoints were time to clinical recovery, radiographic improvement, and biomarker response.ResultsTen patients received whole-lung LD-RT between April 24 and May 24, 2020 and were compared with 10 control patients blindly matched by age and comorbidity. Six controls received COVID-19 drug therapies. Median time to clinical recovery was 12 days in the control cohort compared with 3 days in the LD-RT cohort (hazard ratio 2.9, P = .05). Median time to hospital discharge (20 vs 12 days, P = .19) and intubation rates (40% vs 10%, P = .12) in the control and LD-RT cohorts were compared. Median time from admission to recovery was 10 versus 13 days (P = .13). Hospital duration average was 19 versus 22.6 days (P = .53). Average hospital days on supplemental oxygen of any duration was 13.1 versus 14.7 days (P = .69). Average days with a documented fever was 1 versus 4.3 days (P = .12). Twenty-eight-day overall survival was 90% for both cohorts. The LD-RT cohort trended toward superior rates of improved radiographs (P = .12) and delirium (P < .01). Statistically significant reductions were observed in numerous hematologic, cardiac, hepatic, and inflammatory markers.ConclusionsA prospective cohort of predominantly elderly hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia were recovered to room air quicker than age- and comorbidity-matched controls, with trending or significant improvements in delirium, radiographs, and biomarkers, and no significant acute toxicity. Low-dose, whole-lung radiation for patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia appears safe and may be an effective immunomodulatory treatment. Larger prospective randomized trials are needed to define the efficacy of LD-RT for COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7832642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative pathogen of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has caused more than 179 million infections and 3.8 million deaths worldwide. Global health authorities working on the COVID-19 outbreak continue to explore methods to reduce the rate of its transmission to healthy individuals. Treatment protocols thus far have focused on social distancing and masking, treatment with antivirals early in infection, and steroids to reduce the inflammatory response. An alternative approach is therapy with low dose radiation (LDR), which has several advantages compared to the current drugs and medicines. To date more than 10 case reports and pilot clinical trial preliminary outcome are available from different countries. These reports cover a wide range of patient conditions and LDR treatment strategies. Although one report showed the failure to observe the improvement of COVID-19 patients after LDR therapy, the majority showed some clinical improvement, and demonstrated the safety of LDR for COVID-19 patients, particularly with 0.5 Gy. This review aims to summarize the potential rationales and mechanisms of LDR therapy for COVID-19 patients, and its current clinical status and potential use.
| S-EPMC8429076 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeCurrent treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lung disease have limited efficacy. Low-dose radiation therapy (LDRT) has received both interest and criticism as a potential treatment for this condition. In this qualitative study we explored clinicians' perspectives to identify barriers to testing LDRT in clinical trials and implementing it in clinical practice.Methods and materialsSemistructured interviews were undertaken with 6 clinicians from 3 medical disciplines. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically, using a framework approach. Common themes regarding barriers to using LDRT for COVID-19 lung disease were identified from the data.ResultsThree categories of barriers emerged: (1) the potential to do harm to the patient, including difficulty in predicting harm and lack of existing data to inform quantification of risks; (2) the feasibility of trialing this novel treatment strategy in the clinical setting, in particular trial design and recruitment, patient selection and buy-in from relevant clinician groups; and (3) the logistics of delivering the treatment, in particular risks of transmission to other patients and resources required for patient transfer.ConclusionsThis study identified several barriers that may impede the evaluation and subsequent implementation of LDRT as a treatment for COVID-19 lung disease, from the perspectives of clinicians in 3 relevant specialties. By documenting and articulating these concerns, we hope to enhance discussion of why these barriers exist, and enable them to be addressed in a proactive manner to facilitate research into the potential benefits of radiation treatment for patients with COVID-19 lung disease going forward.
| S-EPMC7726525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeIntensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has allowed optimization of three-dimensional spatial radiation dose distributions permitting target coverage while reducing normal tissue toxicity. However, radiation-induced normal tissue toxicity is a major contributor to patients' quality of life and often a dose-limiting factor in the definitive treatment of cancer with radiation therapy. We propose the next logical step in the evolution of IMRT using canonical radiobiological principles, optimizing the temporal dimension through which radiation therapy is delivered to further reduce radiation-induced toxicity by increased time for normal tissue recovery. We term this novel treatment planning strategy "temporally feathered radiation therapy" (TFRT).MethodsTemporally feathered radiotherapy plans were generated as a composite of five simulated treatment plans each with altered constraints on particular hypothetical organs at risk (OARs) to be delivered sequentially. For each of these TFRT plans, OARs chosen for feathering receive higher doses while the remaining OARs receive lower doses than the standard fractional dose delivered in a conventional fractionated IMRT plan. Each TFRT plan is delivered a specific weekday, which in effect leads to a higher dose once weekly followed by four lower fractional doses to each temporally feathered OAR. We compared normal tissue toxicity between TFRT and conventional fractionated IMRT plans by using a dynamical mathematical model to describe radiation-induced tissue damage and repair over time.ResultsModel-based simulations of TFRT demonstrated potential for reduced normal tissue toxicity compared to conventionally planned IMRT. The sequencing of high and low fractional doses delivered to OARs by TFRT plans suggested increased normal tissue recovery, and hence less overall radiation-induced toxicity, despite higher total doses delivered to OARs compared to conventional fractionated IMRT plans. The magnitude of toxicity reduction by TFRT planning was found to depend on the corresponding standard fractional dose of IMRT and organ-specific recovery rate of sublethal radiation-induced damage.ConclusionsTFRT is a novel technique for treatment planning and optimization of therapeutic radiotherapy that considers the nonlinear aspects of normal tissue repair to optimize toxicity profiles. Model-based simulations of TFRT to carefully conceptualized clinical cases have demonstrated potential for radiation-induced toxicity reduction in a previously described dynamical model of normal tissue complication probability (NTCP).
| S-EPMC6041138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow-dose radiotherapy (LD-RT) has produced anti-inflammatory effects in both animal models and early human trials of COVID-19-related pneumonia. The role of whole-lung LD-RT within existing treatment paradigms merits further study.MethodsA phase II prospective trial studied the addition of LD-RT to standard drug treatments. Hospitalized and oxygen-dependent patients receiving dexamethasone and/or remdesevir were treated with 1.5 Gy whole-lung LD-RT and compared to a blindly-matched contemporaneous control cohort.ResultsOf 40 patients evaluated, 20 received drug therapy combined with whole-lung LD-RT and 20 without LD-RT. Intubation rates were 14% with LD-RT compared to 32% without (p = 0.09). Intubation-free survival was 77% vs. 68% (p = 0.17). Biomarkers of inflammation (C-reactive protein, p = 0.02) and cardiac injury (creatine kinase, p < 0.01) declined following LD-RT compared to controls. Mean time febrile was 1.4 vs 3.3 days, respectively (p = 0.14). Significant differences in clinical recovery (7.5 vs. 7 days, p = 0.37) and radiographic improvement (p = 0.72) were not detected. On subset analysis, CRP decline following LD-RT was predictive of recovery without intubation compared to controls (0% vs. 31%, p = 0.04), freedom from prolonged hospitalizations (21+ days) (0% vs. 31%, p = 0.04), and decline in oxygenation burden (56% reduction, p = 0.06). CRP decline following 1st drug therapy was not similarly predictive of outcome in controls (p = 0.36).ConclusionsAdding LD-RT to standard drug treatments reduced biomarkers of inflammation and cardiac injury in COVID-19 patients and may have reduced intubation. Durable CRP decline following LD-RT predicted especially favorable recovery, freedom from intubation, reduction in prolonged hospitalization, and reduced oxygenation burden. A confirmatory randomized trial is now ongoing.Clinical trial registrationNCT04366791.
| S-EPMC8511870 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose/Objective(s) The mortality of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) has been associated with a pulmonary inflammatory response resulting in hypoxemia and rapid clinical decline. Recent work has indicated a potential therapeutic window for treatment to prevent ventilator-dependence thereby reducing mortality. PREVENT is an ongoing prospective multicenter Phase II randomized controlled trial where patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia are randomized to ultra-low dose radiation therapy (RT) versus control. This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04466683. The following is a description of the inpatient onboarding process of the center contributing the largest number of patients to this trial. Materials/Methods COVID-19 hospital admissions from the previous day were attained by the clinical research manager each morning, screened for eligibility, and then sent to the designated radiation oncologist who further delineated from this list. Common exclusion criteria were: 1. Oxygen saturation > 96% on room air, 2. Age < 50, 3. > 9 days from initial COVID-19 symptomatology. From this list, HIPAA-compliant text message contact was made with infectious disease, critical care, and nursing staff with reciprocal discussion of the trial protocol and approval for consulting the patient. Subsequently, a virtual consult was made with the patient, with witnessed informed consent obtained via telephone and in person by our research associate. Patients randomized to RT were treated within 24 hours of consent. Simulation and treatment were performed on a linear accelerator with one personal protective equipment-protected therapist moving in and out of the treatment room, and a second therapist manning the console. On-site dose calculation was performed by physics, after which the radiation oncologist approved the fields prior to treatment delivery. Simulation and treatment were performed without a computer plan; therapists underwent several practice sessions prior to treating patients on trial. Results Between August 28, 2020 and October 6, 2020, the first 10 enrolled patients on this multicenter trial were randomized and treated at our institution; no research staff member nor radiation oncology clinical team member contracted COVID-19 while employing this protocol. Conclusion This represents the first published protocol to address efficient and safe recruitment of COVID-19 patients for a radiation oncology trial. Despite the procedural hurdles of conducting a trial in the midst of a pandemic, the combination of recruitment efficiency (> 2 patients/week) and safety to the research and clinical teams (no COVID-19 infections) of this protocol has allowed for the PREVENT trial to make substantial progress in meeting recruitment goals (n = 100). This onboarding process serves as a model in conducting recruitment of COVID-19 patients for clinical trials, and is worthy of emulation at additional centers.
| S-EPMC8536240 | biostudies-literature