Yvonka van Wijk1, Ben G L Vanneste2, Sean Walsh2, Skadi van der Meer2, Bram Ramaekers3, Wouter van Elmpt2, Michael Pinkawa4, Philippe Lambin2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO, D-lab), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands. Electronic address: y.vanwijk@maastrichtuniversity.nll. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO, D-lab), GROW - School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA) Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have shown that the implantable rectum spacer (IRS) is not beneficial for all patients. A virtual IRS (V-IRS) was constructed to help identify the patients for whom it is cost-effective to implant an IRS, and its viability as a tool to tailor the decision of an IRS implantation to be beneficial for the specified patient was assessed. Please watch animation: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDlagSXMKqw) MATERIALS AND METHODS: The V-IRS was tested on 16 patients: 8 with a rectal balloon implant (RBI) and 8 with a hydrogel spacer. A V-IRS was developed using 7 computed tomography (CT) scans of patients with a RBI. To examine the V-IRS, CT scans before and after the implantation of an IRS were used. IMRT plans were made based on CT scans before the IRS, after IRS and with the V-IRS, prescribing 70 Gray (Gy) to the planning target volume. Toxicity was accessed using externally validated normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models, and the Cost-effectiveness was analyzed using a published Markov model. RESULTS: The rectum volume receiving 75Gy (V75) were improved by both the IRS and the V-IRS with on average 4.2% and 4.3% respectively. The largest NTCP reduction resulting from the IRS and the V-IRS was 4.0% and 3.9% respectively. The RBI was cost-effective for 1 out of 8 patients, and the hydrogel was effective for 2 out of 8 patients, and close to effective for a third patient. The classification accuracy of the model, regarding cost-effectiveness, was 100%. CONCLUSION: The V-IRS approach in combination with a toxicity prediction model and a cost-effectiveness analyses is a promising basis for a decision support tool for the implantation of either a hydrogel spacer or a rectum balloon implant.
INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have shown that the implantable rectum spacer (IRS) is not beneficial for all patients. A virtual IRS (V-IRS) was constructed to help identify the patients for whom it is cost-effective to implant an IRS, and its viability as a tool to tailor the decision of an IRS implantation to be beneficial for the specified patient was assessed. Please watch animation: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDlagSXMKqw) MATERIALS AND METHODS: The V-IRS was tested on 16 patients: 8 with a rectal balloon implant (RBI) and 8 with a hydrogel spacer. A V-IRS was developed using 7 computed tomography (CT) scans of patients with a RBI. To examine the V-IRS, CT scans before and after the implantation of an IRS were used. IMRT plans were made based on CT scans before the IRS, after IRS and with the V-IRS, prescribing 70 Gray (Gy) to the planning target volume. Toxicity was accessed using externally validated normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models, and the Cost-effectiveness was analyzed using a published Markov model. RESULTS: The rectum volume receiving 75Gy (V75) were improved by both the IRS and the V-IRS with on average 4.2% and 4.3% respectively. The largest NTCP reduction resulting from the IRS and the V-IRS was 4.0% and 3.9% respectively. The RBI was cost-effective for 1 out of 8 patients, and the hydrogel was effective for 2 out of 8 patients, and close to effective for a third patient. The classification accuracy of the model, regarding cost-effectiveness, was 100%. CONCLUSION: The V-IRS approach in combination with a toxicity prediction model and a cost-effectiveness analyses is a promising basis for a decision support tool for the implantation of either a hydrogel spacer or a rectum balloon implant.
Authors: Sónia Barros; Joana Roseira; Paulo Caldeira; Ana Margarida Vaz; Horácio Guerreiro; Oscar Codon Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-12-09
Authors: Seán Walsh; Erik Roelofs; Peter Kuess; Yvonka van Wijk; Ben Vanneste; Andre Dekker; Philippe Lambin; Bleddyn Jones; Dietmar Georg; Frank Verhaegen Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2018-02-18 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Y van Wijk; I Halilaj; E van Limbergen; S Walsh; L Lutgens; P Lambin; B G L Vanneste Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Nicola Rares Franco; Michela Carlotta Massi; Francesca Ieva; Andrea Manzoni; Anna Maria Paganoni; Paolo Zunino; Liv Veldeman; Piet Ost; Valérie Fonteyne; Christopher J Talbot; Tim Rattay; Adam Webb; Kerstie Johnson; Maarten Lambrecht; Karin Haustermans; Gert De Meerleer; Dirk de Ruysscher; Ben Vanneste; Evert Van Limbergen; Ananya Choudhury; Rebecca M Elliott; Elena Sperk; Marlon R Veldwijk; Carsten Herskind; Barbara Avuzzi; Barbara Noris Chiorda; Riccardo Valdagni; David Azria; Marie-Pierre Farcy-Jacquet; Muriel Brengues; Barry S Rosenstein; Richard G Stock; Ana Vega; Miguel E Aguado-Barrera; Paloma Sosa-Fajardo; Alison M Dunning; Laura Fachal; Sarah L Kerns; Debbie Payne; Jenny Chang-Claude; Petra Seibold; Catharine M L West; Tiziana Rancati Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 6.901
Authors: Yvonka van Wijk; Bram Ramaekers; Ben G L Vanneste; Iva Halilaj; Cary Oberije; Avishek Chatterjee; Tom Marcelissen; Arthur Jochems; Henry C Woodruff; Philippe Lambin Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 6.639