Arthur Frazier
Beaumont Hospital
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Arthur Frazier.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 1997
Di Yan; John Wong; Frank A. Vicini; Jeff M. Michalski; Cheng Pan; Arthur Frazier; Eric M. Horwitz; A. Martinez
PURPOSE Using daily setup variation measured from an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), radiation treatment of the individual patient can be adaptively reoptimized during the course of therapy. In this study, daily portal images were retrospectively examined to: (a) determine the number of initial days of portal imaging required to give adequate prediction of the systematic and random setup errors; and (b) explore the potential of using the prediction as feedback to reoptimize the individual treatment part-way through the treatment course. METHODS AND MATERIALS Daily portal images of 64 cancer patients, whose treatment position was not adjusted during the course of treatment, were obtained from two independent clinics with similar setup procedures. Systematic and random setup errors for each patient were predicted using different numbers of initial portal measurements. The statistical confidence of the predictions was tested to determine the number of daily portal measurements needed to give reasonable predictions. Two treatment processes were simulated to examine the potential opportunity for setup margin reduction and dose escalation. The first process mimicked a conventional treatment. A constant margin was assigned to each treatment field to compensate for the average setup error of the patient population. A treatment dose was then prescribed with reference to a fixed normal tissue tolerance, and then fixed in the entire course of treatment. In the second process, the same treatment fields and prescribed dose were used only for the initial plan and treatment. After several initial days of treatments, the treatment field shape and position were assumed to be adaptively modified using a computer-controlled multileaf collimator (MLC) in light of the predicted systematic and random setup errors. The prescribed dose was then escalated until the same normal tissue tolerance, as determined in the first treatment process, was reached. RESULTS The systematic setup error and the random setup error were predicted to be within +/-1 mm for the former and +/-0.5 mm for the latter at a > or = 95% confidence level using < or = 9 initial daily portal measurements. In the study, a large number of patients could be treated using a smaller field margin if the adaptive modification process were used. Simulation of the adaptive modification process for prostate treatment demonstrates that additional treatment dose could be safely applied to 64% of patients. CONCLUSION The adaptive modification process represents a different approach for use of on-line portal images. The portal imaging information from the initial treatments is used as feedback for reoptimization of the treatment plan, rather than adjustment of the treatment setup. Results from the retrospective study show that the treatment of individual patient can be improved with the adaptive modification process.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 1999
Anjali K. Gupta; Frank A. Vicini; Arthur Frazier; Daniel C. Barth-Jones; Gregory K. Edmundson; Elizabeth Mele; Gary S. Gustafson; A. Martinez
PURPOSE To assess treatment outcome for patients with locally advanced or recurrent gynecological malignancies treated with continuous low-dose-rate (LDR) remote afterloading brachytherapy using the Martinez Universal Perineal Interstitial Template (MUPIT). MATERIALS AND METHODS Between 7/85 and 6/94, 69 patients with either locally advanced or recurrent malignancies of the cervix, endometrium, vagina, or female urethra were treated by 5 different physicians using the MUPIT with (24 patients) or without (45 patients) interstitial hyperthermia. Fifty-four patients had no prior treatment with radiation and received a combination of external beam irradiation (EBRT) and an interstitial implant. The combined median dose was 71 Gy (range 56-99 Gy), median EBRT dose was 39 Gy (range 30-74 Gy), and the median implant dose was 32 Gy (range 17-40 Gy). Fifteen patients with prior radiation treatment received an implant alone. The total median dose including previous EBRT was 91 Gy (range 70-130 Gy) and the median implant dose was 35 Gy (range 25-55 Gy). RESULTS With a median follow-up of 4.7 yr in survivors, the 3-yr actuarial local control (LC), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS) for all patients was 60%, 55%, and 41% respectively. The clinical complete response rate was 78% and in these patients the 3-year actuarial LC, DSS, and OS was 78%, 79%, and 63% respectively. On univariate analysis for local control, disease volume and hemoglobin were found to be statistically significant. On multivariate analysis, however, only disease volume remained significant (p = 0.011). There was no statistically significant difference in local control whether patients had received any prior treatment with radiation (p = 0.34), had recurrent disease (p = 0.13), or which physician performed the implant (p = 0.45). The grade 4 complication rate (small bowel obstruction requiring surgery, fistulas, soft tissue necrosis) for all patients was 14%. With a dose rate less than 70 cGy/hour, the grade 4 complication rate was 3% vs. 24% with dose rate > or = 70 cGy/hour (p = 0.013). CONCLUSION Patients with locally advanced or recurrent gynecological malignancies treated with the remote afterloader LDR MUPIT applicator can expect reasonable rates of local control that are not operator-dependent. Complication rates with this approach are acceptable and appear to be related to the dose rate.
Cancer | 1996
Eric M. Horwitz; Arthur Frazier; A. Martinez; Richard D. Keidan; Daniel H. Clarke; Mario D. Lacerna; Gary S. Gustafson; Edward Heil; Carl F. Dmuchowski; Frank A. Vicini
Local control, functional outcome, and complications in patients with carcinoma of the base of tongue (BOT) were analyzed to assess the impact of interstitial implant boost with I‐125 seeds.
Head and Neck-journal for The Sciences and Specialties of The Head and Neck | 1997
Eric M. Horwitz; Arthur Frazier; Frank A. Vicini; Daniel H. Clarke; Gregory K. Edmundson; Richard D. Keidan; Gary S. Gustafson; Carl F. Dmuchoswki; A. Martinez
To define the impact of interstitial boost of the oropharynx on local control and complications using iodine‐125 (I‐125) brachytherapy.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 1994
Arthur Frazier; Maria Du; Di Yan; Frank A. Vicini; Roy Taylor; Alvaro Martinez; John Wong
Purpose: The ICRU 50 has defined the concept of planning target volume (PTV) to include the combined volumes of gross disease, suspected extension of microscopic disease and the dosimetric uncertainties due to setup error and isodose constriction. Cerrobend block outlines are designed to meet these criteria. Concern exists that multileafcollimator (MLC) conformation strategies may require different margins to meet these criteria. Several MLC geometric blocking strategies are readily accessible and are currently employed. We examined two commonly used strategies for MLC conformation to the PTV. The first conforms the leaves such that the total area of overshoot and undershoot is minimized resulting in least area discrepancy (LAD). The second conforms the MLC such that the areas of overshoot and undershoot are equivalent and has been termed “transecting” (TRN). The goal of this study was to evaluate dosimetrically these MLC conformation schemes for irregular fields using cerrobend block as a comparison.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 1995
Arthur Frazier; Maria Du; John Wong; Frank A. Vicini; Roy Taylor; C.X. Yu; Richard C. Matter; A. Martinez; Di Yan
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 1995
Arthur Frazier; Di Yan; Maria Du; John Wong; Frank A. Vicini; Richard C. Matter; Melita Joyce; A. Martinez
Brachytherapy | 2014
Michael Derr; Praveen Dalmia; Stephen Franklin; Arthur Frazier; Mark Yudelev
Brachytherapy | 2011
Elizabeth Hanlon; Mark Yudelev; Praveen Dalmia; Kaitlin Hanlon; Stephen Cahill; Lynn Mathia; Arthur Frazier
Brachytherapy | 2009
Isaac Kaufman; Mark Yudelev; Lynn Mathia; Praveen Dalmia; Michelle Sowden; James McQuiston; Arthur Frazier