Carol Hahn

Overview:

Development of Evidence Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Radiation Oncology.

Optimizing Quality of Care in Radiation Oncology and Development of Quality Measures.

Disparities in care for oncology patients between tertiary care and community hospitals.

Assessment of Neuropsychologic Function in Brain Tumor Patients and the metabolic and functional changes induced by Radiation Therapy.

Positions:

Professor of Radiation Oncology

Radiation Oncology
School of Medicine

Member of the Duke Cancer Institute

Duke Cancer Institute
School of Medicine

Education:

M.D. 1990

Georgetown University

Publications:

A Multidisciplinary Consensus Recommendation on a Synoptic Radiation Treatment Summary: A Commission on Cancer Workgroup Report.

PURPOSE: The radiation treatment summary provides a clinical and technical overview of a patient's full course of radiation therapy. Despite its importance to multiple stakeholders, there is no widely followed radiation treatment summary template. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Commission on Cancer convened a multistakeholder workgroup to develop a synoptic radiation treatment summary template. The workgroup included individuals with expertise in radiation, medical and surgical oncology, medical physics, oncology informatics, cancer registry, electronic medical record systems, treatment planning systems, and registry information systems. The workgroup iterated a template until consensus was achieved. RESULTS: The consensus radiation treatment summary template is divided into 3 sections that allows for a mix of structured and free text. The first section, "Radiation Course Summary," is meant to provide information that is of broad interest and in a manner that is potentially accessible to patients, their families, and nononcology-trained care team members. The second section, "Anatomic Target Summary," provides information that is potentially useful to oncology-trained care team members who will be primarily interested in which anatomies were irradiated, by what modality, and to what cumulative dose. The third section, "Delivered Prescriptions," summarizes technical information that is primarily of interest and accessible to radiation oncology-trained clinicians, registrars, and researchers. CONCLUSIONS: We have proposed a consensus template with 3 sections to meet the needs of a diverse set of consumers. We recommend that providers, professional societies, and accreditation bodies with interest in the radiation treatment summary continue collaborative efforts to test, iterate, and drive adoption of a synoptic template.
Authors
Christodouleas, JP; Anderson, N; Gabriel, P; Greene, R; Hahn, C; Kessler, S; Mayo, CS; McNutt, T; Shulman, LN; Smith, BD; West, J; Williamson, T
MLA Citation
Christodouleas, John P., et al. “A Multidisciplinary Consensus Recommendation on a Synoptic Radiation Treatment Summary: A Commission on Cancer Workgroup Report.Pract Radiat Oncol, Jan. 2020. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.prro.2020.01.002.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1428963
PMID
31988040
Source
pubmed
Published In
Pract Radiat Oncol
Published Date
DOI
10.1016/j.prro.2020.01.002

“Choosing Wisely”: The American Society for Radiation Oncology’s Top 5 List

Authors
Hahn, CA; Kavanagh, B; Bhatnagar, A; Jacobson, GM; Lutz, S; Patton, C; Potters, L; Steinberg, ML
MLA Citation
Hahn, C. A., et al. ““Choosing Wisely”: The American Society for Radiation Oncology’s Top 5 List.” International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, vol. 90, no. 1, Elsevier BV, 2014, pp. S591–S591. Crossref, doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.05.1774.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1048401
Source
crossref
Published In
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
Volume
90
Published Date
Start Page
S591
End Page
S591
DOI
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.05.1774

Assessing neurotoxicity from the low-dose radiation component of radiosurgery using magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

The aim of the study was to determine if biochemical changes indicative of injury, assessed using magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (SI), are observed after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). The study included patients who underwent SI immediately before and 1, 30, and 90 days following SRS. Short TE spectra (TR/TE 1000/35 ms) were acquired at the SRS isocenter with a 2D PRESS-CSI sequence on a single 1.5 T scanner. The SRS isodose lines were overlaid on the magnetic resonance imaging slice utilized for SI data acquisition. N-Acetyl aspartate (NAA)/creatine (Cr) and choline (Cho)/Cr ratios were computed for multiple voxels located between the 25 and 50 cGy isodose lines (low dose) and the 200 and 350 cGy isodose lines (medium dose). An analysis of variance and paired t-tests compared metabolite levels at different time points. Twelve patients were enrolled, although 3 were excluded secondary to poor spectral data quality or deviations from the prescribed SI protocol. The median number of voxels analyzed from the low- and medium-dose region was 7 and 4, respectively. No significant changes in metabolite peak height ratios over time were seen in the low-dose region, for either NAA/Cr (P = .89) or Cho/Cr (P = .85). There was no difference in Cho/Cr peak height ratios in the medium-dose region (P = .62). There was an increase in the NAA/Cr peak height ratio in the medium-dose region between day -1 and day +30 (P = .003), followed by a decline to baseline between days +30 and +90 (P = .03). We did not observe a significant decline in NAA/Cr or change in Cho/Cr peak heights in uninvolved brain parenchyma after SRS.
Authors
Kelsey, CR; Mukundan, S; Wang, Z; Hahn, CA; Soher, BJ; Kirkpatrick, JP
MLA Citation
Kelsey, Chris R., et al. “Assessing neurotoxicity from the low-dose radiation component of radiosurgery using magnetic resonance spectroscopy.Neuro Oncol, vol. 12, no. 2, Feb. 2010, pp. 145–52. Pubmed, doi:10.1093/neuonc/nop040.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub736626
PMID
20150381
Source
pubmed
Published In
Neuro Oncol
Volume
12
Published Date
Start Page
145
End Page
152
DOI
10.1093/neuonc/nop040

Phase I/II trial of intravenous liposomal doxorubicin and whole abdomen hyperthermia in patients with refractory ovarian cancer.

Authors
Secord, AA; Jones, E; Hahn, CA; Havrilesky, LJ; Soper, JT; Berchuck, A; Clarke-Pearson, DL; Prosnitz, LR
MLA Citation
Secord, A. A., et al. “Phase I/II trial of intravenous liposomal doxorubicin and whole abdomen hyperthermia in patients with refractory ovarian cancer.Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 22, no. 14, AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2004, pp. 471S-471S.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub864938
Source
wos
Published In
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
Volume
22
Published Date
Start Page
471S
End Page
471S

Adjuvant and salvage radiation therapy after prostatectomy: American Society for Radiation Oncology/American Urological Association guidelines.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline was to provide a clinical framework for the use of radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy as adjuvant or salvage therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic literature review using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane database was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the use of radiation therapy after prostatectomy. The review yielded 294 articles; these publications were used to create the evidence-based guideline statements. Additional guidance is provided as Clinical Principles when insufficient evidence existed. RESULTS: Guideline statements are provided for patient counseling, use of radiation therapy in the adjuvant and salvage contexts, defining biochemical recurrence, and conducting a restaging evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians should offer adjuvant radiation therapy to patients with adverse pathologic findings at prostatectomy (ie, seminal vesicle invastion, positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension) and salvage radiation therapy to patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or local recurrence after prostatectomy in whom there is no evidence of distant metastatic disease. The offer of radiation therapy should be made in the context of a thoughtful discussion of possible short- and long-term side effects of radiation therapy as well as the potential benefits of preventing recurrence. The decision to administer radiation therapy should be made by the patient and the multidisciplinary treatment team with full consideration of the patient's history, values, preferences, quality of life, and functional status. The American Society for Radiation Oncology and American Urological Association websites show this guideline in its entirety, including the full literature review.
Authors
Valicenti, RK; Thompson, I; Albertsen, P; Davis, BJ; Goldenberg, SL; Wolf, JS; Sartor, O; Klein, E; Hahn, C; Michalski, J; Roach, M; Faraday, MM; American Society for Radiation Oncology/American Urological Association,
MLA Citation
Valicenti, Richard K., et al. “Adjuvant and salvage radiation therapy after prostatectomy: American Society for Radiation Oncology/American Urological Association guidelines.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, vol. 86, no. 5, Aug. 2013, pp. 822–28. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.05.029.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub961181
PMID
23845839
Source
pubmed
Published In
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
Volume
86
Published Date
Start Page
822
End Page
828
DOI
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.05.029