PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Geoffrey Ibbott

Publications and source records attributed to Geoffrey Ibbott.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Accreditation and quality assurance for Radiation Therapy Oncology Group: Multicenter clinical trials using Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in lung cancer.

Starting in 2002, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group in North America began the process of developing multicenter prospective trials in lung cancer using Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). Much of the work was based on the prospective single institution trials from Indiana University that had been presented and published. In late 2004, RTOG 0236 using SBRT for medically inoperable patients with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was activated for accrual. Prior to activation, representatives from the Lung, Image-Guided Therapy, Physics, and Radiobiology Committees met on regular occasions to design the multicenter study and quality assurance measures. SBRT is not a black box, and the essence of the therapy had to be distilled via guidelines. Issues related to patient selection, method of dosimetry construction, equipment requirements, motion assessments and control, site accreditation, data exchange, and follow-up policies were worked out by compromise and consensus. RTOG 0236 has nearly completed its accrual. The Lung Committee has initiated the development of several other trials, each building on the last, to investigate the therapy in central tumors, in combinations with systemic therapy, in operable patients, and in lung metastases patients. The guidelines developed for RTOG 0236 will be refined to take advantage of more modern innovations including heterogeneity corrections and intensity modulation when appropriate. The development of RTOG 0618 using SBRT in operable patients with early stage NSCLC is a testament to both the enthusiasm from already published works and prospective multicenter clinical testing using SBRT techniques.

Accreditation↗

Elastic image mapping for 4-D dose estimation in thoracic radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Demonstrate the path integration of a four-dimensional (4-D) dose distribution onto the 3-D anatomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A computer-generated 4-D thoracic phantom with a lung tumour was constructed. Eight respiratory phases were generated. A radiotherapy treatment plan was applied to all the phases resulting in a 4-D dose distribution. An elastic image registration algorithm was used to find the vector displacement between all the image elements and the end expiration phase. The path-integrated tissue dose distribution and each component dose distribution were compared with the planned dose distribution. RESULTS: Numerical path integration was performed to calculate the tissue dose distribution. Loss of tumour coverage was the predominant effect observed with tumour motion in this study. The loss was asymmetric and dependent on the tumour trajectory. CONCLUSION: The elastic image registration allowed an accurate path integration through a 4-D data set to produce an accurate 3-D tissue dose estimate.

Artifacts↗

Quality assurance methods for the first Radiation Therapy Oncology Group permanent prostate implant protocol.

PURPOSE: To report the quality assurance methodology used by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group in the first cooperative group, multi-institution Phase II trial of transrectal ultrasound guided permanent radioactive implantation of the prostate for definitive treatment of localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Participating institutions were credentialed to participate in this protocol, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 98-05. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) Report 58 was used as the basis for definition of terms. The AAPM's dosimetric prerequisites for low energy interstitial brachytherapy sources were adopted. A nondigital approach to central review was used. The implant dosimetry was recalculated based upon centrally reviewed target volumes by both a radiation oncologist and a diagnostic radiologist. RESULTS: There are differences in the definition of the postimplant prostate between the participating institution, the central review radiation oncologist, and the central review diagnostic radiologist. Thus, there are differences in dose/volume parameters. Six of the 95 patients reviewed did not meet the per protocol criteria based upon information supplied by the participating institution. This increased to 18 cases when using the postimplant target volume defined by the central oncologist and to 23 cases when defined by the radiologist. CONCLUSIONS: This work indicated that there is a need for a central review process of dose-volume analysis within the cooperative group setting. It is indicated that a digital approach to centralized review, which has now been developed, would result in a higher quality and easier review.

Adenocarcinoma↗