PURPOSE: Using a retrospective analysis of treatment plans submitted from multiple institutions accruing patients to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0236 non-small-cell stereotactic body radiotherapy protocol, the present study determined the dose prescription and critical structure constraints for future stereotactic body radiotherapy lung protocols that mandate density-corrected dose calculations. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A subset of 20 patients from four institutions participating in the RTOG 0236 protocol and using superposition/convolution algorithms were compared. The RTOG 0236 protocol required a prescription dose of 60 Gy delivered in three fractions to cover 95% of the planning target volume. Additional requirements were specified for target dose heterogeneity and the dose to normal tissue/structures. The protocol required each site to plan the patient's treatment using unit density, and another plan with the same monitor units and applying density corrections was also submitted. These plans were compared to determine the dose differences. Two-sided, paired Student's t tests were used to evaluate these differences. RESULTS: With heterogeneity corrections applied, the planning target volume receiving >/=60 Gy decreased, on average, 10.1% (standard error, 2.7%) from 95% (p = .001). The maximal dose to any point >/=2 cm away from the planning target volume increased from 35.2 Gy (standard error, 1.7) to 38.5 Gy (standard error, 2.2). CONCLUSION: Statistically significant dose differences were found with the heterogeneity corrections. The information provided in the present study is being used to design future heterogeneity-corrected RTOG stereotactic body radiotherapy lung protocols to match the true dose delivered for RTOG 0236.
PURPOSE: Using a retrospective analysis of treatment plans submitted from multiple institutions accruing patients to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0236 non-small-cell stereotactic body radiotherapy protocol, the present study determined the dose prescription and critical structure constraints for future stereotactic body radiotherapy lung protocols that mandate density-corrected dose calculations. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A subset of 20 patients from four institutions participating in the RTOG 0236 protocol and using superposition/convolution algorithms were compared. The RTOG 0236 protocol required a prescription dose of 60 Gy delivered in three fractions to cover 95% of the planning target volume. Additional requirements were specified for target dose heterogeneity and the dose to normal tissue/structures. The protocol required each site to plan the patient's treatment using unit density, and another plan with the same monitor units and applying density corrections was also submitted. These plans were compared to determine the dose differences. Two-sided, paired Student's t tests were used to evaluate these differences. RESULTS: With heterogeneity corrections applied, the planning target volume receiving >/=60 Gy decreased, on average, 10.1% (standard error, 2.7%) from 95% (p = .001). The maximal dose to any point >/=2 cm away from the planning target volume increased from 35.2 Gy (standard error, 1.7) to 38.5 Gy (standard error, 2.2). CONCLUSION: Statistically significant dose differences were found with the heterogeneity corrections. The information provided in the present study is being used to design future heterogeneity-corrected RTOG stereotactic body radiotherapy lung protocols to match the true dose delivered for RTOG 0236.
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Elizabeth Ward; Alicia Samuels; Ram C Tiwari; Asma Ghafoor; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Robert Timmerman; James Galvin; Jeff Michalski; William Straube; Geoffrey Ibbott; Elizabeth Martin; Ramzi Abdulrahman; Suzanne Swann; Jack Fowler; Hak Choy Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2006 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Ram C Tiwari; Taylor Murray; Asma Ghafoor; Alicia Samuels; Elizabeth Ward; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2004 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: David O Wilson; Joel L Weissfeld; Carl R Fuhrman; Stephen N Fisher; Paula Balogh; Rodney J Landreneau; James D Luketich; Jill M Siegfried Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2008-07-17 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Robert Timmerman; Rebecca Paulus; James Galvin; Jeffrey Michalski; William Straube; Jeffrey Bradley; Achilles Fakiris; Andrea Bezjak; Gregory Videtic; David Johnstone; Jack Fowler; Elizabeth Gore; Hak Choy Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Robert D Timmerman; Rebecca Paulus; Harvey I Pass; Elizabeth M Gore; Martin J Edelman; James Galvin; William L Straube; Lucien A Nedzi; Ronald C McGarry; Cliff G Robinson; Peter B Schiff; Garrick Chang; Billy W Loo; Jeffrey D Bradley; Hak Choy Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Jun Li; James Galvin; Amy Harrison; Robert Timmerman; Yan Yu; Ying Xiao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James Welsh; Matthew B Palmer; Jaffer A Ajani; Zhongxing Liao; Steven G Swisher; Wayne L Hofstetter; Pamela K Allen; Steven H Settle; Daniel Gomez; Anna Likhacheva; James D Cox; Ritsuko Komaki Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stephen F Kry; Paola Alvarez; Andrea Molineu; Carrie Amador; James Galvin; David S Followill Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038