Public Awareness of the Fencing Response as an Indicator of Traumatic Brain Injury: Quantitative Study of Twitter and Wikipedia Data.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a disruption in normal brain function caused by an impact of external forces on the head. TBI affects millions of individuals per year, many potentially experiencing chronic symptoms and long-term disability, creating a public health crisis and an economic burden on society. The public discourse around sport-related TBIs has increased in recent decades; however, recognition of a possible TBI remains a challenge. The fencing response is an immediate posturing of the limbs, which can occur in individuals who sustain a TBI and can be used as an overt indicator of TBI. Typically, an individual demonstrating the fencing response exhibits extension in 1 arm and flexion in the contralateral arm immediately upon impact to the head; variations of forearm posturing among each limb have been observed. The tonic posturing is retained for several seconds, sufficient for observation and recognition of a TBI. Since the publication of the original peer-reviewed article on the fencing response, there have been efforts to raise awareness of the fencing response as a visible sign of TBI through publicly available web-based platforms, such as Twitter and Wikipedia. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to quantify trends that demonstrate levels of public discussion and awareness of the fencing response over time using data from Twitter and Wikipedia. METHODS: Raw Twitter data from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, were accessed using the RStudio package academictwitteR and queried for the text "fencing response." Data for page views of the Fencing Response Wikipedia article from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, were accessed using the RStudio packages wikipediatrend and pageviews. Data were clustered by weekday, month, half-year (to represent the American football season vs off-season), and year to identify trends over time. Seasonal regression analysis was used to analyze the relationship between the number of fencing response tweets and page views and month of the year. RESULTS: Twitter mentions of the fencing response and Wikipedia page views increased overall from 2010 to 2019, with hundreds of tweets and hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia page views per year. Twitter mentions peaked during the American football season, especially on and following game days. Wikipedia page views did not demonstrate a clear weekday or seasonal pattern, but instead had multiple peaks across various months and years, with January having more page views than May. CONCLUSIONS: Here, we demonstrated increased awareness of the fencing response over time using public data from Twitter and Wikipedia. Effective scientific communication through free public platforms can help spread awareness of clinical indicators of TBI, such as the fencing response. Greater awareness of the fencing response as a "red-flag" sign of TBI among coaches, athletic trainers, and sports organizations can help with medical care and return-to-play decisions.

Improvements in treatment planning calculations motivated by tightening IMRT QA tolerances.

Implementing tighter intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA) tolerances initially resulted in high numbers of marginal or failing QA results and motivated a number of improvements to our calculational processes. This work details those improvements and their effect on results. One hundred eighty IMRT plans analyzed previously were collected and new gamma criteria were applied and compared to the original results. The results were used to obtain an estimate for the number of plans that would require additional dose volume histogram (DVH)-based analysis and therefore predicted workload increase. For 2 months and 133 plans, the established criteria were continued while the new criteria were applied and tracked in parallel. Because the number of marginal or failing plans far exceeded the predicted levels, a number of calculational elements were investigated: IMRT modeling parameters, calculation grid size, and couch top modeling. After improvements to these elements, the new criteria were clinically implemented and the frequency of passing, questionable, and failing plans measured for the subsequent 15 months and 674 plans. The retrospective analysis of selected IMRT QA results demonstrated that 75% of plans should pass, while 19% of IMRT QA plans would need DVH-based analysis and an additional 6% would fail. However, after applying the tighter criteria for 2 months, the distribution of plans was significantly different from prediction with questionable or failing plans reaching 47%. After investigating and improving several elements of the IMRT calculation processes, the frequency of questionable plans was reduced to 11% and that of failing plans to less than 1%. Tighter IMRT QA tolerances revealed the need to improve several elements of our plan calculations. As a consequence, the accuracy of our plans have improved, and the frequency of finding marginal or failing IMRT QA results, remains within our practical ability to respond.

A clinically relevant IMRT QA workflow: Design and validation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine clinically relevant pass/question/fail criteria for gamma analysis of intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) plans, identify which plans should be further analyzed with dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics, and create a workflow for performing that DVH-based analysis. METHODS: A total of 11 plans, 5 prostate and 6 head/neck, were selected to represent known good plans based on their high-passing rate using conventional IMRT QA criteria. These were modified by moving the programmed MLC positions to underdose the target or overdose important structures by varying amounts. Commercially available hardware/software was used to measure and analyze all plans (76 total) using 4%/3 mm, 3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm gamma criteria. Two receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves per criterion were created to assess effective passing rates. One ROC curve was to find a higher threshold that determined a clear pass and the second to find a lower threshold to determine a clear failure. Plans between these two thresholds need DVH-based analysis to assess the clinical consequence of the dose difference. The modified plans were analyzed in the planning system and reconstructed in commercially available DVH-based analysis software to access the accuracy and usefulness of the software. RESULTS: Analysis of the ROC curves showed optimal pass and fail thresholds for plan error detection per criterion to achieve clinically relevant sensitivity and specificity. Based on measurement uncertainty and pass/fail ranges, 3%/2 mm gamma criteria with a pass threshold of 95% and a fail threshold of 90% were most optimal. DVH analysis showed good agreement with all reconstructed plans except where the changes to the MLC patterns caused the periphery of the target to be underdosed. For questionable plans, comparing the organ-specific DVHs to the physician-provided planning constraints proved to be an efficient and effective workflow since plans for which the target dose was slightly high or where organs at risk were underdosed could be released for the treatment without consulting the physician for a clinical decision. CONCLUSION: This work indicates the potential for appreciable improvement in error detection for IMRT QA. Using effective pass/fail thresholds to determine plans that need DVH-based analysis minimizes the need for excessive, time-consuming, analysis, and making use of the dosimetric constraints of the plan minimizes the burden on physicians. Overall, DVH-based analysis is a powerful tool that can provide substantial insight over the traditional approach that does not provide structure-specific data.

Common error pathways seen in the RO-ILS data that demonstrate opportunities for improving treatment safety.

PURPOSE: The Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS) receives event reports from facilities across the country. This effort extracted common error pathways seen in the data. These pathways, expressed as fault trees, demonstrate the need for, and opportunities for, preventing these errors and/or limiting their propagation to treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: As of the third quarter of 2016, 2344 event reports had been submitted to RO-ILS and reviewed. A total of 396 of the reports judged highest priority were rereviewed and assigned up to 3 keywords to classify events. Based on patterns among the keyword assignments, the data were further aggregated into pathways leading to 3 general error types: "problematic plan approved for treatment," "wrong shift instructions given to therapists," and "wrong shift performed at treatment." Fault trees were created showing how different errors at different stages in the treatment process combine to flow into these general error types. RESULTS: A total of 173 of the 396 (44%) events were characterized as belonging to 1 of these 3 general error types. Ninety-nine events were defined as "problematic plan approved for treatment," 40 as "wrong shift instructions given to therapists," and 34 as "wrong shift performed at treatment." Seventy-six of these events (44%) resulted in incorrectly delivered treatment. Event discovery was by therapists (n = 76), physicists (n = 45), physicians (n = 23), dosimetrists (n = 15), or not identified (n = 9); 5 events were found as a result of the patient questioning the staff. For the event type "problematic plan approved for treatment," 64 of the 99 (65%) events were attributable to physician error: incorrect target or dosing pattern prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: Data extracted from RO-ILS event reports demonstrate common error pathways in radiation oncology that propagate all the way to treatment. Additional study and coordination of efforts is needed to develop and share best practices to address the sources of these errors and curtail their propagation.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria for external beam radiation therapy treatment planning for clinically localized prostate cancer, part II of II.

PURPOSE: To present the most updated American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria formed by an expert panel on the appropriate delivery of external beam radiation to manage stage T1 and T2 prostate cancer (in the definitive setting and post-prostatectomy) and to provide clinical variants with expert recommendations based on accompanying Appropriateness Criteria for target volumes and treatment planning. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a panel of multidisciplinary experts. The guideline development and revision process includes an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In instances in which evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment. RESULTS: The panel summarizes the most recent and relevant literature on the topic, including organ motion and localization methods, image guidance, and delivery techniques (eg, 3-dimensional conformal intensity modulation). The panel presents 7 clinical variants, including (1) a standard case and cases with (2) a distended rectum, (3) a large-volume prostate, (4) bilateral hip implants, (5) inflammatory bowel disease, (6) prior prostatectomy, and (7) a pannus extending into the radiation field. Each case outlines the appropriate techniques for simulation, treatment planning, image guidance, dose, and fractionation. Numerical rating and commentary is given for each treatment approach in each variant. CONCLUSIONS: External beam radiation is a key component of the curative management of T1 and T2 prostate cancer. By combining the most recent medical literature, these Appropriateness Criteria can aid clinicians in determining the appropriate treatment delivery and personalized approaches for individual patients.

Exploratory study of the association of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan robustness with local failure in head and neck cancer.

This work is to show which is more relevant to cause local failures (LFs) due to patient setup uncertainty between the planning target volume (PTV) underdosage and the potential target underdosage subject to patient setup uncertainties in head and neck (H&N) cancer treated with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Thirteen LFs in 10 H&N patients treated by VMAT were analyzed. Measures have been taken to minimize the chances of insufficient target delineation for these patients and the patients were clinically determined to have LF based on the PET/CT scan results by an experienced radiologist and then reviewed by a second experienced radiation oncologist. Two methods were used to identify the possible locations of LF due to underdosage: (a) examining the standard VMAT plan, in which the underdosed volume in the nominal dose distribution (UVN) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses from PTVs, and (b) plan robustness analysis, in which in addition to the nominal dose distribution, six perturbed dose distributions were created by translating the CT iso-center in three cardinal directions by the PTV margin. The coldest dose distribution was represented by the minimum of the seven doses in each voxel. The underdosed volume in the coldest dose distribution (UVC) was generated by subtracting the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the coldest dose distribution from the volumes receiving the prescription doses in the nominal dose distribution. UVN and UVC were subsequently examined for spatial association with the locations of LF. The association was tested using the binominal distribution and the Fisher's exact test of independence. We found that of 13 LFs, 11 were associated with UVCs (P = 0.011), while three were associated with UVNs (P = 0.99). We concluded that the possible target underdosage due to patient setup uncertainties appeared to be a more relevant factor associated with LF in VMAT for H&N cancer than the compromised PTV coverage at least for the patients included in this study.

A Prospective Trial of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Incorporating a Simultaneous Integrated Boost for Prostate Cancer: Long-term Outcomes Compared With Standard Image Guided IMRT.

PURPOSE: This report describes the long-term outcomes of a prospective trial of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), integrating a 111In capromab pendetide (ProstaScint) scan-directed simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seventy-one patients with T1N0M0 to T4N0M0 prostate cancer were enrolled, and their ProstaScint and pelvic computed tomography scans were coregistered for treatment planning. The entire prostate received 75.6 Gy in 42 fractions with IMRT, whereas regions of increased uptake on ProstaScint scans received 82 Gy as an SIB. Patients with intermediate- and high-risk disease also received 6 months and 12 months of adjuvant hormonal therapy, respectively. RESULTS: The study enrolled 31 low-, 30 intermediate-, and 10 high-risk patients. The median follow-up was 120 months (range, 24-150 months). The 10-year biochemical control rates were 85% for the entire cohort and 84%, 84%, and 90% for patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease, respectively. The 10-year survival rate of the entire cohort was 69%. Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level >10 ng/mL and boost volume of >10% of the prostate volume were significantly associated with poorer biochemical control and survival. The outcomes were compared with those of a cohort of 302 patients treated similarly but without the SIB and followed up for a median of 91 months (range, 6-138 months). The 5- and 10-year biochemical control rates were 86% and 61%, respectively, in patients without the SIB compared with 94% and 85%, respectively, in patients in this trial who received the SIB (P=.02). The cohort that received an SIB did not have increased toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The described IMRT strategy, integrating multiple imaging modalities to administer 75.6 Gy to the entire prostate with a boost dose of 82 Gy, was feasible. The addition of the SIB was associated with greater biochemical control but not toxicity. Modern imaging technology can be used to locally intensify the dose to tumors and spare normal tissues, producing very favorable long-term biochemical disease control.

The spatial accuracy of two frameless, linear accelerator-based systems for single-isocenter, multitarget cranial radiosurgery.

Single-isocenter, multitarget cranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is more efficient than using an isocenter for each target, but spatial positioning uncertainties can be magnified at locations away from the isocenter. This study reports on the spatial accuracy of two frameless, linac-based SRS systems for multitarget, single-isocenter SRS as a function of distance from the isocenter. One system uses the ExacTrac platform for image guidance and the other localizes with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). For each platform, a phantom with 12 target BBs distributed up to 13.8 cm from the isocenter was aligned starting from five different initial offsets and then imaged with the treatment beam at seven different gantry and couch angles. The distribution of the resulting positioning errors demonstrated the value of adding a 1-mm PTV margin for targets up to about 7-8 cm from the isocenter. For distances 10 cm or more, the CBCT-based alignment remained within 1.1 mm while the ExacTrac-based alignment differed by up to 2.2 mm.

Robustness quantification methods comparison in volumetric modulated arc therapy to treat head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: To compare plan robustness of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to compare the effectiveness of 3 plan robustness quantification methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The VMAT and IMRT plans were created for 9 head and neck cancer patients. For each plan, 6 new perturbed dose distributions were computed using ±3 mm setup deviations along each of the 3 orientations. Worst-case analysis (WCA), dose-volume histogram (DVH) band (DVHB), and root-mean-square dose-volume histogram (RVH) were used to quantify plan robustness. In WCA, a shaded area in the DVH plot bounded by the DVHs from the lowest and highest dose per voxel was displayed. In DVHB, we displayed the envelope of all DVHs in band graphs of all the 7 dose distributions. The RVH represents the relative volume on the vertical axis and the root-mean-square-dose on the horizontal axis. The width from the first 2 methods at different target DVH indices (such as D95% and D5%) and the area under the RVH curve for the target were used to indicate plan robustness. Results were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: The DVHB showed that the width at D95% of IMRT was larger than that of VMAT (unit Gy) (1.59 vs 1.18) and the width at D5% of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (0.59 vs 0.54). The WCA showed similar results between IMRT and VMAT plans (D95%: 3.28 vs 3.00; D5%: 1.68 vs 1.95). The RVH showed the area under the RVH curve of IMRT was comparable to that of VMAT (1.13 vs 1.15). No statistical significance was found in plan robustness between IMRT and VMAT. CONCLUSIONS: The VMAT is comparable to IMRT in terms of plan robustness. For the 3 quantification methods, WCA and DVHB are DVH parameter-dependent, whereas RVH captures the overall effect of uncertainties.

RO-ILS: Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System: A report from the first year of experience.

PURPOSE: Incident learning is a critical tool to improve patient safety. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 established essential legal protections to allow for the collection and analysis of medical incidents nationwide. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Working with a federally listed patient safety organization (PSO), the American Society for Radiation Oncology and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine established RO-ILS: Radiation Oncology Incident Learning System (RO-ILS). This paper provides an overview of the RO-ILS background, development, structure, and workflow, as well as examples of preliminary data and lessons learned. RO-ILS is actively collecting, analyzing, and reporting patient safety events. RESULTS: As of February 24, 2015, 46 institutions have signed contracts with Clarity PSO, with 33 contracts pending. Of these, 27 sites have entered 739 patient safety events into local database space, with 358 events (48%) pushed to the national database. CONCLUSIONS: To establish an optimal safety culture, radiation oncology departments should establish formal systems for incident learning that include participation in a nationwide incident learning program such as RO-ILS.

An improvement in IMRT QA results and beam matching in linacs using statistical process control.

The purpose of this study is to apply the principles of statistical process control (SPC) in the context of patient specific intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA to set clinic-specific action limits and evaluate the impact of changes to the multileaf collimator (MLC) calibrations on IMRT QA results. Ten months of IMRT QA data with 247 patient QAs collected on three beam-matched linacs were retrospectively analyzed with a focus on the gamma pass rate (GPR) and the average ratio between the measured and planned doses. Initial control charts and action limits were calculated. Based on this data, changes were made to the leaf gap parameter for the MLCs to improve the consistency between linacs. This leaf gap parameter is tested monthly using a MLC sweep test. A follow-up dataset with 424 unique QAs were used to evaluate the impact of the leaf gap parameter change. The initial data average GPR was 98.6% with an SPC action limit of 93.7%. The average ratio of doses was 1.003, with an upper action limit of 1.017 and a lower action limit of 0.989. The sweep test results for the linacs were -1.8%, 0%, and +1.2% from nominal. After the adjustment of the leaf gap parameter, all sweep test results were within 0.4% of nominal. Subsequently, the average GPR was 99.4% with an SPC action limit of 97.3%. The average ratio of doses was 0.997 with an upper action limit of 1.011 and a lower action limit of 0.981. Applying the principles of SPC to IMRT QA allowed small differences between closely matched linacs to be identified and reduced. Ongoing analysis will monitor the process and be used to refine the clinical action limits for IMRT QA.

Outcome and toxicity for patients treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We evaluate long-term disease control and chronic toxicities observed in patients treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 302 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy between July 2000 and May 2005 were retrospectively analyzed. Risk groups (low, intermediate and high) were designated based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Biochemical control was based on the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (Phoenix) consensus definition. Chronic toxicity was measured at peak symptoms and at last visit. Toxicity was scored based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4. RESULTS: The median radiation dose delivered was 75.6 Gy (range 70.2 to 77.4) and 35.4% of patients received androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were followed until death or from 6 to 138 months (median 91) for those alive at last evaluation. Local and distant recurrence rates were 5% and 8.6%, respectively. At 9 years biochemical control rates were 77.4% for low risk, 69.6% for intermediate risk and 53.3% for high risk cases (log rank p = 0.05). On multivariate analysis T stage and prostate specific antigen group were prognostic for biochemical control. At last followup only 0% and 0.7% of patients had persistent grade 3 or greater gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, respectively. High risk group was associated with higher distant metastasis rate (p = 0.02) and death from prostate cancer (p = 0.0012). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents one of the longest experiences with intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. With a median followup of 91 months, intensity modulated radiation therapy resulted in durable biochemical control rates with low chronic toxicity.

The clinical case for proton beam therapy.

Over the past 20 years, several proton beam treatment programs have been implemented throughout the United States. Increasingly, the number of new programs under development is growing. Proton beam therapy has the potential for improving tumor control and survival through dose escalation. It also has potential for reducing harm to normal organs through dose reduction. However, proton beam therapy is more costly than conventional x-ray therapy. This increased cost may be offset by improved function, improved quality of life, and reduced costs related to treating the late effects of therapy. Clinical research opportunities are abundant to determine which patients will gain the most benefit from proton beam therapy. We review the clinical case for proton beam therapy. SUMMARY SENTENCE: Proton beam therapy is a technically advanced and promising form of radiation therapy.

Image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a prospective trial of concomitant boost using indium-111-capromab pendetide (ProstaScint) imaging.

PURPOSE: To evaluate, in a prospective study, the use of (111)In-capromab pendetide (ProstaScint) scan to guide the delivery of a concomitant boost to intraprostatic region showing increased uptake while treating the entire gland with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From September 2002 to November 2005, 71 patients were enrolled. Planning pelvic CT and (111)In-capromab pendetide scan images were coregistered. The entire prostate gland received 75.6 Gy/42 fractions, whereas areas of increased uptake in (111)In-capromab pendetide scan received 82 Gy. For patients with T3/T4 disease, or Gleason score ≥8, or prostate-specific antigen level >20 ng/mL, 12 months of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was given. In January 2005 the protocol was modified to give 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to patients with a prostate-specific antigen level of 10-20 ng/mL or Gleason 7 disease. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients had low-risk, 30 had intermediate-risk, and 10 had high-risk disease. With a median follow-up of 66 months, the 5-year biochemical control rates were 94% for the entire cohort and 97%, 93%, and 90% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. Maximum acute and late urinary toxicities were Grade 2 for 38 patients (54%) and 28 patients (39%) and Grade 3 for 1 and 3 patients (4%), respectively. One patient had Grade 4 hematuria. Maximum acute and late gastrointestinal toxicities were Grade 2 for 32 patients (45%) and 15 patients (21%), respectively. Most of the side effects improved with longer follow-up. CONCLUSION: Concomitant boost to areas showing increased uptake in (111)In-capromab pendetide scan to 82 Gy using intensity-modulated radiotherapy while the entire prostate received 75.6 Gy was feasible and tolerable, with 94% biochemical control rate at 5 years.

IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119.

AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept confidence limit = /mean/ + 1.96sigma. Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.