I have been a proud member of the Department of Human Oncology since 2010. I hold a unique position within the department in that I am exclusively an outreach physician at Aspirus UW Cancer Center–Wisconsin Rapids. My job is to bring quality UW care to my local community, and all of my time is spent in direct patient contact clinical endeavors at UWCCR. My career as a DHO radiation oncologist has been extremely rewarding, and I am truly grateful for the privilege to care for cancer patients in central Wisconsin. I have come to realize that my job extends far beyond the UWCCR clinic walls, and I embrace my responsibility to care for this entire community. I am extending the DHO expertise to patient care, research, education and service to the community at large and fulfilling the Department of Human Oncology mission of bringing quality UW care to my local community.
Resident, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Radiation Oncology (2010)
Intern, Tucson Hospital Medical Education Program, Tucson, Arizona, (2006)
MD, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, Medicine (2005)
BS, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, Human Physiology (2001)
Clinical Associate Professor, Human Oncology (2017)
Clinical Assistant Professor, Human Oncology (2010)
Boards, Advisory Committees and Professional Organizations
American Board of Radiology Board Certification, 2011
American Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology
American Society of Clinical Oncology
American Medical Association
Wisconsin State Medical Society
Wisconsin Oncology Network
Member, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)
Member, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group
University of Wisconsin Cancer Center–Riverview (UWCCR)
I am an outreach physician at the University of Wisconsin Cancer Center–Riverview (UWCCR). UWCCR typically has 15 to 20 clinical trials open, and I serve as the principal investigator on all radiation trials at this location.
Dosimetric aspects of breast radiotherapy with three-dimensional and intensity-modulated radiotherapy helical tomotherapy planning modules. Med Dosim
Yadav P, Yan Y, Ignatowski T, Olson A
2017 Spring; 42 (1): 42-46
In this work, we investigated the dosimetric differences between the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans and the three-dimensional (3D) helical plans based on the TomoTherapy system. A total of 15 patients with supine setup were randomly selected from the data base. For patients with lumpectomy planning target volume (PTV), regional lymph nodes were also included as part of the target. For dose sparing, the significant differences between the helical IMRT and helical 3D were only found in the heart and contralateral breast. For the dose to the heart, helical IMRT reduced the maximum point dose by 6.98Gy compared to the helical 3D plan (p = 0.01). For contralateral breast, the helical IMRT plans significantly reduced the maximum point dose by 5.6Gy compared to the helical 3D plan. However, compared to the helical 3D plan, the helical IMRT plan increased the volume for lower dose (13.08% increase in V5Gy, p = 0.01). In general, there are no significant differences in dose sparing between helical IMRT and helical 3D plans.View details for PubMedID 28129971
Acute Toxicity From Breast Cancer Radiation Using Helical Tomotherapy With a Simultaneous Integrated Boost. Technol Cancer Res Treat
Wojcieszynski AP, Olson AK, Rong Y, Kimple RJ, Yadav P
2016 Apr; 15 (2): 257-65
PURPOSE: To evaluate 2 simultaneous integrated boost treatment planning techniques using helical tomotherapy for breast conserving therapy with regard to acute skin toxicity and dosimetry.
METHODS: Thirty-two patients were studied. The original approach was for 16 patients and incorporated a directional block of the ipsilateral lung and breast. An additional 16 patients were planned for using a modified approach that incorporates a full block of the ipsilateral lung exclusive of 4 cm around the breast. Dose-volume histograms of targets and critical structures were evaluated. Skin toxicity monitoring was performed throughout treatment and follow-up using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.
RESULTS: Treatment was well tolerated with patients receiving a median dose of 59.36 Gy. Of the 16 patients in both groups, 8 had grade 2 erythema immediately after radiation. On 3-week follow-up, 10 and 7 patients in the original and modified groups showed grade 1 erythema. On 3- and 6-month follow-up, both groups had minimal erythema, with all patients having either grade 0 or 1 symptoms. No grade 2 or 3 toxicities were reported. Mean treatment time was 7.5 and 10.4 minutes using the original and modified methods. Adequate dose coverage was achieved using both methods (V95 = 99.5% and 98%). Mean dose to the heart was 10.5 and 1.8 Gy, respectively (P < .01). For right-sided tumors, the original and modified plans yielded a mean of 8.8 and 1.1 Gy (P < .01) versus 11.7 and 2.4 Gy for left-sided tumors (P < .01). The mean dose to the ipsilateral lung was also significantly lower in the modified plans (11.8 vs. 5.0 Gy, P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Tomotherapy is capable of delivering homogeneous treatment plans to the whole breast and lumpectomy cavity using simultaneous integrated boost treatment. Using the treatment methods described herein, extremely low doses to critical structures can be achieved without compromising acute skin toxicity.View details for PubMedID 25780060
Anna K. Olson, MD600 Highland Avenue,
Madison, WI 53792