PURPOSE: To demonstrate the use of generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) atlas for data pooling in radiation pneumonitis (RP) modeling, to determine the dependence of RP on gEUD, to study the consistency between data sets, and to verify the increased statistical power of the combination. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients enrolled in prospective phase I/II dose escalation studies of radiation therapy of non-small cell lung cancer at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) (78 pts) and the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI) (86 pts) were included; 10 (13%) and 14 (17%) experienced RP requiring steroids (RPS) within 6 months after treatment. gEUD was calculated from dose-volume histograms. Atlases for each data set were created using 1-Gy steps from exact gEUDs and RPS data. The Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model was fit to the atlas and exact gEUD data. Heterogeneity and inconsistency statistics for the fitted parameters were computed. gEUD maps of the probability of RPS rate≥20% were plotted. RESULTS: The 2 data sets were homogeneous and consistent. The best fit values of the volume effect parameter a were small, with upper 95% confidence limit around 1.0 in the joint data. The likelihood profiles around the best fit a values were flat in all cases, making determination of the best fit a weak. All confidence intervals (CIs) were narrower in the joint than in the individual data sets. The minimum P value for correlations of gEUD with RPS in the joint data was .002, compared with P=.01 and .05 for MSKCC and NKI data sets, respectively. gEUD maps showed that at small a, RPS risk increases with gEUD. CONCLUSIONS: The atlas can be used to combine gEUD and RPS information from different institutions and model gEUD dependence of RPS. RPS has a large volume effect with the mean dose model barely included in the 95% CI. Data pooling increased statistical power.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the use of generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) atlas for data pooling in radiation pneumonitis (RP) modeling, to determine the dependence of RP on gEUD, to study the consistency between data sets, and to verify the increased statistical power of the combination. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients enrolled in prospective phase I/II dose escalation studies of radiation therapy of non-small cell lung cancer at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) (78 pts) and the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI) (86 pts) were included; 10 (13%) and 14 (17%) experienced RP requiring steroids (RPS) within 6 months after treatment. gEUD was calculated from dose-volume histograms. Atlases for each data set were created using 1-Gy steps from exact gEUDs and RPS data. The Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model was fit to the atlas and exact gEUD data. Heterogeneity and inconsistency statistics for the fitted parameters were computed. gEUD maps of the probability of RPS rate≥20% were plotted. RESULTS: The 2 data sets were homogeneous and consistent. The best fit values of the volume effect parameter a were small, with upper 95% confidence limit around 1.0 in the joint data. The likelihood profiles around the best fit a values were flat in all cases, making determination of the best fit a weak. All confidence intervals (CIs) were narrower in the joint than in the individual data sets. The minimum P value for correlations of gEUD with RPS in the joint data was .002, compared with P=.01 and .05 for MSKCC and NKI data sets, respectively. gEUD maps showed that at small a, RPS risk increases with gEUD. CONCLUSIONS: The atlas can be used to combine gEUD and RPS information from different institutions and model gEUD dependence of RPS. RPS has a large volume effect with the mean dose model barely included in the 95% CI. Data pooling increased statistical power.
Authors: Ellen D Yorke; Andrew Jackson; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Louise Braban; Steven A Leibel; C Clifton Ling Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: R Mohan; G Barest; L J Brewster; C S Chui; G J Kutcher; J S Laughlin; Z Fuks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1988-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Jana L Fox; Ellen Yorke; Howard Amols; Andrew Jackson; Valerie Rusch; Mark G Kris; Clif C Ling; Steven A Leibel Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Yvette Seppenwoolde; Joos V Lebesque; Katrien de Jaeger; José S A Belderbos; Liesbeth J Boersma; Cees Schilstra; George T Henning; James A Hayman; Mary K Martel; Randall K Ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: S L Kwa; J C Theuws; A Wagenaar; E M Damen; L J Boersma; P Baas; S H Muller; J V Lebesque Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Peter Paximadis; Matthew Schipper; Martha Matuszak; Mary Feng; Shruti Jolly; Thomas Boike; Inga Grills; Larry Kestin; Benjamin Movsas; Kent Griffith; Gregory Gustafson; Jean Moran; Teamour Nurushev; Jeffrey Radawski; Lori Pierce; James Hayman Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-07-19
Authors: Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Vitali Moiseenko; Jing Zhao; Michael T Milano; Ling Li; Andreas Rimner; Shiva Das; X Allen Li; Moyed Miften; ZhongXing Liao; Mary Martel; Soren M Bentzen; Andrew Jackson; Jimm Grimm; Lawrence B Marks; Ellen Yorke Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Nansi Maliko; Marcel R Stam; Liesbeth J Boersma; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Michel W J M Wouters; Eline KleinJan; Maurice Mulder; Marion Essers; Coen W Hurkmans; Nina Bijker Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Benjamin W Fischer-Valuck; Lauren Henke; Olga Green; Rojano Kashani; Sahaja Acharya; Jeffrey D Bradley; Clifford G Robinson; Maria Thomas; Imran Zoberi; Wade Thorstad; Hiram Gay; Jiayi Huang; Michael Roach; Vivian Rodriguez; Lakshmi Santanam; Harold Li; Hua Li; Jessika Contreras; Thomas Mazur; Dennis Hallahan; Jeffrey R Olsen; Parag Parikh; Sasa Mutic; Jeff Michalski Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-06-01