PURPOSE: Overprediction of the potency and toxicity of high-dose ablative radiotherapy such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) by the linear quadratic (LQ) model led to many clinicians' hesitating to adopt this efficacious and well-tolerated therapeutic option. The aim of this study was to offer an alternative method of analyzing the effect of SBRT by constructing a universal survival curve (USC) that provides superior approximation of the experimentally measured survival curves in the ablative, high-dose range without losing the strengths of the LQ model around the shoulder. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The USC was constructed by hybridizing two classic radiobiologic models: the LQ model and the multitarget model. We have assumed that the LQ model gives a good description for conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) for the dose to the shoulder. For ablative doses beyond the shoulder, the survival curve is better described as a straight line as predicted by the multitarget model. The USC smoothly interpolates from a parabola predicted by the LQ model to the terminal asymptote of the multitarget model in the high-dose region. From the USC, we derived two equivalence functions, the biologically effective dose and the single fraction equivalent dose for both CFRT and SBRT. RESULTS: The validity of the USC was tested by using previously published parameters of the LQ and multitarget models for non-small-cell lung cancer cell lines. A comparison of the goodness-of-fit of the LQ and USC models was made to a high-dose survival curve of the H460 non-small-cell lung cancer cell line. CONCLUSION: The USC can be used to compare the dose fractionation schemes of both CFRT and SBRT. The USC provides an empirically and a clinically well-justified rationale for SBRT while preserving the strengths of the LQ model for CFRT.
PURPOSE: Overprediction of the potency and toxicity of high-dose ablative radiotherapy such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) by the linear quadratic (LQ) model led to many clinicians' hesitating to adopt this efficacious and well-tolerated therapeutic option. The aim of this study was to offer an alternative method of analyzing the effect of SBRT by constructing a universal survival curve (USC) that provides superior approximation of the experimentally measured survival curves in the ablative, high-dose range without losing the strengths of the LQ model around the shoulder. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The USC was constructed by hybridizing two classic radiobiologic models: the LQ model and the multitarget model. We have assumed that the LQ model gives a good description for conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) for the dose to the shoulder. For ablative doses beyond the shoulder, the survival curve is better described as a straight line as predicted by the multitarget model. The USC smoothly interpolates from a parabola predicted by the LQ model to the terminal asymptote of the multitarget model in the high-dose region. From the USC, we derived two equivalence functions, the biologically effective dose and the single fraction equivalent dose for both CFRT and SBRT. RESULTS: The validity of the USC was tested by using previously published parameters of the LQ and multitarget models for non-small-cell lung cancer cell lines. A comparison of the goodness-of-fit of the LQ and USC models was made to a high-dose survival curve of the H460 non-small-cell lung cancer cell line. CONCLUSION: The USC can be used to compare the dose fractionation schemes of both CFRT and SBRT. The USC provides an empirically and a clinically well-justified rationale for SBRT while preserving the strengths of the LQ model for CFRT.
Authors: Charlie C Pan; Brian D Kavanagh; Laura A Dawson; X Allen Li; Shiva K Das; Moyed Miften; Randall K Ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David J Carlson; Paul J Keall; Billy W Loo; Zhe J Chen; J Martin Brown Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Amy S Harrison; Edouard J Trabulsi; Leonard G Gomella; Timothy N Showalter; Mark D Hurwitz; Adam P Dicker; Robert B Den Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Osama Mohamad; Alberto Diaz de Leon; Samuel Schroeder; Andrew Leiker; Alana Christie; Elizabeth Zhang-Velten; Lakshya Trivedi; Saad Khan; Neil B Desai; Aaron Laine; Kevin Albuquerque; Puneeth Iyengar; Yull Arriaga; Kevin Courtney; David E Gerber; Hans Hammers; Hak Choy; Robert Timmerman; James Brugarolas; Raquibul Hannan Journal: Oncoimmunology Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 8.110
Authors: Ping Xia; Rupesh Kotecha; Naveen Sharma; Martin Andrews; Kevin L Stephans; Carlos Oberti; Sara Lin; Oussama Wazni; Patrick Tchou; Walid I Saliba; John Suh Journal: Cureus Date: 2016-07-11
Authors: Gregory N Gan; Andrew J Weickhardt; Benjamin Scheier; Robert C Doebele; Laurie E Gaspar; Brian D Kavanagh; D Ross Camidge Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 7.038