Biomedical subjects

Janice Ryu

Publications and source records attributed to Janice Ryu.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Use of benchmark dose-volume histograms for selection of the optimal technique between three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy in prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop and validate our own benchmark dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of bladder and rectum for both conventional three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and to evaluate quantitatively the benefits of using IMRT vs. 3D-CRT in treating localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: During the implementation of IMRT for prostate cancer, our policy was to plan each patient with both 3D-CRT and IMRT. This study included 31 patients with T1b to T2c localized prostate cancer, for whom we completed double-planning using both 3D-CRT and IMRT techniques. The target volumes included prostate, either with or without proximal seminal vesicles. Bladder and rectum DVH data were summarized to obtain an average DVH for each technique and then compared using two-tailed paired t test analysis. RESULTS: For 3D-CRT our bladder doses were as follows: mean 28.8 Gy, v60 16.4%, v70 10.9%; rectal doses were: mean 39.3 Gy, v60 21.8%, v70 13.6%. IMRT plans resulted in similar mean dose values: bladder 26.4 Gy, rectum 34.9 Gy, but lower values of v70 for the bladder (7.8%) and rectum (9.3%). These benchmark DVHs have resulted in a critical evaluation of our 3D-CRT techniques over time. CONCLUSION: Our institution has developed benchmark DVHs for bladder and rectum based on our clinical experience with 3D-CRT and IMRT. We use these standards as well as differences in individual cases to make decisions on whether patients may benefit from IMRT treatment rather than 3D-CRT.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

A Phase II study of acute toxicity for Celebrex (celecoxib) and chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: primary endpoint analysis of RTOG 0128.

PURPOSE: To determine treatment-related acute toxicity rates in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated by oral celecoxib, i.v. cisplatin and 5-FU, and concurrent pelvic radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients on this RTOG Phase I-II study for advanced cervix cancer included FIGO Stage IIB-IVA or patients with FIGO Stage IB through IIA with biopsy proven pelvic node metastases or tumor size > or =5 cm. Patients were treated with pelvic radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Celecoxib was prescribed at 400 mg twice daily beginning on day 1 for 1 year. Cisplatin (75 mg/m2) and 5-FU (1g/m2 for 4 days) were administered every 3 weeks times 3. The primary end point of the study was treatment related toxicity. RESULTS: Between August 2001 and March 2004, 84 patients were accrued to the study and 77 patients were evaluable for toxicity. Regarding the primary end point, toxicities were observed in the following areas: blood/bone marrow (16), gastrointestinal (14), pain (7), renal/genitourinary (6), cardiovascular (3), hemorrhage (1), and neurologic (1). For the first 75 evaluable patients, a toxicity failure was identified in 36 patients for a rate of 48%. CONCLUSIONS: Celecoxib at 400 mg twice daily together with concurrent cisplatin and 5-FU and pelvic radiotherapy has a high incidence of acute toxicities. The most frequent toxicities were hematologic. Albeit, the toxicity was deemed excessive in this trial, the rate of toxicities was not too different compared to other recent experiences with concurrent chemoradiation for advanced cervix cancer.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Phase III Trial of an emulsion containing trolamine for the prevention of radiation dermatitis in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: results of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Trial 99-13.

PURPOSE: This multicentered phase III trial was designed to compare an emulsion containing trolamine against the usual supportive care within each participating institution for patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx were randomly assigned to one of the following treatments: prophylactic trolamine emulsion, interventional trolamine emulsion, or declared institutional preference. The primary outcome was the reduction in grade 2 or higher skin toxicity, as per National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 2.0. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: From October 2000 to April 2002, 547 patients from 51 institutions were entered onto the trial. The average age was 59 years. Patients were predominately male (79%) and most continued to use tobacco products (52%). The rates of grade 2 or higher radiation dermatitis were 79%, 77%, and 79% in the prophylactic, interventional, and institutional preference arms of the study, respectively. No significant differences in QOL were found. CONCLUSION: The results of this trial demonstrate no advantage for the use of trolamine in reducing the incidence of grade 2 or higher radiation dermatitis or improving patient-reported QOL. The use of 15 different local standards of care highlights the need to continue research that will result in evidence-based recommendations to reduce the burden of radiation dermatitis.

Carcinoma, Squamous Cell↗

PubMed2006

Low-dose warfarin does not decrease the rate of thrombosis in patients with cervix and vulvo-vaginal cancer treated with chemotherapy, radiation, and erythropoeitin.

OBJECTIVES: We had previously reported an association between the use of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) and thrombosis in patients with cervix and vulvo-vaginal cancer treated with chemotherapy and radiation. We hypothesized that low-dose warfarin would be effective prevention for thromboembolic events in this setting. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients with cervical or vulvo-vaginal carcinoma receiving chemoradiation and rHuEpo was performed. Thirty-two patients received rHuEpo alone, and 24 received warfarin (1-2 mg) and rHuEpo. The primary endpoint was objectively proven symptomatic venous thrombosis. RESULTS: There was no difference in the baseline characteristics (e.g. age, stage, body mass index, mean and peak hemoglobin, WBC and platelet counts, and number of transfusions) between these two groups. The rate of thrombosis also was not statistically different (P = 0.62). Nine of 24 patients had a symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) while receiving warfarin compared to 10 of 32 patients not on warfarin. There was no difference between the two groups in the percentage of patients with upper extremity DVT (P = 0.83) or lower extremity DVT (P = 0.64). CONCLUSION: Daily low-dose warfarin did not alter the incidence of symptomatic DVT in patients with cervical or vulvo-vaginal cancer who received rHuEpo in conjunction with chemoradiation.

Anticoagulants↗

PubMed2004

Ultrasound probe pressure as a source of error in prostate localization for external beam radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: A pelvic phantom was constructed to evaluate the effect of ultrasound probe pressure during performance of bipolar acquisition technique (BAT) for prostate localization for radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A pelvic phantom of a gelatin mold with a water-filled balloon representing the bladder and rectum and a central encapsulated clay sphere representing the prostate was constructed. This phantom was then scanned using planning computed tomography (CT). The geometric information of the phantom was outlined in two planes. The phantom was then scanned using the BAT system with mild and moderate ultrasound probe pressure. Differences in prostate depth between the CT and BAT systems were displayed. RESULTS: A difference of 1 cm between the phantom surface and the prostate could be produced with moderate ultrasound probe pressure. The differences were similar between the CT- and BAT-generated contours and were dependent on the ultrasound probe pressure. CONCLUSION: Care must be taken not to cause any alteration in prostate localization with increasing ultrasound probe pressure when using BAT localization. Increased probe pressure may introduce errors in prostate localization and under dose the target.

Diagnostic Errors↗

PubMed2004

Phase I study of tirapazamine plus cisplatin/etoposide and concurrent thoracic radiotherapy in limited-stage small cell lung cancer (S0004): a Southwest Oncology Group study.

PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility and a recommended phase II dose of tirapazamine when combined with chemoradiotherapy in limited-stage small cell lung cancer (LSCLC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy consisted of two cycles of cisplatin, etoposide, and once-daily radiation to 61 Gy. Tirapazamine (260 mg/m2) was given 1 h before cisplatin with planned dose escalation to 330 mg/m2 in the absence of dose-limiting toxicity, defined as > or =33% esophagitis (grade 3 or above). Consolidation therapy consisted of two cycles of tirapazamine (330 mg/m2), cisplatin, and etoposide. Complete responders received prophylactic cranial irradiation. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled at the 260 mg/m2 tirapazamine dose. All had performance status of 0-1. By comparison with S9713, a predecessor Southwest Oncology Group study in LSCLC that used the same concurrent chemoradiotherapy without tirapazamine, the present trial showed a higher rate of grade 3-4 esophagitis (34% versus 22%), vomiting (34% versus 23%), and febrile neutropenia (7% versus 2%). The consolidation phase was relatively well tolerated, with grade 4 neutropenia in 44% and febrile neutropenia in 5% of patients. There were two treatment-related deaths: one from neutropenic fever and one from respiratory infection. The overall response rate was 80%, and the median survival was 22 months. CONCLUSIONS: Protocol-defined dose-limiting toxicity was observed at the initial tirapazamine dose, precluding dose escalation. Compared with S9713, the addition of tirapazamine increased the incidence of vomiting, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia, although the overall toxicity profile remained acceptable. In view of the observed favorable survival, further study of tirapazamine in LSCLC is warranted.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Whole brain radiation therapy with or without stereotactic radiosurgery boost for patients with one to three brain metastases: phase III results of the RTOG 9508 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases occur in up to 40% of all patients with systemic cancer. We aimed to assess whether stereotactic radiosurgery provided any therapeutic benefit in a randomised multi-institutional trial directed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG). METHODS: Patients with one to three newly diagnosed brain metastases were randomly allocated either whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) or WBRT followed by stereotactic radiosurgery boost. Patients were stratified by number of metastases and status of extracranial disease. Primary outcome was survival; secondary outcomes were tumour response and local rates, overall intracranial recurrence rates, cause of death, and performance measurements. FINDINGS: From January, 1996, to June, 2001, we enrolled 333 patients from 55 participating RTOG institutions--167 were assigned WBRT and stereotactic radiosurgery and 164 were allocated WBRT alone. Univariate analysis showed that there was a survival advantage in the WBRT and stereotactic radiosurgery group for patients with a single brain metastasis (median survival time 6.5 vs 4.9 months, p=0.0393). Patients in the stereotactic surgery group were more likely to have a stable or improved Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score at 6 months' follow-up than were patients allocated WBRT alone (43% vs 27%, respectively; p=0.03). By multivariate analysis, survival improved in patients with an RPA class 1 (p<0.0001) or a favourable histological status (p=0.0121). INTERPRETATION: WBRT and stereotactic boost treatment improved functional autonomy (KPS) for all patients and survival for patients with a single unresectable brain metastasis. WBRT and stereotactic radiosurgery should, therefore, be standard treatment for patients with a single unresectable brain metastasis and considered for patients with two or three brain metastases.

Adult↗