J.T. Dilworth
Beaumont Hospital
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by J.T. Dilworth.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2012
Sean S. Park; Di Yan; Samuel McGrath; J.T. Dilworth; J. Liang; Hong Ye; Daniel J. Krauss; A. Martinez; Larry L. Kestin
PURPOSE Rectal distension has been shown to decrease the probability of biochemical control. Adaptive image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) corrects for target position and volume variations, reducing the risk of biochemical failure while yielding acceptable rates of gastrointestinal (GI)/genitourinary (GU) toxicities. METHODS AND MATERIALS Between 1998 and 2006, 962 patients were treated with computed tomography (CT)-based offline adaptive IGRT. Patients were stratified into low (n = 400) vs. intermediate/high (n = 562) National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk groups. Target motion was assessed with daily CT during the first week. Electronic portal imaging device (EPID) was used to measure daily setup error. Patient-specific confidence-limited planning target volumes (cl-PTV) were then constructed, reducing the standard PTV and compensating for geometric variation of the target and setup errors. Rectal volume (RV), cross-sectional area (CSA), and rectal volume from the seminal vesicles to the inferior prostate (SVP) were assessed on the planning CT. The impact of these volumetric parameters on 5-year biochemical control (BC) and chronic Grades ≥2 and 3 GU and GI toxicity were examined. RESULTS Median follow-up was 5.5 years. Median minimum dose covering cl-PTV was 75.6 Gy. Median values for RV, CSA, and SVP were 82.8 cm(3), 5.6 cm(2), and 53.3 cm(3), respectively. The 5-year BC was 89% for the entire group: 96% for low risk and 83% for intermediate/high risk (p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences in BC were seen with stratification by RV, CSA, and SVP in quartiles. Maximum chronic Grades ≥2 and 3 GI toxicities were 21.2% and 2.9%, respectively. Respective values for GU toxicities were 15.5% and 4.3%. No differences in GI or GU toxicities were noted when patients were stratified by RV. CONCLUSIONS Incorporation of adaptive IGRT reduces the risk of geometric miss and results in excellent biochemical control that is independent of rectal volume/distension while maintaining very low rates of chronic GI toxicity.
Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2015
A.M. Baschnagel; Jessica Wobb; J.T. Dilworth; Lindsay Williams; Mohammad Eskandari; Dafang Wu; Barbara L. Pruetz; George D. Wilson
OBJECTIVES To investigate the relationship between FDG-PET maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax), p16, EGFR, GLUT1 and HK2 expression in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS Immunohistochemical staining of p16, EGFR, GLUT1 and HK2 was performed on primary tumor tissue from 97 locally advanced HNSCC patients treated with definitive chemoradiation. SUVmax along with p16, EGFR, GLUT1 and HK2 expression were analyzed for associations including local control, locoregional control and disease free survival. RESULTS Pretreatment SUVmax in primary tumors did not differ when stratified by p16, EGFR or GLUT1 expression but SUVmax was significantly higher in HK2 expressing tumors (p=0.021) and in tumors with higher T-stage (p=0.022). GLUT1 expression was significantly higher in p16 negative (p<0.001) and EGFR positive tumors (p<0.01). HK2 expressing tumors were associated with EGFR positive tumors (p=0.022) but not with p16 or GLUT1 expression. EGFR positive, p16 negative and high GLUT1 expressing tumors were associated with worse local control and disease free survival on univariate analyses. After adjusting for patient and treatment characteristics p16 status was the only factor that predicted for outcome on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS High GLUT1 expression was associated with EGFR positive and p16 negative HNSCC tumors. GLUT1 maybe an important biomarker in HNSCC but its expression appears dependent on p16 status.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2010
J.T. Dilworth; N.J. Hurst; P.Y. Chen; S.F. Shaitelman; A.M. Baschnagel; H. Ye; Ann Maitz; Daniel J. Krauss; Daniel R. Pieper; I.S. Grills
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2018
H.Y.D. Lin; Evelyn Sebastian; J.T. Dilworth; Amy Limbacher; H. Ye; I.S. Grills; M.S. Jawad; P.Y. Chen
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2018
R.T. Nguyen; C.R. Hauck; J.T. Dilworth; H. Ye; K. Marvin; G.S. Gustafson; P.Y. Chen; M.S. Jawad
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2018
J. Spann; H. Ye; K. Marvin; M.S. Jawad; P.Y. Chen; G.S. Gustafson; J.T. Dilworth
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2017
P.Y. Chen; M. Wallace; H. Ye; M.S. Jawad; J.T. Dilworth; B. Wilkinson; N. Dekhne; P. Benitez; G.S. Gustafson
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2017
L.M. Foster; M. Wallace; J.T. Dilworth; M. Firestone; H. Ye; P.Y. Chen; G.S. Gustafson; M.S. Jawad
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2017
H.Y.D. Lin; Amy Limbacher; M. Wallace; H. Ye; J.T. Dilworth; I.S. Grills; M. Mathews; P.Y. Chen
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2017
J.T. Dilworth; K. Marvin; J.M. Gondert; I.S. Grills; P.Y. Chen; D.J. Krauss; J. Zhou; George D. Wilson; Brian Marples; P. Chinnaiyan