Literature DB >> 31794291

Comparison of Radiation Dose Reconstruction Methods to Investigate Late Adverse Effects of Radiotherapy for Childhood Cancer: A Report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

Sara J Schonfeld1, Rebecca M Howell2, Susan A Smith2, Joseph P Neglia3, Lucie M Turcotte3, Michael A Arnold4,5, Peter D Inskip1, Kevin C Oeffinger6, Chaya S Moskowitz7, Tara O Henderson8, Wendy M Leisenring9, Todd M Gibson10, Amy Berrington de González1, Joshua N Sampson1, Stephen J Chanock1, Margaret A Tucker1, Smita Bhatia11, Leslie L Robison10, Gregory T Armstrong10, Lindsay M Morton1.   

Abstract

Quantification of radiation dose to normal tissue during radiotherapy is critical for assessing risk for radiotherapy-related late effects, including subsequent neoplasms (SNs). Case-control studies of SNs typically reconstruct absorbed radiation dose to the specific SN location using individual treatment parameters. A simplified method estimates the maximum prescribed target dose to the body region in which the SN arises. We compared doses and risk estimates from these methods using data from case-control studies of subsequent brain tumors (64 cases, 244 controls) and breast cancer (94 cases, 358 controls) nested within the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (≥5-year survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed 1970-1986). The weighted kappa statistic [95% confidence interval (CI)] evaluating agreement between categorical (>0-9.9/10-19.9/20-29.9/≥30 Gy) body-region and tumor location-specific doses was 0.95 (0.91-0.98) for brain and 0.76 (0.69-0.82) for breast. The body-region and location-specific doses were assigned to the same dose category for a smaller proportion of patients treated with fields delivering a heterogeneous dose across the tissue of interest (e.g., partial brain field = 57.1%; mantle field = 61.3%) than patients treated with fields delivering a more homogeneous dose (e.g., whole brain field = 100%). Excess odds ratios per Gy (95% CI) from conditional logistic regression were 1.25 (0.33-6.33) and 1.20 (0.31-6.14) for brain tumors and 0.21 (0.05-0.77) and 0.10 (0.02-0.44) for breast cancer, using location-specific and body-region doses, respectively. We observed that body-region doses can approximate location-specific doses when the tissue of interest is clearly in the radiation field or outside the treated body region. Agreement is lower when there is greater ambiguity of SN location relative to the treatment field.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31794291      PMCID: PMC7063664          DOI: 10.1667/RR15308.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Res        ISSN: 0033-7587            Impact factor:   2.841


  29 in total

1.  Dose reconstruction for therapeutic and diagnostic radiation exposures: use in epidemiological studies.

Authors:  Marilyn Stovall; Rita Weathers; Catherine Kasper; Susan A Smith; Lois Travis; Elaine Ron; Ruth Kleinerman
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 2.841

2.  Aging and risk of severe, disabling, life-threatening, and fatal events in the childhood cancer survivor study.

Authors:  Gregory T Armstrong; Toana Kawashima; Wendy Leisenring; Kayla Stratton; Marilyn Stovall; Melissa M Hudson; Charles A Sklar; Leslie L Robison; Kevin C Oeffinger
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Adaptations to a Generalized Radiation Dose Reconstruction Methodology for Use in Epidemiologic Studies: An Update from the MD Anderson Late Effect Group.

Authors:  Rebecca M Howell; Susan A Smith; Rita E Weathers; Stephen F Kry; Marilyn Stovall
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 2.841

4.  Involved-field radiotherapy is equally effective and less toxic compared with extended-field radiotherapy after four cycles of chemotherapy in patients with early-stage unfavorable Hodgkin's lymphoma: results of the HD8 trial of the German Hodgkin's Lymphoma Study Group.

Authors:  Andreas Engert; Petra Schiller; Andreas Josting; Richard Herrmann; Peter Koch; Markus Sieber; Friederike Boissevain; Maike De Wit; Jorg Mezger; Eckhart Duhmke; Normann Willich; Rolf-Peter Muller; Bernhard F Schmidt; Helmut Renner; Hans Konrad Muller-Hermelink; Beate Pfistner; Jurgen Wolf; Dirk Hasenclever; Markus Loffler; Volker Diehl
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-08-11       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Radiation dose and breast cancer risk in the childhood cancer survivor study.

Authors:  Peter D Inskip; Leslie L Robison; Marilyn Stovall; Susan A Smith; Sue Hammond; Ann C Mertens; John A Whitton; Lisa Diller; Lisa Kenney; Sarah S Donaldson; Anna T Meadows; Joseph P Neglia
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-07-20       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 6.  Second solid cancers after radiation therapy: a systematic review of the epidemiologic studies of the radiation dose-response relationship.

Authors:  Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Ethel Gilbert; Rochelle Curtis; Peter Inskip; Ruth Kleinerman; Lindsay Morton; Preetha Rajaraman; Mark P Little
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2012-10-24       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016.

Authors:  Kimberly D Miller; Rebecca L Siegel; Chun Chieh Lin; Angela B Mariotto; Joan L Kramer; Julia H Rowland; Kevin D Stein; Rick Alteri; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 508.702

8.  Genome-Wide Association Study to Identify Susceptibility Loci That Modify Radiation-Related Risk for Breast Cancer After Childhood Cancer.

Authors:  Lindsay M Morton; Joshua N Sampson; Gregory T Armstrong; Ting-Huei Chen; Melissa M Hudson; Eric Karlins; Casey L Dagnall; Shengchao Alfred Li; Carmen L Wilson; Deo Kumar Srivastava; Wei Liu; Guolian Kang; Kevin C Oeffinger; Tara O Henderson; Chaya S Moskowitz; Todd M Gibson; Diana M Merino; Jeannette R Wong; Sue Hammond; Joseph P Neglia; Lucie M Turcotte; Jeremy Miller; Laura Bowen; William A Wheeler; Wendy M Leisenring; John A Whitton; Laurie Burdette; Charles Chung; Belynda D Hicks; Kristine Jones; Mitchell J Machiela; Aurelie Vogt; Zhaoming Wang; Meredith Yeager; Geoffrey Neale; Matthew Lear; Louise C Strong; Yutaka Yasui; Marilyn Stovall; Rita E Weathers; Susan A Smith; Rebecca Howell; Stella M Davies; Gretchen A Radloff; Kenan Onel; Amy Berrington de González; Peter D Inskip; Preetha Rajaraman; Joseph F Fraumeni; Smita Bhatia; Stephen J Chanock; Margaret A Tucker; Leslie L Robison
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  New primary neoplasms of the central nervous system in survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

Authors:  Joseph P Neglia; Leslie L Robison; Marilyn Stovall; Yan Liu; Roger J Packer; Sue Hammond; Yutaka Yasui; Catherine E Kasper; Ann C Mertens; Sarah S Donaldson; Anna T Meadows; Peter D Inskip
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-11-01       Impact factor: 11.816

10.  Current Challenges and New Opportunities for Gene-Environment Interaction Studies of Complex Diseases.

Authors:  Kimberly McAllister; Leah E Mechanic; Christopher Amos; Hugues Aschard; Ian A Blair; Nilanjan Chatterjee; David Conti; W James Gauderman; Li Hsu; Carolyn M Hutter; Marta M Jankowska; Jacqueline Kerr; Peter Kraft; Stephen B Montgomery; Bhramar Mukherjee; George J Papanicolaou; Chirag J Patel; Marylyn D Ritchie; Beate R Ritz; Duncan C Thomas; Peng Wei; John S Witte
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-10-01       Impact factor: 5.363

View more
  1 in total

1.  Radiotherapy-Related Dose and Irradiated Volume Effects on Breast Cancer Risk Among Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors.

Authors:  Sander Roberti; Flora E van Leeuwen; Cécile M Ronckers; Inge M Krul; Florent de Vathaire; Cristina Veres; Ibrahima Diallo; Cécile P M Janus; Berthe M P Aleman; Nicola S Russell; Michael Hauptmann
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-09-09       Impact factor: 11.816

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.