T. Duckworth
New York University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by T. Duckworth.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2010
Preeti Parhar; T. Duckworth; Parinda Shah; J. Keith DeWyngaert; Ashwatha Narayana; Silvia C. Formenti; Jinesh N. Shah
PURPOSE To compare temporal lobe dose delivered by three pituitary macroadenoma irradiation techniques: three-field three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), three-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (3F IMRT), and a proposed novel alternative of five-field IMRT (5F IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS Computed tomography-based external beam radiotherapy planning was performed for 15 pituitary macroadenoma patients treated at New York University between 2002 and 2007 using: 3D-CRT (two lateral, one midline superior anterior oblique [SAO] beams), 3F IMRT (same beam angles), and 5F IMRT (same beam angles with additional right SAO and left SAO beams). Prescription dose was 45 Gy. Target volumes were: gross tumor volume (GTV) = macroadenoma, clinical target volume (CTV) = GTV, and planning target volume = CTV + 0.5 cm. Structure contouring was performed by two radiation oncologists guided by an expert neuroradiologist. RESULTS Five-field IMRT yielded significantly decreased temporal lobe dose delivery compared with 3D-CRT and 3F IMRT. Temporal lobe sparing with 5F IMRT was most pronounced at intermediate doses: mean V25Gy (% of total temporal lobe volume receiving ≥25 Gy) of 13% vs. 28% vs. 29% for right temporal lobe and 14% vs. 29% vs. 30% for left temporal lobe for 5F IMRT, 3D-CRT, and 3F IMRT, respectively (p < 10(-7) for 5F IMRT vs. 3D-CRT and 5F IMRT vs. 3F IMRT). Five-field IMRT plans did not compromise target coverage, exceed normal tissue dose constraints, or increase estimated brain integral dose. CONCLUSIONS Five-field IMRT irradiation technique results in a statistically significant decrease in the dose to the temporal lobes and may thus help prevent neurocognitive sequelae in irradiated pituitary macroadenoma patients.
Frontiers in Oncology | 2015
S. Shin; T. Duckworth; Benjamin T. Cooper; John P. Curtin; Peter B. Schiff; J. Keith DeWyngaert; Stella C. Lymberis
Introduction Evaluate use of novel multi-channel applicator (MC) Capri™ to improve vaginal disease coverage achievable by single-channel applicator (SC) and comparable to Syed plan simulation. Materials and methods Twenty-eight plans were evaluated from four patients with primary or recurrent gynecologic cancer in the vagina. Each received whole pelvis radiation, followed by three weekly treatments using HDR brachytherapy with a 13-channel MC. Upper vagina was treated to 5 mm depth to 1500 cGy/3 fractions with a simultaneous integrated boost totaling 2100 cGy/3 fractions to tumor. Modeling of SC and Syed plans was performed using MC scans for each patient. Dosimetry for MC and SC plans was evaluated for PTV700 cGy coverage, maximum dose to 2 cm3 to bladder, rectum, as well as mucosal surface points. Dosimetry for Syed plans was calculated for PTV700 cGy coverage. Patients were followed for treatment response and toxicity. Results Dosimetric analysis between MC and SC plans demonstrated increased tumor coverage (PTV700 cGy), with decreased rectal, bladder, and contralateral vaginal mucosa dose in favor of MC. These differences were significant (p < 0.05). Comparison of MC and Syed plans demonstrated increased tumor coverage in favor of Syed plans which were not significant (p = 0.71). Patients treated with MC had no cancer recurrence or ≥grade 3 toxicity. Conclusion Use of MC was efficacious and safe, providing superior coverage of tumor volumes ≤1 cm depth compared to SC and comparable to Syed implant. MC avoids excess dose to surrounding organs compared to SC, and potentially less morbidity than Syed implants. For tumors extending ≤1 cm depth, use of MC represents an alternative to an interstitial implant.
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2014
O. Ishaq; J.R. Montgomery; T. Duckworth; H. Hsu; Peter B. Schiff
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2008
Preeti Parhar; C. Hitchen; T. Duckworth; K. DeWyngaert; Ashwatha Narayana
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2018
B.A. Shah; T. Duckworth; G.T. Jennings; O. Ishaq; Peter B. Schiff; Stella C. Lymberis
Brachytherapy | 2018
Raymond Mailhot Vega; David Barbee; Bhartesh A. Shah; T. Duckworth; Christina Small; C.A. Perez; Peter B. Schiff; William Small; Matthew M. Harkenrider
Brachytherapy | 2018
T. Duckworth; Hesheng Wang; Lei Hu; David Barbee
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2017
I. Ahmed; S.P.P. Wu; O. Ishaq; Wesley Talcott; T. Duckworth; John P. Curtin; L. Boyd; B. Pothuri; Peter B. Schiff; Stella C. Lymberis
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2017
Wesley Talcott; T. Duckworth; S.P.P. Wu; O. Ishaq; R.M. Walton; K.S. Osterman; Peter B. Schiff; Stella C. Lymberis
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2017
L.M. Katz; H. Wang; T. Duckworth; D. Kim; I.J. Das; S.C. Lymberis