Heterogeneous planning for homogeneous protocols.

Chris Brooks; George Starkschall; Robin Famiglietti; James Cox; Steven Frank; Ritsuko Komaki; Zhongxing Liao; Craig Stevens; Kenneth Forster

doi:10.1016/j.meddos.2004.03.006

PubMed · 15191752

Heterogeneous planning for homogeneous protocols.

Chris Brooks·George Starkschall·Robin Famiglietti·James Cox·Steven Frank·Ritsuko Komaki·Zhongxing Liao·Craig Stevens·Kenneth Forster

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Clinical trials often require homogeneous treatment plans. Many institutions, however, have begun using heterogeneous plans. Is it possible to satisfy the requirements of such a protocol while achieving the superior accuracy of heterogeneous treatment planning? At the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, we currently use conformal treatment planning with heterogeneities for thoracic cancers. This paper describes a procedure that has been developed to satisfy the requirements of a homogeneous protocol, such as RTOG 98-01 (A Phase III Study of Amifostine mucosal protection), while maintaining accuracy in treatment planning.

Explore related subjects

Amifostine Clinical Protocols Humans Lung Neoplasms Patient Care Planning Radiation-Protective Agents Radiotherapy Dosage Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted Radiotherapy, Conformal Radiotherapy, High-Energy Clinical Trial Clinical Trial, Phase III Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Chris Brooks, George Starkschall, Robin Famiglietti, James Cox, Steven Frank, Ritsuko Komaki, Zhongxing Liao, Craig Stevens, Kenneth Forster. 2004. Heterogeneous planning for homogeneous protocols.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2004.03.006

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

A sequential procedure for monitoring clinical trials against historical controls.

In this paper, we develop a sequential procedure to monitor clinical trials against historical controls. When there is a strong ethical concern about randomizing patients to existing treatment because biological and medical evidence suggests that the new treatment is potentially superior to the existing one, or when the enrollment is too limited for randomization of subjects into experimental and control groups, one can monitor the trial sequentially against historical controls if the historical data with required quality and sample size are available to form a valid reference for the trial. This design of trial is sometimes the only alternative to a randomized phase III trial design that is intended but not feasible in situations such as above. Monitoring this type of clinical trial leads to a statistical problem of comparing two population means in a situation in which data from one population are sequentially collected and compared with all data from the other population at each interim look. The proposed sequential procedures is based on the sequential conditional probability ratio test (SCPRT) by which the conclusion of the sequential test would be virtually the same as that arrived at by a non-sequential test based on all data at the planned end of the trial. We develop the sequential procedure by proposing a Brownian motion that emulates the test statistic, and then proposing an SCPRT that is adapted to the special properties of the trial.

Amifostine↗

PubMed2006

Anaphylactoid reaction from amifostine.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Amifostine↗

PubMed2006

Amifostine protects rat kidneys during peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with [177Lu-DOTA0,Tyr3]octreotate.

PURPOSE: In peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) using radiolabelled somatostatin analogues, the kidneys are the major dose-limiting organs, because of tubular reabsorption and retention of radioactivity. Preventing renal uptake or toxicity will allow for higher tumour radiation doses. We tested the cytoprotective drug amifostine, which selectively protects healthy tissue during chemo- and radiotherapy, for its renoprotective capacities after PRRT with high-dose [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotate. METHODS: Male Lewis rats were injected with 278 or 555 MBq [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotate to create renal damage and were followed up for 130 days. For renoprotection, rats received either amifostine or co-injection with lysine. Kidneys, blood and urine were collected for toxicity measurements. At 130 days after PRRT, a single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scan was performed to quantify tubular uptake of (99m)Tc-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA), a measure of tubular function. RESULTS: Treatment with 555 MBq [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotate resulted in body weight loss, elevated creatinine and proteinuria. Amifostine and lysine treatment significantly prevented this rise in creatinine and the level of proteinuria, but did not improve the histological damage. In contrast, after 278 MBq [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotate, creatinine values were slightly, but not significantly, elevated compared with the control rats. Proteinuria and histological damage were different from controls and were significantly improved by amifostine treatment. Quantification of (99m)Tc-DMSA SPECT scintigrams at 130 days after [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotate therapy correlated well with 1/creatinine (r(2)=0.772, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Amifostine and lysine effectively decreased functional renal damage caused by high-dose [(177)Lu-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)]octreotate. Besides lysine, amifostine might be used in clinical PRRT as well as to maximise anti-tumour efficacy.

Amifostine↗