Publications (2)2.79 Total impact
-
Article: Lymphocyte Recovery After Breast Cancer Treatment and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) Therapy.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objectives. This randomized controlled trial was conducted to examine immune recovery following breast cancer (BC) therapy and evaluate the effect of mindfulness-based stress reduction therapy (MBSR) on immune recovery with emphasis on lymphocyte subsets, T cell activation, and production of T-helper 1 (Th1; interferon [IFN]-γ) and T-helper 2 (Th2; interleukin-4 [IL-4]) cytokines. Method. Participants who completed the study consisted of 82 patients diagnosed with Stage 0-III BC, who received lumpectomy and adjuvant radiation ± chemotherapy. Patients were randomized into an MBSR(BC) intervention program or a control (usual care) group. Immune cell measures were assessed at baseline and within 2 weeks after the 6-week intervention. The numbers and percentages of lymphocyte subsets, activated T cells, and Th1 and Th2 cells in peripheral blood samples were determined by immunostaining and flow cytometry. Results. Immune subset recovery after cancer treatment showed positive associations with time since treatment completion. The B and natural killer (NK) cells were more susceptible than T cells in being suppressed by cancer treatment. Women who received MBSR(BC) had T cells more readily activated by the mitogen phytohemagglutinin (PHA) and an increase in the Th1/Th2 ratio. Activation was also higher for the MBSR(BC) group if <12 weeks from the end of treatment and women in MBSR(BC) <12 weeks had higher T cell count for CD4(+). Conclusion. MBSR(BC) promotes a more rapid recovery of functional T cells capable of being activated by a mitogen with the Th1 phenotype, whereas substantial recovery of B and NK cells after completion of cancer treatment appears to occur independent of stress-reducing interventions.Biological Research for Nursing 11/2011; · 1.28 Impact Factor -
Article: Dose mapping: validation in 4D dosimetry with measurements and application in radiotherapy follow-up evaluation.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this paper is to validate a dose mapping program using optical flow method (OFM), and to demonstrate application of the program in radiotherapy follow-up evaluation. For the purpose of validation, the deformation matrices between four-dimensional (4D) CT data of different simulated respiration phases of a phantom were calculated using OFM. The matrices were then used to map doses of all phases to a single-phase image, and summed in equal time weighting. The calculated dose should closely represent the dose delivered to the moving phantom if the deformation matrices are accurately calculated. The measured point doses agreed with the OFM calculations better than 2% at isocenters, and dose distributions better than 1mm for the 50% isodose line. To demonstrate proof-of-concept for the use of deformable image registration in dose mapping for treatment evaluation, the treatment-planning CT was registered with the post-treatment CT image from the positron emission tomography (PET)/CT resulting in a deformation matrix. The dose distribution from the treatment plan was then mapped onto the restaging PET/CT using the deformation matrix. Two cases in which patients had thoracic malignancies are presented. Each patient had CT-based treatment planning for radiotherapy and restaging fluorodeoxy glucose (FDG)-PET/CT imaging 4-6 weeks after completion of treatments. Areas of pneumonitis and recurrence were identified radiographically on both PET and CT restaging images. Local dose and standard uptake values for pneumonitis and recurrence were studied as a demonstration of this method. By comparing the deformable mapped dose to measurement, the treatment evaluation method which is introduced in this manuscript proved to be accurate. It thus provides a more accurate analysis than other rigid or linear dose-image registration when used in studying treatment outcome versus dose.Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 05/2008; 90(1):25-37. · 1.52 Impact Factor
