M A Manning1, R D Zwicker, D W Arthur, M Arnfield. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Virginia Hospitals of Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), P.O. Box 980058, Richmond, VA 23298-0058, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Interstitial brachytherapy treatment plans are conventionally optimized with respect to total target dose and dose homogeneity, which does not account for the biologic effects of dose rate. In an HDR implant, with a stepping source, the dose rate dramatically changes during the course of treatment, depending on location, as the source moves from dwell position to dwell position. These widely varying dose rates, together with the related sequencing of the dwell positions, may impart different biologic effects at points receiving the same total dose. This study applies radiobiologic principles to account for the potential biologic impact of dose delivery at varying dose rates within an HDR implant. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The model under study uses a generalized version of the linear-quadratic (LQ) cell kill formula to calculate the surviving fraction of cells subjected to HDR irradiation. Using a planar interstitial HDR implant with the dwell times optimized to produce a homogeneous dose distribution along a reference plane parallel to the implant plane, surviving fractions were compared at selected reference points subjected to the same total dose. Biologic effect homogeneity was compared to dose homogeneity by plotting the effects at the reference points. The effects were examined with LQ parameters alpha, beta, and sublethal repair time T(1) varied over a range typical of human cells. RESULTS: In a region in which dose is relatively uniform, surviving fraction for some values of the model parameters are found to vary by as much as an order of magnitude due to differences in the HDR irradiation profiles at different dose points. This effect is more pronounced for shorter repair times and smaller alpha/beta ratios, and increases with increasing total irradiation time. CONCLUSION: Conventional HDR treatment planning currently considers dose distribution as the primary indicator of clinical effect. Our results demonstrate that plans optimized to maximize homogeneity within a target volume may not reflect the effect of the sequential nature of HDR dose delivery on cell kill. Biologic effect modeling may improve our understanding and ability to predict the adverse effects of our treatment, such as fat necrosis and fibrosis. Accounting for irradiation history and repair kinetics in the evaluation of HDR brachytherapy plans may add an important new dimension to our planning capabilities.
PURPOSE: Interstitial brachytherapy treatment plans are conventionally optimized with respect to total target dose and dose homogeneity, which does not account for the biologic effects of dose rate. In an HDR implant, with a stepping source, the dose rate dramatically changes during the course of treatment, depending on location, as the source moves from dwell position to dwell position. These widely varying dose rates, together with the related sequencing of the dwell positions, may impart different biologic effects at points receiving the same total dose. This study applies radiobiologic principles to account for the potential biologic impact of dose delivery at varying dose rates within an HDR implant. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The model under study uses a generalized version of the linear-quadratic (LQ) cell kill formula to calculate the surviving fraction of cells subjected to HDR irradiation. Using a planar interstitial HDR implant with the dwell times optimized to produce a homogeneous dose distribution along a reference plane parallel to the implant plane, surviving fractions were compared at selected reference points subjected to the same total dose. Biologic effect homogeneity was compared to dose homogeneity by plotting the effects at the reference points. The effects were examined with LQ parameters alpha, beta, and sublethal repair time T(1) varied over a range typical of human cells. RESULTS: In a region in which dose is relatively uniform, surviving fraction for some values of the model parameters are found to vary by as much as an order of magnitude due to differences in the HDR irradiation profiles at different dose points. This effect is more pronounced for shorter repair times and smaller alpha/beta ratios, and increases with increasing total irradiation time. CONCLUSION: Conventional HDR treatment planning currently considers dose distribution as the primary indicator of clinical effect. Our results demonstrate that plans optimized to maximize homogeneity within a target volume may not reflect the effect of the sequential nature of HDR dose delivery on cell kill. Biologic effect modeling may improve our understanding and ability to predict the adverse effects of our treatment, such as fat necrosis and fibrosis. Accounting for irradiation history and repair kinetics in the evaluation of HDR brachytherapy plans may add an important new dimension to our planning capabilities.
Authors: Guy C Jones; Jason D Kehrer; Jenna Kahn; Bobby N Koneru; Ram Narayan; Tarita O Thomas; Kevin Camphausen; Minesh P Mehta; Aradhana Kaushal Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 4.785