Literature DB >> 11373882

The role of biologically effective dose (BED) in clinical oncology.

B Jones1, R G Dale, C Deehan, K I Hopkins, D A Morgan.   

Abstract

There are many clinical situations in which radiobiological considerations can be usefully applied and all clinicians should be aware of the potential benefits of developing a quantitative radiobiological approach to their practice. The concept of biologically effective dose (BED) in particular is useful for quantifying treatment expectations, but clinical oncologists should recognize that careful interpretation of modelling results is required before clinical decisions can be made and that there is a lack of reliable human parameters for application in some situations. Correct use of the BED concept will, in more complex treatment situations, sometimes involve the use of multiple parameters and BED calculations. Examples include: 1. Where the dose per fraction is being altered and it is possible that normal tissue tolerance may be compromised, calculations should include two or more alpha/beta ratio values, some being less than 3 Gy, in order to estimate the 'worst case scenario'. 2. A single one-point BED calculation will not be representative of the biological effect throughout a large planning target volume where there are significant 'hot spots'. Multiple BED evaluations are then indicated. 3. Where there are combinations of radiotherapy treatments or phases of treatments, these can be quantitatively assessed by the addition of BEDs, although the volume of tissue is not inherently included in the BED calculation and any high-dose region needs to be separately assessed as in point 2. 4. Allowance for tumour clonogen repopulation during therapy is required for some tumour types. 5. Different histological classes of cancers require the use of different alpha/beta ratios. Where there is reasonable doubt regarding this parameter, a suitable range should be used. The principles involved are illustrated by worked examples. Attention to detail and the examination of ranges of possible results should offer a safer guide to alternative dose fractionation schedules, although the ultimate choice will be tempered by clinical circumstances.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11373882     DOI: 10.1053/clon.2001.9221

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)        ISSN: 0936-6555            Impact factor:   4.126


  64 in total

Review 1.  21 years of biologically effective dose.

Authors:  J F Fowler
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  The dosimetric comparison of the radiotherapeutic plans between composite and synchronous planning approaches in sequential IMRT for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Authors:  Gang Zhou; Yanze Sun; Jianjun Qian; Ye Tian; Xueguan Lu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-09-15

Review 3.  Prostatic irradiation-induced sexual dysfunction: a review and multidisciplinary guide to management in the radical radiotherapy era (Part I defining the organ at risk for sexual toxicities).

Authors:  Marigdalia K Ramirez-Fort; Marc J Rogers; Roberto Santiago; Sean S Mahase; Melissa Mendez; Yi Zheng; Xiang Kong; James A Kashanian; M Junaid Niaz; Shearwood McClelland; Xiaodong Wu; Neil H Bander; Peter Schlegel; John P Mulhall; Christopher S Lange
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2020-03-19

4.  Optimal strategy of gamma knife radiosurgery for craniopharyngiomas.

Authors:  Yun-Sik Dho; Yong Hwy Kim; Jin Wook Kim; Chul-Kee Park; Hyun-Tai Chung; Seung-Ki Kim; Sun Ha Paek; Kyu-Chang Wang; Dong Gyu Kim
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 4.130

5.  Why RBE must be a variable and not a constant in proton therapy.

Authors:  Bleddyn Jones
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 6.  The evolution of practical radiobiological modelling.

Authors:  B Jones; R G Dale
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-03-20       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Temporally feathered intensity-modulated radiation therapy: A planning technique to reduce normal tissue toxicity.

Authors:  Juan Carlos López Alfonso; Shireen Parsai; Nikhil Joshi; Andrew Godley; Chirag Shah; Shlomo A Koyfman; Jimmy J Caudell; Clifton D Fuller; Heiko Enderling; Jacob G Scott
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-06-08       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  The developing role for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the non-surgical treatment of brain metastases.

Authors:  A A Edwards; E Keggin; P N Plowman
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 9.  The role of whole brain radiation therapy in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

Authors:  Laurie E Gaspar; Minesh P Mehta; Roy A Patchell; Stuart H Burri; Paula D Robinson; Rachel E Morris; Mario Ammirati; David W Andrews; Anthony L Asher; Charles S Cobbs; Douglas Kondziolka; Mark E Linskey; Jay S Loeffler; Michael McDermott; Tom Mikkelsen; Jeffrey J Olson; Nina A Paleologos; Timothy C Ryken; Steven N Kalkanis
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2009-12-04       Impact factor: 4.130

10.  Predictive value of modelled tumour control probability based on individual measurements of in vitro radiosensitivity and potential doubling time.

Authors:  M Hedman; T Björk-Eriksson; O Brodin; I Toma-Dasu
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-03-11       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.