David A. Pistenmaa
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by David A. Pistenmaa.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 1989
Melvin Deutsch; Sylvan B. Green; Thomas A. Strike; Peter C. Burger; James T. Robertson; Robert G. Selker; William R. Shapiro; John Mealey; Joseph Ransohoff; Pietro Paoletti; Kenneth R. Smith; Guy L. Odom; William E. Hunt; Byron Young; Eben Alexander; Michael D. Walker; David A. Pistenmaa
In Brain Tumor Cooperative Group Study 77-02, eleven institutions randomized 603 adult patients with supratentorial malignant glioma to one of four treatment groups following surgery: conventional radiotherapy (6000 cGy in 30-35 fractions) + BCNU, conventional radiotherapy + streptozotocin, hyperfractionated (twice daily) radiotherapy (6600 cGy in 60 fractions) + BCNU, and conventional radiotherapy with misonidazole followed by BCNU. Data were analyzed for the total randomized population and for the 557 patients (86% with glioblastoma multiforme) who met protocol eligibility specifications (including confirmed histopathology on central review). Median survival was approximately 10 months following randomization. Overall there was no statistically significant difference in survival among the four groups. Among non-glioblastoma patients, the misonidazole group appeared to have poor survival. Peripheral neuropathy was a dose-limiting toxicity with misonidazole. It is concluded that neither the addition of misonidazole nor hyperfractionated radiotherapy as given in this protocol offered any advantage over conventional radiotherapy plus either BCNU or streptozotocin for treatment of malignant glioma.
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2011
Thomas Boike; Yair Lotan; L. Chinsoo Cho; Jeffrey Brindle; Paul DeRose; Xian Jin Xie; Jingsheng Yan; Ryan Foster; David A. Pistenmaa; Alida Perkins; Susan Cooley; Robert D. Timmerman
PURPOSE To evaluate the tolerability of escalating doses of stereotactic body radiation therapy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients included those with Gleason score 2 to 6 with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤ 20, Gleason score 7 with PSA ≤ 15, ≤ T2b, prostate size ≤ 60 cm(3), and American Urological Association (AUA) score ≤ 15. Pretreatment preparation required an enema and placement of a rectal balloon. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as grade 3 or worse GI/genitourinary (GU) toxicity by Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (version 3). Patients completed quality-of-life questionnaires at defined intervals. RESULTS Groups of 15 patients received 45 Gy, 47.5 Gy, and 50 Gy in five fractions (45 total patients). The median follow-up is 30 months (range, 3 to 36 months), 18 months (range, 0 to 30 months), and 12 months (range, 3 to 18 months) for the 45 Gy, 47.5 Gy, and 50 Gy groups, respectively. For all patients, GI grade ≥ 2 and grade ≥ 3 toxicity occurred in 18% and 2%, respectively, and GU grade ≥ 2 and grade ≥ 3 toxicity occurred in 31% and 4%, respectively. Mean AUA scores increased significantly from baseline in the 47.5-Gy dose level (P = .002) as compared with the other dose levels, where mean values returned to baseline. Rectal quality-of-life scores (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) fell from baseline up to 12 months but trended back at 18 months. In all patients, PSA control is 100% by the nadir + 2 ng/mL failure definition. CONCLUSION Dose escalation to 50 Gy has been completed without DLT. A multicenter phase II trial is underway treating patients to 50 Gy in five fractions to further evaluate this experimental therapy.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2014
D. W Nathan Kim; L. Chinsoo Cho; Christopher Straka; Alana Christie; Yair Lotan; David A. Pistenmaa; Brian D. Kavanagh; Akash Nanda; Patrick Kueplian; Jeffrey Brindle; Susan Cooley; Alida Perkins; David Raben; Xian Jin Xie; Robert D. Timmerman
PURPOSE To convey the occurrence of isolated cases of severe rectal toxicity at the highest dose level tested in 5-fraction stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer; and to rationally test potential causal mechanisms to guide future studies and experiments to aid in mitigating or altogether avoiding such severe bowel injury. METHODS AND MATERIALS Clinical and treatment planning data were analyzed from 91 patients enrolled from 2006 to 2011 on a dose-escalation (45, 47.5, and 50 Gy in 5 fractions) phase 1/2 clinical study of SBRT for localized prostate cancer. RESULTS At the highest dose level, 6.6% of patients treated (6 of 91) developed high-grade rectal toxicity, 5 of whom required colostomy. Grade 3+ delayed rectal toxicity was strongly correlated with volume of rectal wall receiving 50 Gy >3 cm(3) (P<.0001), and treatment of >35% circumference of rectal wall to 39 Gy (P=.003). Grade 2+ acute rectal toxicity was significantly correlated with treatment of >50% circumference of rectal wall to 24 Gy (P=.010). CONCLUSION Caution is advised when considering high-dose SBRT for treatment of tumors near bowel structures, including prostate cancer. Threshold dose constraints developed from physiologic principles are defined, and if respected can minimize risk of severe rectal toxicity.
Urology | 2003
Stanley L. Liauw; W.Scott Webster; David A. Pistenmaa; Claus G. Roehrborn
OBJECTIVES To review the efficacy of salvage radiotherapy (RT), to treat elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels for presumed local recurrence of prostatic adenocarcinoma after retropubic prostatectomy, and identify the factors that may predict for successful treatment. METHODS Fifty-one patients with hormonally naive pT2-3N0-1M0 prostate cancer were treated with RT for locally persistent or recurrent disease. The patients received a median dose of 65.7 Gy (range 61.2 to 72.3) to the prostate bed. Successfully treated patients had undetectable PSA levels; the endpoint of the study was biochemical failure. RESULTS The median follow-up was 3.8 years; 42 of 51 patients had at least 2 years of follow-up. Twenty-three patients (45%) were biochemically free of disease. The estimated biochemically free of disease rate at 3 and 5 years was 56% and 16%, respectively. Whether the patients were treated for persistently elevated PSA levels or for rising PSA levels from undetectable levels after retropubic prostatectomy, their PSA values were equally likely to drop to undetectable levels (65%). Univariate analysis demonstrated two factors that significantly predicted for successful salvage treatment: the absence of seminal vesicle invasion and the absence of lymphovascular invasion. A pretreatment PSA level less than 0.425 ng/mL trended toward statistical significance (P = 0.059). Only seminal vesicle invasion maintained significance on multivariate analysis. The RT was well tolerated, and the gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity was largely Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 1. CONCLUSIONS Salvage RT is moderately effective in treating patients with locally persistent or recurrent prostate adenocarcinoma. Seminal vesicle invasion and lymphovascular invasion predicted for unsuccessful treatment.
Pediatric Blood & Cancer | 2005
Cole A. Giller; Brian D. Berger; David A. Pistenmaa; Frederick H. Sklar; Bradley E. Weprin; Kenneth Shapiro; Naomi J. Winick; Arlynn F. Mulne; Janice L. Delp; Joseph P. Gilio; Kenneth P. Gall; Karel A. Dicke; Dale M. Swift; David Sacco; Kesha Harris-Henderson; Daniel C. Bowers
A robotically guided linear accelerator has recently been developed which provides frameless radiosurgery with high precision. Potential advantages for the pediatric population include the avoidance of the cognitive decline associated with whole brain radiotherapy, the ability to treat young children with thin skulls unsuitable for frame‐based methods, and the possible avoidance of general anesthesia. We report our experience with this system (the “Cyberknife”) in the treatment of 21 children.
European Journal of Cancer | 2016
Raquibul Hannan; Vasu Tumati; Xian Jin Xie; L. Chinsoo Cho; Brian D. Kavanagh; Jeffrey Brindle; David Raben; Akash Nanda; Susan Cooley; D. W Nathan Kim; David A. Pistenmaa; Yair Lotan; Robert D. Timmerman
BACKGROUND We report the outcome of a phase I/II clinical trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for low (LR) and select intermediate risk (IR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients included men with prostate adenocarcinoma with Gleason score 6 with PSA ≤ 20 or Gleason 7 with PSA ≤ 15 and clinical stage ≤ T2b. For the phase I portion of the study patients in cohorts of 15 received 45, 47.5, or 50 Gray (Gy) in five fractions. Since the maximally tolerated dose was not met in the phase I study, an additional 47 patients received 50 Gy in five fractions in the phase II study. Toxicity using Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events v. 3.0, quality of life, and outcome data was collected. RESULTS A total of 91 patients are included for analysis; 63.7% had NCCN IR and 36.3% had LR PCa. At a median follow up of 54 months the actuarial freedom from biochemical failure was 100% at 3 years and 98.6% at 5 years. Actuarial distant metastasis free survival was 100% at 3 and 5 years. Overall survival was 94% at 3 years and 89.7% at 5 years with no deaths attributed to PCa. Acute and late urinary grade ≥ III toxicity occurred in 0% and 5.5% of patients, respectively. Gastrointestinal (GI) acute and late toxicity of grade ≥ III occurred in 2% and 7% of patients, respectively. A total of four men experienced grade IV toxicity (three GI, one genitourinary). CONCLUSION SBRT treatment results in excellent biochemical control rates at 5 years for LR and IR PCa patients although doses greater than 47.5 Gy in five fractions led to increased severe late toxicity.
Frontiers in Oncology | 2014
C. Norman Coleman; Silvia C. Formenti; Tim R. Williams; Daniel G. Petereit; Khee C. Soo; John Wong; Nelson J. Chao; Lawrence N. Shulman; Surbhi Grover; Ian Magrath; Stephen M. Hahn; Fei-Fei Liu; Theodore L. DeWeese; Samir N. Khleif; Michael L. Steinberg; Lawrence Roth; David A. Pistenmaa; Richard Love; Majid Mohiuddin; Bhadrasain Vikram
The growing burden of non-communicable diseases including cancer in low- and lower-middle income countries (LMICs) and in geographic-access limited settings within resource-rich countries requires effective and sustainable solutions. The International Cancer Expert Corps (ICEC) is pioneering a novel global mentorship–partnership model to address workforce capability and capacity within cancer disparities regions built on the requirement for local investment in personnel and infrastructure. Radiation oncology will be a key component given its efficacy for cure even for the advanced stages of disease often encountered and for palliation. The goal for an ICEC Center within these health disparities settings is to develop and retain a high-quality sustainable workforce who can provide the best possible cancer care, conduct research, and become a regional center of excellence. The ICEC Center can also serve as a focal point for economic, social, and healthcare system improvement. ICEC is establishing teams of Experts with expertise to mentor in the broad range of subjects required to establish and sustain cancer care programs. The Hubs are cancer centers or other groups and professional societies in resource-rich settings that will comprise the global infrastructure coordinated by ICEC Central. A transformational tenet of ICEC is that altruistic, human-service activity should be an integral part of a healthcare career. To achieve a critical mass of mentors ICEC is working with three groups: academia, private practice, and senior mentors/retirees. While in-kind support will be important, ICEC seeks support for the career time dedicated to this activity through grants, government support, industry, and philanthropy. Providing care for people with cancer in LMICs has been a recalcitrant problem. The alarming increase in the global burden of cancer in LMICs underscores the urgency and makes this an opportune time fornovel and sustainable solutions to transform cancer care globally.
Radiation Oncology | 2012
R Foster; David A. Pistenmaa; Timothy D. Solberg
BackgroundThe aim of this study is to compare three methodologies of prostate localization and to determine if there are significant differences in the techniques.MethodsDaily prostate localization using cone beam CT or orthogonal kV imaging has been performed at UT Southwestern Medical Center since 2006. Prostate patients are implanted with gold seeds, which are matched with the planning CT or DRR before treatment. More recently, a technology using electromagnetic transponders implanted within the prostate was introduced into our clinic (Calypso®). With each technology, patients are localized initially using skin marks and the room lasers. In this study, patients were localized with Calypso and either CBCT or kV orthogonal images in the same treatment session, allowing a direct comparison of the technologies. Localization difference distributions were determined from the difference in the offsets determined by CBCT/kV imaging and Calypso. CBCT-Calypso and kV imaging-Calypso localization data were summarized from over 900 and 250 fractions each, respectively. The Wilcoxon signed rank test is used to determine if the localization differences are statistically significant. We also calculated Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient (R2) to determine if there is a linear relationship between the shifts determined by Calypso and the radiographic techniques.ResultsThe differences between CBCT-Calypso and kV imaging-Calypso localizations are −0.18 ± 2.90 mm, -0.79 ± 2.18 mm, -0.01 ± 1.20 mm and −0.09 ± 1.40 mm, 0.48 ± 1.50 mm, 0.08 ± 1.04 mm, respectively, in the AP, SI, and RL directions. The Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients for the CBCT-Calypso shifts were 0.71, 0.92 and 0.88 and for the OBI-Calypso comparison were 0.95, 0.89 and 0.85. The percentage of localization differences that were less than 3 mm were 86.1%, 84.5% and 96.0% for the CBCT-Calypso comparison and 95.8%, 94.3% and 97% for the kV OBI-Calypso comparison. No trends were observed in the Bland-Altman analysis.ConclusionsLocalization of the prostate using electromagnetic transponders agrees well with radiographic techniques and each technology is suitable for high precision radiotherapy. This study finds that there is more uncertainty in CBCT localization of the prostate than in 2D orthogonal imaging, but the difference is not clinically significant.
Cancer Biology & Therapy | 2014
Corbin Jacobs; Stephen G. Chun; Jingsheng Yan; Xian Jin Xie; David A. Pistenmaa; Raquibul Hannan; Yair Lotan; Claus G. Roehrborn; Kevin S. Choe; D. W Nathan Kim
Purpose High-risk prostate cancer (PC) has poor outcomes due to therapeutic resistance to conventional treatments, which include prostatectomy, radiation, and hormone therapy. Previous studies suggest that anticoagulant (AC) use may improve treatment outcomes in PC patients. We hypothesized that AC therapy confers a freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) and overall survival (OS) benefit when administered with radiotherapy in patients with high-risk PC. Materials and Methods Analysis was performed on 74 high-risk PC patients who were treated with radiotherapy from 2005 to 2008 at UT Southwestern. Of these patients, 43 were on AC including aspirin (95.6%), clopidogrel (17.8%), warfarin (20%), and multiple ACs (31.1%). Associations between AC use and FFBF, OS, distant metastasis, and toxicity were analyzed. Results Median follow-up was 56.6 mo for all patients. For patients taking any AC compared with no AC, there was improved FFBF at 5 years of 80% vs. 62% (P = 0.003), and for aspirin the FFBF was 84% vs. 65% (P = 0.008). Aspirin use was also associated with reduced rates of distant metastases at 5 years (12.2% vs. 26.7%, P = 0.039). On subset analysis of patients with Gleason score (GS) 9–10 histology, aspirin resulted in improved 5-year OS (88% vs. 37%, P = 0.032), which remained significant on multivariable analysis (P < 0.05). Conclusions AC use was associated with a FFBF benefit in high-risk PC which translated into an OS benefit in the highest risk PC patients with GS 9–10, who are most likely to experience mortality from PC. This hypothesis-generating result suggests AC use may represent an opportunity to augment current therapy.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2013
R Foster; Jeffrey Meyer; Puneeth Iyengar; David A. Pistenmaa; Robert D. Timmerman; Hak Choy; Timothy D. Solberg
PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to analyze the pretreatment setup errors and intrafraction motion using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for stereotactic body radiation therapy patients immobilized and localized with a stereotactic body frame for a variety of treatment sites. METHODS AND MATERIALS Localization errors were recorded for patients receiving SBRT for 141 lung, 29 liver, 48 prostate, and 45 spine tumors representing 1005 total localization sessions. All patients were treated in a stereotactic body frame with a large custom-molded vacuum pillow. Patients were first localized to the frame using tattoos placed during simulation. Subsequently, the frame was aligned to the room lasers according to the stereotactic coordinates determined from the treatment plan. Every patient received a pretreatment and an intrafraction CBCT. Abdominal compression was used for all liver patients and for approximately 40% of the lung patients to reduce tumor motion due to respiration. RESULTS The mean ± standard deviation pretreatment setup errors from all localizations were -2.44 ± 3.85, 1.31 ± 5.84, and 0.11 ± 3.76 mm in the anteroposterior, superoinferior, and lateral directions, respectively. The mean pretreatment localization results among all treatment sites were not significantly different (F test, P<.05). For all treatment sites, the mean ± standard deviation intrafraction shifts were 0.33 ± 1.34, 0.15 ± 1.45, and -0.02 ± 1.17 mm in the anteroposterior, superoinferior, and lateral directions, respectively. The mean unidimensional intrafraction shifts were statistically different for several of the comparisons (P<.05) as assessed by the Tukey-Kramer test. CONCLUSIONS Despite the varied tumor locations, the pretreatment mean localization errors for all sites were found to be consistent among the treatment sites and not significantly different, indicating that the body frame is a suitable immobilization and localization device for a variety of tumor sites. Our pretreatment localization errors and intrafraction shifts compare favorably with those reported in other studies using different types of immobilization devices.