Rasmus Lübeck Christiansen
Odense University Hospital
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Rasmus Lübeck Christiansen.
Acta Oncologica | 2015
Christian Hansen; Anders Bertelsen; Hans Lynggaard Riis; Rasmus Lübeck Christiansen; O. Hansen; Jonathan B. Sykes; D.I. Thwaites; Carsten Brink
To the Editor, Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or alternatively stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is today an important treatment option for a steadily increasing fraction of the...
Acta Oncologica | 2017
Christian Rønn Hansen; Rasmus Lübeck Christiansen; Ebbe Laugaard Lorenzen; Anders Bertelsen; Jon Thor Asmussen; Niels Gyldenkerne; Jesper Grau Eriksen; Jørgen Johansen; Carsten Brink
Abstract Background: Delineation accuracy of the gross tumor volume (GTV) in radiotherapy planning for head and neck (H&N) cancer is affected by computed tomography (CT) artifacts from metal implants which obscure identification of tumor as well as organs at risk (OAR). This study investigates the impact of metal artifact reduction (MAR) in H&N patients in terms of delineation consistency and dose calculation precision in radiation treatment planning. Material and methods: Tumor and OAR delineations were evaluated in planning CT scans of eleven oropharynx patients with streaking artifacts in the tumor region preceding curative radiotherapy (RT). The GTV-tumor (GTV-T), GTV-node and parotid glands were contoured by four independent observers on standard CT images and MAR images. Dose calculation was evaluated on thirty H&N patients with dental implants near the treated volume. For each patient, the dose derived from the clinical treatment plan using the standard image set was compared with the recalculated dose on the MAR image dataset. Results: Reduction of metal artifacts resulted in larger volumes of all delineated structures compared to standard reconstruction. The GTV-T and the parotids were on average 22% (p < 0.06) and 7% larger (p = 0.005), respectively, in the MAR image plan compared to the standard image plan. Dice index showed reduced inter-observer variations after reduction of metal artifacts for all structures. The average surface distance between contours of different observers improved using the MAR images for GTV and parotids (p = 0.04 and p = 0.01). The median volume receiving a dose difference larger than ±3% was 2.3 cm3 (range 0–32 cm3). Conclusions: Delineation of structures in the head and neck were affected by metal artifacts and volumes were generally larger and more consistent after reduction of metal artifacts, however, only small changes were observed in the dose calculations.
Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2017
Uffe Bernchou; Rasmus Lübeck Christiansen; Jon Thor Asmussen; Tine Schytte; Olfred Hansen; Carsten Brink
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The present study investigates the extent and appearance of radiologic injury in the lung after radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and correlates radiologic response with clinical and dosimetric factors. METHODS AND MATERIALS Eligible follow-up CT scans acquired up to six months after radiotherapy were evaluated for radiologic injuries in 220 NSCLC patients. Radiologic injuries were divided into three categories: (1) interstitial changes, (2) ground-glass opacity, or (3) consolidation. The relationship between the fraction of injured lung of each category and clinical or dosimetric factors was investigated. RESULTS Radiological injuries of category 1-3 were found in 67%, 52%, and 51% of the patients, and the mean (and maximum) fraction of injured lung was 4.4% (85.9%), 2.4% (46.0%), and 2.1% (22.9%), respectively. Traditional lung dose metrics and time to follow-up predicted lung injury of all categories. Older age increased the risk of interstitial changes and current smoking reduced the risk of consolidation in the lung. CONCLUSION Radiologic injuries were frequently found in follow-up CT scans after radiotherapy for NSCLC patients. The risk of a radiologic response increased with increasing time and lung dose metrics, and depended on patient age and smoking status.
Acta Oncologica | 2017
Rasmus Lübeck Christiansen; Henrik R. Jensen; Carsten Brink
Abstract Background: Current state of the art radiotherapy planning of prostate cancer utilises magnetic resonance (MR) for soft tissue delineation and computed tomography (CT) to provide an electron density map for dose calculation. This dual scan workflow is prone to setup and registration error. This study evaluates the feasibility of an MR-only workflow and the validity of dose calculation from an MR derived pseudo CT. Material and methods: Thirty prostate cancer patients were CT and MR scanned. Clinical treatment plans were generated on CT using a single 18 MV arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with a prescription of 78 Gy/39 fractions. Dose was recalculated on pseudo CT and assuming uniform water density. Pseudo CT and uniform density based dose calculations were compared to CT dose calculations by gamma analysis. One patient was treated with a plan based solely on MR and pseudo CT including daily image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) performed by manual match of implanted gold markers. Results: A pseudo CT was generated for 29 of the 30 patients. Median gamma pass rates for 1%/1 mm passing criteria for dose calculated on pseudo CT when compared to CT were 100% for most evaluated structures. Dose calculated on uniform density also yielded high median pass rates, but with a higher occurrence of pass rates below 95%. Cases of pass rate below 95% on pseudo CT proved to originate from the presence of rectal air on CT, not represented by the pseudo CT. Treatment based on MR alone was successfully delivered to one patient, including manually performed daily IGRT. Conclusions: Median gamma pass rates were high for pseudo CT and proved superior to uniform density. Local differences in dose calculations were concluded not to have clinical relevance. Feasibility of the MR-only workflow was demonstrated through successful delivery of a treatment course planned based on MR alone.
Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2012
Rasmus Lübeck Christiansen; Christian Hansen; Tine Bjørn Nielsen; Jørgen Johansen; Carsten Brink
Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2018
Rasmus Lübeck Christiansen; Christian Hansen; R.H. Dahlrot; Anders Bertelsen; O. Hansen; Carsten Brink; Uffe Bernchou
Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2017
Uffe Bernchou; Rasmus Lübeck Christiansen; Jon Thor Asmussen; Tine Schytte; O. Hansen; Carsten Brink
Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2016
Rasmus Lübeck Christiansen; Henrik R. Jensen; D. Georg; Carsten Brink
Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2016
Uffe Bernchou; Rasmus Lübeck Christiansen; Jon Thor Asmussen; Tine Schytte; Olfred Hansen; Carsten Brink
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2016
Rasmus Lübeck Christiansen; Henrik R. Jensen; Carsten Brink