A measurement technique to determine the calibration accuracy of an electromagnetic tracking system to radiation isocenter

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135100/1/mp3910.pd

New genetic loci link adipose and insulin biology to body fat distribution.

Body fat distribution is a heritable trait and a well-established predictor of adverse metabolic outcomes, independent of overall adiposity. To increase our understanding of the genetic basis of body fat distribution and its molecular links to cardiometabolic traits, here we conduct genome-wide association meta-analyses of traits related to waist and hip circumferences in up to 224,459 individuals. We identify 49 loci (33 new) associated with waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for body mass index (BMI), and an additional 19 loci newly associated with related waist and hip circumference measures (P < 5 × 10(-8)). In total, 20 of the 49 waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for BMI loci show significant sexual dimorphism, 19 of which display a stronger effect in women. The identified loci were enriched for genes expressed in adipose tissue and for putative regulatory elements in adipocytes. Pathway analyses implicated adipogenesis, angiogenesis, transcriptional regulation and insulin resistance as processes affecting fat distribution, providing insight into potential pathophysiological mechanisms

Cardiac Dose in Locally Advanced Lung Cancer: Results from a Statewide Consortium

PURPOSE: The heart has been identified as a potential significant organ at risk in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with radiation. Practice patterns and radiation dose delivered to the heart in routine practice in academic and community settings are unknown. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2012 and 2017, 746 patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer were treated with radiation within the statewide Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium (MROQC). Cardiac radiation dose was characterized, including mean and those exceeding historical or recently proposed Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and NRG Oncology constraints. Sites were surveyed to determine dose constraints used in practice. Patient-, anatomic-, and treatment-related associations with cardiac dose were analyzed using multivariable regression analysis and inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of patients had a left-sided primary, and 80% had N2 or N3 disease. Median prescription was 60 Gy (interquartile range, 60-66 Gy). Twenty-two percent of patients were prescribed 60 Gy in 2012, which increased to 62% by 2017 (P \u3c .001). Median mean heart dose was 12 Gy (interquartile range, 5-19 Gy). The volume receiving 30 Gy (V30 Gy) exceeded 50% in 5% of patients, and V40 Gy was \u3e35% in 3% of cases. No heart dose constraint was uniformly applied. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) usage increased from 33% in 2012 to 86% in 2017 (P \u3c .001) and was significantly associated with more complex cases (larger planning target volume, higher stage, and preexisting cardiac disease). In multivariable regression analysis, IMRT was associated with a lower percent of the heart receiving V30 Gy (absolute reduction = 3.0%; 95% confidence interval, 0.5%-5.4%) and V50 Gy (absolute reduction = 3.6%; 95% confidence interval, 2.4%-4.8%) but not mean dose. In inverse probability weighting analysis, IMRT was associated with 29% to 48% relative reduction in percent of the heart receiving V40-V60 Gy without increasing lung or esophageal dose or compromising planning target volume coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Within MROQC, historical cardiac constraints were met in most cases, yet 1 in 4 patients received a mean heart dose exceeding 20 Gy. Future work is required to standardize heart dose constraints and to develop treatment approaches that allow for constraints to be met without compromising other planning goals

American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 263: Standardizing Nomenclatures in Radiation Oncology

A substantial barrier to the single- and multi-institutional aggregation of data to supporting clinical trials, practice quality improvement efforts, and development of big data analytics resource systems is the lack of standardized nomenclatures for expressing dosimetric data. To address this issue, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 263 was charged with providing nomenclature guidelines and values in radiation oncology for use in clinical trials, data-pooling initiatives, population-based studies, and routine clinical care by standardizing: (1) structure names across image processing and treatment planning system platforms; (2) nomenclature for dosimetric data (eg, dose–volume histogram [DVH]-based metrics); (3) templates for clinical trial groups and users of an initial subset of software platforms to facilitate adoption of the standards; (4) formalism for nomenclature schema, which can accommodate the addition of other structures defined in the future. A multisociety, multidisciplinary, multinational group of 57 members representing stake holders ranging from large academic centers to community clinics and vendors was assembled, including physicists, physicians, dosimetrists, and vendors. The stakeholder groups represented in the membership included the AAPM, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), NRG Oncology, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), Children's Oncology Group (COG), Integrating Healthcare Enterprise in Radiation Oncology (IHE-RO), and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine working group (DICOM WG); A nomenclature system for target and organ at risk volumes and DVH nomenclature was developed and piloted to demonstrate viability across a range of clinics and within the framework of clinical trials. The final report was approved by AAPM in October 2017. The approval process included review by 8 AAPM committees, with additional review by ASTRO, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), and American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD). This Executive Summary of the report highlights the key recommendations for clinical practice, research, and trials

American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 263: Standardizing Nomenclatures in Radiation Oncology

A substantial barrier to the single- and multi-institutional aggregation of data to supporting clinical trials, practice quality improvement efforts, and development of big data analytics resource systems is the lack of standardized nomenclatures for expressing dosimetric data. To address this issue, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 263 was charged with providing nomenclature guidelines and values in radiation oncology for use in clinical trials, data-pooling initiatives, population-based studies, and routine clinical care by standardizing: (1) structure names across image processing and treatment planning system platforms; (2) nomenclature for dosimetric data (eg, dose-volume histogram [DVH]-based metrics); (3) templates for clinical trial groups and users of an initial subset of software platforms to facilitate adoption of the standards; (4) formalism for nomenclature schema, which can accommodate the addition of other structures defined in the future. A multisociety, multidisciplinary, multinational group of 57 members representing stake holders ranging from large academic centers to community clinics and vendors was assembled, including physicists, physicians, dosimetrists, and vendors. The stakeholder groups represented in the membership included the AAPM, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), NRG Oncology, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), Children\u27s Oncology Group (COG), Integrating Healthcare Enterprise in Radiation Oncology (IHE-RO), and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine working group (DICOM WG); A nomenclature system for target and organ at risk volumes and DVH nomenclature was developed and piloted to demonstrate viability across a range of clinics and within the framework of clinical trials. The final report was approved by AAPM in October 2017. The approval process included review by 8 AAPM committees, with additional review by ASTRO, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), and American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD). This Executive Summary of the report highlights the key recommendations for clinical practice, research, and trials