Citations

Purpose We propose a robust treatment planning model that simultaneously considers proton range and patient setup uncertainties and reduces high linear energy transfer (LET) exposure in organs at risk (OARs) to minimize the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) dose in OARs for intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Our method could potentially reduce the unwanted damage to OARs. Methods We retrospectively generated plans for 10 patients including two prostate, four head and neck, and four lung cancer patients. The “worst‐case robust optimization” model was applied. One additional term as a “biological surrogate (BS)” of OARs due to the high LET‐related biological effects was added in the objective function. The biological surrogate was defined as the sum of the physical dose and extra biological effects caused by the dose‐averaged LET. We generated nine uncertainty scenarios that considered proton range and patient setup uncertainty. Corresponding to each uncertainty scenario, LET was obtained by a fast LET calculation method developed in‐house and based on Monte Carlo simulations. In each optimization iteration, the model used the worst‐case BS among all scenarios and then penalized overly high BS to organs. The model was solved by an efficient algorithm (limited‐memory Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno) in a parallel computing environment. Our new model was benchmarked with the conventional robust planning model without considering BS. Dose–volume histograms (DVHs) of the dose assuming a fixed RBE of 1.1 and BS for tumor and organs under nominal and uncertainty scenarios were compared to assess the plan quality between the two methods. Results For the 10 cases, our model outperformed the conventional robust model in avoidance of high LET in OARs. At the same time, our method could achieve dose distributions and plan robustness of tumors assuming a fixed RBE of 1.1 almost the same as those of the conventional robust model. Conclusions Explicitly considering LET in IMPT robust treatment planning can reduce the high LET to OARs and minimize the possible toxicity of high RBE dose to OARs without sacrificing plan quality. We believe this will allow one to design and deliver safer proton therapy.

Objectives/HypothesisSarcomatoid carcinoma is a rare variant of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. No consensus exists on its management. Our aim was to present our outcomes.Study DesignRetrospective study. Median follow‐up 45 months.MethodsThere were 38 patients with pathologically confirmed sarcomatoid carcinoma of the larynx treated at the Mayo Clinic from 1990 to 2014. Statistical analysis of overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and local control (LC) were conducted using the Kaplan‐Meier method.ResultsThe majority of patients were elderly males (92%) with a smoking history (74%) presenting with early‐stage disease (71%). Surgery alone was the primary treatment in 27 patients (71%). Nine patients (25%) were treated with adjuvant radiation due to initial stage or high‐risk pathologic features. Median radiation dose to the primary/surgical bed was 65 Gy (range, 60.3–75.0 Gy). A total of 15 patients (39%) had tumor recurrence, majority being local (n = 12). Sixty percent (n = 9) had multiple local recurrences. Five‐year OS, PFS, and LC were 63%, 46%, and 72%, respectively. Subgroup analysis by stage I versus higher stages (II–IV) showed an OS of 80% versus 43% (P = .030), PFS of 65% versus 18% (P = .003), and LC of 84% versus 57% (P = .039).ConclusionsSarcomatoid carcinoma of the larynx is rare, and frequently presents at an early stage in older men with history of smoking. Based on our outcomes and patterns of failure, it appears early‐stage tumors are treated appropriately with single‐modality therapy, whereas more advanced tumors require multimodality therapy. Validation in a larger cohort is warranted.Level of Evidence4. Laryngoscope, 128:373–377, 2018

AbstractThis 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.

Background Endoscopic endonasal resection (EER) of sinonasal mucosal melanoma (SMM) is a newer surgical alternative to traditional external and/or open resection (OR). Studies on long-term outcomes are necessary to validate EER for this aggressive sinonasal malignancy. Objective To compare outcomes of EER versus OR in SMM. Methods A case series of patients who underwent surgical resection of SMM at a tertiary-care institution (2000–2015) was studied retrospectively. Demographics, tumor site and stage, surgical approach, surgical margin status, local control, and survival were compared between those who underwent EER and OR. Results Twenty-two patients met inclusion criteria. Nine underwent EER and 13 underwent OR. The mean age in the EER and OR groups was similar, 78.7 and 72.3 years, respectively. Two-thirds of patients were women (EER, 66.7%; OR, 61.5%). The nasal cavity was the most common primary tumor site (EER, 77.8%; OR, 84.6%). The local tumor stage in both groups was similar, with the majority of cases being T4 (EER, 55.6%; OR, 61.5%; p = 0.99). Negative margins were achieved in all EERs and in 69.2% of ORs. Median follow-up was 25.0 months for the overall group (range, 1.7–172.9 months), 32.6 months (range, 3.4–58.7 months) for EER and 14.1 months (range, 1.7–172.9 months) for OR cohorts. The 5-year overall survival was statistically similar in both groups (EER, 53.3%; OR, 22.7%; p = 0.214) as was disease-free survival (EER, 55.6%; OR, 22.8%; p = 0.178). Local control, however, was significantly higher in the EER cohort (EER, 85.7%; OR, 37.6%; p = 0.026). Conclusion In carefully selected patients with sinonasal melanoma, endoscopic surgery with an experienced team may offer comparable survival and improved local control over open surgery. Prospective, multicentered studies with larger cohorts are needed to validate these results.

Purpose: To report the outcomes of patients with favorable risk oropharyngeal cancer that underwent adjuvant radiation therapy with omission of the primary site from the clinical target volume (CTV). Material/Methods: A retrospective study of 40 patients treated with transoral surgery (TOS) followed by neck only radiation using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with exclusion of the primary site. For all patients, a CTV of the primary surgical bed was contoured to obtain the estimated incidental dose to the primary site. Results: Median follow-up was 51 months (range, 13-155 months). The median radiation therapy (RT) dose to the neck was 6000 cGy (range, 5400-6400 cGy). The mean incidental dose to the primary tonsillar site was 4320 cGy (SD ± 480 cGy) and to the primary base of tongue site was 4060 cGy (SD ± 420 cGy). There were no local failures and only 1 regional failure, resulting in 97.5% locoregional control rate at 4 years. Two patients developed distant metastases, without evidence of locoregional recurrence, for a 4-year overall survival rate of 97%. Conclusions: Our analysis suggests that mucosal sparing RT after TOS in favorable risk oropharyngeal cancer patients may provide comparable oncologic and improved functional outcomes compared to conventional treatment in selected patients.

ObjectiveThe aim of our study was to study the impact of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) on in‐hospital outcomes.BackgroundThere is paucity of data regarding the impact of GPI on the outcomes following peripheral endovascular interventions.MethodsThe study cohort was derived from Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database between the years 2006 and 2011. Peripheral endovascular interventions and GPI utilization were identified using appropriate ICD‐9 Diagnostic and procedural codes. Two‐level hierarchical multivariate mixed models were created. The study outcomes were: primary (in‐hospital mortality and amputation studied separately) and secondary (composite of in‐hospital mortality and postprocedural complications). Hospitalization costs were also assessed.ResultsGPI utilization (OR, 95% CI, P‐value) was independently predictive of lower amputation rates (0.36, 0.27–0.49, <0.001). There was no significant difference in terms of in‐hospital mortality (0.59, 0.31–1.14, P 0.117), although GPI use predicted worse secondary outcomes (1.23, 1.03–1.47, 0.023). Following propensity matching, the amputation rate was lower (3.2% vs. 8%, P < 0.001), while hospitalization costs were higher in the cohort that received GPI ($21,091 ± 404 vs. 19,407 ± 133, P < 0.001).ConclusionsMultivariate analysis revealed GPI use in peripheral endovascular interventions to be suggestive of an increase in composite end‐point of in‐hospital mortality and postprocedural complications, no impact on in‐hospital mortality alone, significantly lower rate of amputation, and increase in hospitalization costs. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Purpose: To examine the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) utilization during lower limb endovascular interventions as regards postprocedural complications and amputation. Methods: The study cohort was derived from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample database between the years 2006 and 2011. Peripheral endovascular interventions were identified using appropriate ICD-9 procedure codes. Two-level hierarchical multivariate mixed models were created. The co-primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and amputation; the secondary outcome was postprocedural complications. Model results are given as the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Hospitalization costs were also assessed. Results: Overall, among the 92,714 patients extracted from the database during the observation period, IVUS was used in 1299 (1.4%) patients. IVUS utilization during lower extremity peripheral vascular procedures was independently predictive of a lower rate of postprocedural complications (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99, p=0.037) as well as lower amputation rates (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.77, p<0.001) without any significant impact on in-hospital mortality. Multivariate analysis also revealed IVUS utilization to be predictive of a nonsignificant increase in hospitalization costs ($1333, 95% CI −$167 to +$2833, p=0.082). Conclusion: IVUS use during lower limb endovascular interventions is predictive of lower postprocedural complication and amputation rates with a nonsignificant increase in hospitalization costs.

ObjectivesTo compare the in‐hospital outcomes in cirrhosis patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus those undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).BackgroundOver the last 10 years, TAVR has emerged as a therapeutic option for treating severe aortic stenosis in high‐risk patients. Cirrhosis patients have a high risk of operative morbidity and mortality while undergoing cardiac surgery. This study's hypothesis was that TAVR is a safer alternative compared to SAVR in cirrhosis patients.MethodsThe study population was derived from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) for the years 2011–2012 using ICD‐9‐CM procedure codes 35.21 and 35.22 for SAVR, and 35.05 and 35.06 for TAVR. Patients <50 years of age and those who concomitantly underwent other valvular procedures were excluded. ICD‐9‐CM diagnosis codes were used to identify patients with liver cirrhosis, portal hypertension, and esophageal varices. Using propensity score matching, two matched cohorts were derived in which the outcomes were compared using appropriate statistical tests.ResultsThere were 30 patients in the SAVR and TAVR group each. Compared to the TAVR group, the patients in SAVR group had significantly higher rate of transfusion of whole blood or blood products (p = 0.037), longer mean postprocedural length of stay (p = 0.006), and nonsignificantly higher mean cost of hospitalization (p = 0.2), any complications rate (p = 0.09), and liver complications rate (p = 0.4). In‐hospital mortality rate was same in the both the groups. No patients in the TAVR group required open‐heart surgery or cardiopulmonary bypass.ConclusionTAVR could be a viable option for aortic valve replacement in cirrhosis patients. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.