Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The Importance of Verification CT-QA Scans in Patients Treated with IMPT for Head and Neck Cancers.
Evans, Jaden D; Harper, Riley H; Petersen, Molly; Harmsen, William S; Anand, Aman; Hunzeker, Ashley; Deiter, Noelle C; Schultz, Heather; Jethwa, Krishan R; Lester, Scott C; Routman, David M; Ma, Daniel J; Garces, Yolanda I; Neben-Wittich, Michelle A; Laack, Nadia N; Beltran, Chris J; Patel, Samir H; McGee, Lisa A; Rwigema, Jean-Claude M; Mundy, Daniel W; Foote, Robert L.
Afiliação
  • Evans JD; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Harper RH; Department of Radiation Oncology and Precision Genomics, Intermountain Healthcare, Ogden, UT, USA.
  • Petersen M; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Harmsen WS; Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Anand A; Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Hunzeker A; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
  • Deiter NC; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Schultz H; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Jethwa KR; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Lester SC; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Routman DM; Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center, New Haven, CT, USA.
  • Ma DJ; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Garces YI; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Neben-Wittich MA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Laack NN; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Beltran CJ; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Patel SH; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • McGee LA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  • Rwigema JM; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
  • Mundy DW; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
  • Foote RL; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Int J Part Ther ; 7(1): 41-53, 2020.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33094135
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

To understand how verification computed tomography-quality assurance (CT-QA) scans influenced clinical decision-making to replan patients with head and neck cancer and identify predictors for replanning to guide intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) clinical practice. PATIENTS AND

METHODS:

We performed a quality-improvement study by prospectively collecting data on 160 consecutive patients with head and neck cancer treated using spot-scanning IMPT who underwent weekly verification CT-QA scans. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the cumulative probability of a replan by week. Predictors for replanning were determined with univariate (UVA) and multivariate (MVA) Cox model hazard ratios (HRs). Logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios (ORs). P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS:

Of the 160 patients, 79 (49.4%) had verification CT-QA scans, which prompted a replan. The cumulative probability of a replan by week 1 was 13.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.82-18.9), week 2, 25.0% (95% CI, 18.0-31.4), week 3, 33.1% (95% CI, 25.4-40.0), week 4, 45.6% (95% CI, 37.3-52.8), and week 5 and 6, 49.4% (95% CI, 41.0-56.6). Predictors for replanning were sinonasal disease site (UVA HR, 1.82, P = .04; MVA HR, 3.64, P = .03), advanced stage disease (UVA HR, 4.68, P < .01; MVA HR, 3.10, P < .05), dose > 60 Gy equivalent (GyE; relative biologic effectiveness, 1.1) (UVA HR, 1.99, P < .01; MVA HR, 2.20, P < .01), primary disease (UVA HR, 2.00 versus recurrent, P = .01; MVA HR, 2.46, P = .01), concurrent chemotherapy (UVA HR, 2.05, P < .01; MVA not statistically significant [NS]), definitive intent treatment (UVA HR, 1.70 versus adjuvant, P < .02; MVA NS), bilateral neck treatment (UVA HR, 2.07, P = .03; MVA NS), and greater number of beams (5 beam UVA HR, 5.55 versus 1 or 2 beams, P < .02; MVA NS). Maximal weight change from baseline was associated with higher odds of a replan (≥3 kg OR, 1.97, P = .04; ≥ 5 kg OR, 2.13, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS:

Weekly verification CT-QA scans frequently influenced clinical decision-making to replan. Additional studies that evaluate the practice of monitoring IMPT-treated patients with weekly CT-QA scans and whether that improves clinical outcomes are warranted.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Int J Part Ther Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Int J Part Ther Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos