Browsing by Author "Choudhury, Kingshuk Roy"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Early 18F-FDG-PET Response During Radiation Therapy for HPV-Related Oropharyngeal Cancer May Predict Disease Recurrence.
    (International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2020-11) Mowery, Yvonne M; Vergalasova, Irina; Rushing, Christel N; Choudhury, Kingshuk Roy; Niedzwiecki, Donna; Wu, Qiuwen; Yoo, David S; Das, Shiva; Wong, Terence Z; Brizel, David M

    Purpose

    Early indication of treatment outcome may guide therapeutic de-escalation strategies in patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-related oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). This study investigated the relationships between tumor volume and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) parameters before and during definitive radiation therapy with treatment outcomes.

    Methods and materials

    Patients undergoing definitive (chemo)radiation for HPV-related/p16-positive OPC were prospectively enrolled on an institutional review board-approved study. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography scans were performed at simulation and after 2 weeks at a dose of ∼20 Gy. Tumor volume and standardized uptake value (SUV) characteristics were measured. SUV was normalized to blood pool uptake. Tumor volume and PET parameters associated with recurrence were identified through recursive partitioning (RPART). Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) curves between RPART-identified cohorts were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs).

    Results

    From 2012 to 2016, 62 patients with HPV-related OPC were enrolled. Median follow-up was 4.4 years. RPART identified patients with intratreatment SUVmax (normalized to blood pool SUVmean) <6.7 or SUVmax (normalized to blood pool SUVmean) ≥6.7 with intratreatment SUV40% ≥2.75 as less likely to recur. For identified subgroups, results of Cox models showed unadjusted HRs for RFS and OS (more likely to recur vs less likely) of 7.33 (90% confidence interval [CI], 2.97-18.12) and 6.09 (90% CI, 2.22-16.71), respectively, and adjusted HRs of 6.57 (90% CI, 2.53-17.05) and 5.61 (90% CI, 1.90-16.54) for RFS and OS, respectively.

    Conclusions

    PET parameters after 2 weeks of definitive radiation therapy for HPV-related OPC are associated with RFS and OS, thus potentially informing an adaptive treatment approach.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Patient-Informed Organ Dose Estimation in Clinical CT: Implementation and Effective Dose Assessment in 1048 Clinical Patients.
    (AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2021-01-21) Fu, Wanyi; Ria, Francesco; Segars, William Paul; Choudhury, Kingshuk Roy; Wilson, Joshua M; Kapadia, Anuj J; Samei, Ehsan
    OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to comprehensively implement a patient-informed organ dose monitoring framework for clinical CT and compare the effective dose (ED) according to the patient-informed organ dose with ED according to the dose-length product (DLP) in 1048 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Organ doses for a given examination are computed by matching the topogram to a computational phantom from a library of anthropomorphic phantoms and scaling the fixed tube current dose coefficients by the examination volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and the tube-current modulation using a previously validated convolution-based technique. In this study, the library was expanded to 58 adult, 56 pediatric, five pregnant, and 12 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) reference models, and the technique was extended to include multiple protocols, a bias correction, and uncertainty estimates. The method was implemented in a clinical monitoring system to estimate organ dose and organ dose-based ED for 647 abdomen-pelvis and 401 chest examinations, which were compared with DLP-based ED using a t test. RESULTS. For the majority of the organs, the maximum errors in organ dose estimation were 18% and 8%, averaged across all protocols, without and with bias correction, respectively. For the patient examinations, DLP-based ED was significantly different from organ dose-based ED by as much as 190.9% and 234.7% for chest and abdomen-pelvis scans, respectively (mean, 9.0% and 24.3%). The differences were statistically significant (p < .001) and exhibited overestimation for larger-sized patients and underestimation for smaller-sized patients. CONCLUSION. A patient-informed organ dose estimation framework was comprehensively implemented applicable to clinical imaging of adult, pediatric, and pregnant patients. Compared with organ dose-based ED, DLP-based ED may overestimate effective dose for larger-sized patients and underestimate it for smaller-sized patients.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions.
    (Statistical methods in medical research, 2015-02) Kessler, Larry G; Barnhart, Huiman X; Buckler, Andrew J; Choudhury, Kingshuk Roy; Kondratovich, Marina V; Toledano, Alicia; Guimaraes, Alexander R; Filice, Ross; Zhang, Zheng; Sullivan, Daniel C; QIBA Terminology Working Group
    The development and implementation of quantitative imaging biomarkers has been hampered by the inconsistent and often incorrect use of terminology related to these markers. Sponsored by the Radiological Society of North America, an interdisciplinary group of radiologists, statisticians, physicists, and other researchers worked to develop a comprehensive terminology to serve as a foundation for quantitative imaging biomarker claims. Where possible, this working group adapted existing definitions derived from national or international standards bodies rather than invent new definitions for these terms. This terminology also serves as a foundation for the design of studies that evaluate the technical performance of quantitative imaging biomarkers and for studies of algorithms that generate the quantitative imaging biomarkers from clinical scans. This paper provides examples of research studies and quantitative imaging biomarker claims that use terminology consistent with these definitions as well as examples of the rampant confusion in this emerging field. We provide recommendations for appropriate use of quantitative imaging biomarker terminological concepts. It is hoped that this document will assist researchers and regulatory reviewers who examine quantitative imaging biomarkers and will also inform regulatory guidance. More consistent and correct use of terminology could advance regulatory science, improve clinical research, and provide better care for patients who undergo imaging studies.