Tahir Yusufaly1, Austin Miller2, Ana Medina-Palomo1, Casey W Williamson1, Hannah Nguyen3, Jessica Lowenstein3, Charles A Leath4, Ying Xiao5, Kevin L Moore1, Katherine M Moxley6, Carlos M Chevere-Mourino7, Tony Y Eng8, Tarrick Zaid9, Loren K Mell10. 1. Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. 2. NRG Oncology, Statistics and Data Management Center, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York. 3. IROC Houston QA Center, MD Anderson, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 5. Department of Medical Physics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 7. Radiation Oncology Center, Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 9. TA Methodist Hospital System, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas. 10. Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: lmell@health.ucsd.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Sparing active bone marrow (ABM) can reduce acute hematologic toxicity in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer, but ABM segmentation based on positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is costly. We sought to develop an atlas-based ABM segmentation method for implementation in a prospective clinical trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multiatlas was built on a training set of 144 patients and validated in 32 patients from the NRG-GY006 clinical trial. ABM for individual patients was defined as the subvolume of pelvic bone greater than the individual mean standardized uptake value on registered 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT images. Atlas-based and custom ABM segmentations were compared using the Dice similarity coefficient and mean distance to agreement and used to generate ABM-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy plans. Dose-volume metrics and normal tissue complication probabilities of the two approaches were compared using linear regression. RESULTS: Atlas-based ABM volumes (mean [standard deviation], 548.4 [88.3] cm3) were slightly larger than custom ABM volumes (535.1 [93.2] cm3), with a Dice similarity coefficient of 0.73. Total pelvic bone marrow V20 and Dmean were systematically higher and custom ABM V10 was systematically lower with custom-based plans (slope: 1.021 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.005-1.037], 1.014 [95% CI, 1.006-1.022], and 0.98 [95% CI, 0.97-0.99], respectively). We found no significant differences between atlas-based and custom-based plans in bowel, rectum, bladder, femoral heads, or target dose-volume metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Atlas-based ABM segmentation can reduce pelvic bone marrow dose while achieving comparable target and other normal tissue dosimetry. This approach may allow ABM sparing in settings where PET/CT is unavailable.
PURPOSE: Sparing active bone marrow (ABM) can reduce acute hematologic toxicity in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer, but ABM segmentation based on positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is costly. We sought to develop an atlas-based ABM segmentation method for implementation in a prospective clinical trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multiatlas was built on a training set of 144 patients and validated in 32 patients from the NRG-GY006 clinical trial. ABM for individual patients was defined as the subvolume of pelvic bone greater than the individual mean standardized uptake value on registered 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT images. Atlas-based and custom ABM segmentations were compared using the Dice similarity coefficient and mean distance to agreement and used to generate ABM-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy plans. Dose-volume metrics and normal tissue complication probabilities of the two approaches were compared using linear regression. RESULTS: Atlas-based ABM volumes (mean [standard deviation], 548.4 [88.3] cm3) were slightly larger than custom ABM volumes (535.1 [93.2] cm3), with a Dice similarity coefficient of 0.73. Total pelvic bone marrow V20 and Dmean were systematically higher and custom ABM V10 was systematically lower with custom-based plans (slope: 1.021 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.005-1.037], 1.014 [95% CI, 1.006-1.022], and 0.98 [95% CI, 0.97-0.99], respectively). We found no significant differences between atlas-based and custom-based plans in bowel, rectum, bladder, femoral heads, or target dose-volume metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Atlas-based ABM segmentation can reduce pelvic bone marrow dose while achieving comparable target and other normal tissue dosimetry. This approach may allow ABM sparing in settings where PET/CT is unavailable.
Authors: Brent S Rose; Yun Liang; Steven K Lau; Lindsay G Jensen; Catheryn M Yashar; Carl K Hoh; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-01-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Loren K Mell; Joel D Kochanski; John C Roeske; Josh J Haslam; Neil Mehta; S Diane Yamada; Jean A Hurteau; Yvonne C Collins; Ernst Lengyel; Arno J Mundt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-06-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kevin Albuquerque; David Giangreco; Courtney Morrison; Mohammed Siddiqui; Jim Sinacore; Ronald Potkul; John Roeske Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-05-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nan Li; Sonal S Noticewala; Casey W Williamson; Hanjie Shen; Igor Sirak; Rafal Tarnawski; Umesh Mahantshetty; Carl K Hoh; Kevin L Moore; Loren K Mell Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Olgun Elicin; Sharon Callaway; John O Prior; Jean Bourhis; Mahmut Ozsahin; Fernanda G Herrera Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Brent S Rose; Bulent Aydogan; Yun Liang; Mete Yeginer; Michael D Hasselle; Virag Dandekar; Rounak Bafana; Catheryn M Yashar; Arno J Mundt; John C Roeske; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-04-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Loren K Mell; Igor Sirák; Lichun Wei; Rafal Tarnawski; Umesh Mahantshetty; Catheryn M Yashar; Michael T McHale; Ronghui Xu; Gordon Honerkamp-Smith; Ruben Carmona; Mary Wright; Casey W Williamson; Linda Kasaová; Nan Li; Stephen Kry; Jeff Michalski; Walter Bosch; William Straube; Julie Schwarz; Jessica Lowenstein; Steve B Jiang; Cheryl C Saenz; Steve Plaxe; John Einck; Chonlakiet Khorprasert; Paul Koonings; Terry Harrison; Mei Shi; A J Mundt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ann H Klopp; Jennifer Moughan; Lorraine Portelance; Brigitte E Miller; Mohammad R Salehpour; Evangeline Hildebrandt; Jenny Nuanjing; David D'Souza; Luis Souhami; William Small; Rakesh Gaur; Anuja Jhingran Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mylin A Torres; Anuja Jhingran; Howard D Thames; Charles F Levenback; Diane C Bodurka; Lois M Ramondetta; Patricia J Eifel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-09-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sarah M McGuire; Yusuf Menda; Laura L Boles Ponto; Brandie Gross; Mindi TenNapel; Brian J Smith; John E Bayouth Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Casey W Williamson; Igor Sirák; Ronghui Xu; Lorraine Portelance; Lichun Wei; Rafal Tarnawski; Umesh Mahantshetty; Elena S Heide; Catheryn M Yashar; Michael T McHale; Walter Bosch; Jessica Lowenstein; Cheryl C Saenz; Steve Plaxe; Ramez Eskander; John Einck; Arno J Mundt; Jyoti Mayadev; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-08-20 Impact factor: 7.038