Literature DB >> 11704332

Fitting tumor control probability models to biopsy outcome after three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy of prostate cancer: pitfalls in deducing radiobiologic parameters for tumors from clinical data.

S Levegrün1, A Jackson, M J Zelefsky, M W Skwarchuk, E S Venkatraman, W Schlegel, Z Fuks, S A Leibel, C C Ling.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The goal of tumor control probability (TCP) models is to predict local control for inhomogeneous dose distributions. All existing fits of TCP models to clinical data have utilized summaries of dose distributions (e.g., prescription dose). Ideally, model fits should be based on dose distributions in the tumor, but usually only dose-volume histograms (DVH) of the planning target volume (PTV) are available. We fit TCP models to biopsy outcome after three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy of prostate cancer using either a dose distribution summary or the full DVH in the PTV. We discuss differences in the radiobiologic parameters and dose-response curves and demonstrate pitfalls in interpreting the results. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Two mechanistic TCP models were fit with a maximum likelihood technique to biopsy outcome from 103 prostate patients treated at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Fits were performed separately for different patient subgroups defined by tumor-related prognostic factors. Fits were based both on full DVHs, denoted TCP(DVH(calc)), and, alternatively, assuming a homogeneous PTV dose given by the mean dose (Dmean) of each DVH, denoted TCP(Dmean(calc)). Dose distributions for these patients were very homogeneous with any cold spots located on the periphery of the PTV. These cold spots were uncorrelated with biopsy outcome, likely because the low-dose regions may not contain tumor cells. Therefore, fits of TCP models that are potentially sensitive to cold spots (e.g., TCP(DVH(calc))) likely give biologic parameters that diminish this sensitivity. In light of this, we examined differences in fitted clonogenic cell number, N(C), or density, rho(C), surviving fraction after 2 Gy, SF(2), or radiosensitivity, alpha, and their standard deviations in the population, sigma(SF(2)) and sigma(alpha), resulting from fits based on TCP(DVH(calc)) and TCP(Dmean(calc)). Dose-response curves for homogeneous irradiation (characterized by TCD(50), the dose for a TCP of 50%) and differences in TCP predictions calculated from the DVH using alternatively derived parameters were evaluated.
RESULTS: Fits of TCP(Dmean(calc)) are better (i.e., have larger likelihood) than fits of TCP(DVH(calc)). For TCP(Dmean(calc)) fits, matching values of SF(2) and sigma(SF(2)) (or alpha and sigma(alpha)) exist for all N(C) (rho(C)) above a threshold that give fits of equal quality, with no maximum in likelihood. In contrast, TCP(DVH(calc)) fits have maximum likelihood for high SF(2) (low alpha) values that minimize effects of cold spots. Consequently, small N(C) (rho(C)) values are obtained to match the observed control rate. For example, for patients in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, optimum values of SF(2) and N(C) are 0.771 and 3.3 x 10(3), 0.736 and 2.2 x 10(4), and 0.776 and 1.0 x 10(4), respectively. The TCD(50) of dose-response curves for intermediate-risk patients is 2.6 Gy lower using TCP(DVH(calc)) parameters (TCD(50) = 67.8 Gy) than for TCP(Dmean(calc)) parameters (TCD(50) = 70.4 Gy). TCP predictions calculated from the DVH using risk group-dependent TCP(Dmean(calc)) parameters are up to 53% lower than corresponding calculations with TCP(DVH(calc)) parameters.
CONCLUSION: For our data, TCP parameters derived from DVHs likely do not reflect true radiobiologic parameters in the tumor, but are a consequence of the reduced importance of low-dose regions at the periphery of the PTV. Deriving radiobiologic parameters from TCP(Dmean(calc)) fits is not possible unless one parameter is already known. TCP predictions using TCP(DVH(calc)) and TCP(Dmean(calc)) parameters may differ substantially, requiring consistency in the derivation and application of model parameters. The proper derivation of radiobiologic parameters from clinical data requires both substantial dose inhomogeneities and understanding of how these coincide with tumor location.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11704332     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(01)01731-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  18 in total

1.  The effect of 6 and 15 MV on intensity-modulated radiation therapy prostate cancer treatment: plan evaluation, tumour control probability and normal tissue complication probability analysis, and the theoretical risk of secondary induced malignancies.

Authors:  M Hussein; S Aldridge; T Guerrero Urbano; A Nisbet
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  A comparison of HDR brachytherapy and IMRT techniques for dose escalation in prostate cancer: a radiobiological modeling study.

Authors:  M Fatyga; J F Williamson; N Dogan; D Todor; J V Siebers; R George; I Barani; M Hagan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  A note on modeling of tumor regression for estimation of radiobiological parameters.

Authors:  Hualiang Zhong; Indrin Chetty
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 4.  Preclinical animal research on therapy dosimetry with dual isotopes.

Authors:  Mark W Konijnenberg; Marion de Jong
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  The clinical impact of the couch top and rails on IMRT and arc therapy.

Authors:  Kiley B Pulliam; Rebecca M Howell; David Followill; Dershan Luo; R Allen White; Stephen F Kry
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-11-04       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 6.  Radiogenomics and radiotherapy response modeling.

Authors:  Issam El Naqa; Sarah L Kerns; James Coates; Yi Luo; Corey Speers; Catharine M L West; Barry S Rosenstein; Randall K Ten Haken
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Constrained non-rigid registration for use in image-guided adaptive radiotherapy.

Authors:  W H Greene; S Chelikani; K Purushothaman; J P S Knisely; Z Chen; X Papademetris; L H Staib; J S Duncan
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 8.545

8.  Predicting radiotherapy outcomes using statistical learning techniques.

Authors:  Issam El Naqa; Jeffrey D Bradley; Patricia E Lindsay; Andrew J Hope; Joseph O Deasy
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2009-08-18       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Determination and comparison of radiotherapy dose responses for hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic colorectal liver tumours.

Authors:  A Lausch; K Sinclair; M Lock; B Fisher; N Jensen; S Gaede; J Chen; E Wong
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 10.  Estimated Risk Level of Unified Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Dose Tolerance Limits for Spinal Cord.

Authors:  Jimm Grimm; Arjun Sahgal; Scott G Soltys; Gary Luxton; Ashish Patel; Scott Herbert; Jinyu Xue; Lijun Ma; Ellen Yorke; John R Adler; Iris C Gibbs
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-01-04       Impact factor: 5.934

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.