Literature DB >> 20488692

Radiobiological impact of reduced margins and treatment technique for prostate cancer in terms of tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP).

Ingelise Jensen1, Jesper Carl, Bente Lund, Erik H Larsen, Jane Nielsen.   

Abstract

Dose escalation in prostate radiotherapy is limited by normal tissue toxicities. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of margin size on tumor control and side effects for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) treatment plans with increased dose. Eighteen patients with localized prostate cancer were enrolled. 3DCRT and IMRT plans were compared for a variety of margin sizes. A marker detectable on daily portal images was presupposed for narrow margins. Prescribed dose was 82 Gy within 41 fractions to the prostate clinical target volume (CTV). Tumor control probability (TCP) calculations based on the Poisson model including the linear quadratic approach were performed. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) was calculated for bladder, rectum and femoral heads according to the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman method. All plan types presented essentially identical TCP values and very low NTCP for bladder and femoral heads. Mean doses for these critical structures reached a minimum for IMRT with reduced margins. Two endpoints for rectal complications were analyzed. A marked decrease in NTCP for IMRT plans with narrow margins was seen for mild RTOG grade 2/3 as well as for proctitis/necrosis/stenosis/fistula, for which NTCP <7% was obtained. For equivalent TCP values, sparing of normal tissue was demonstrated with the narrow margin approach. The effect was more pronounced for IMRT than 3DCRT, with respect to NTCP for mild, as well as severe, rectal complications.
Copyright © 2011 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20488692     DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2010.02.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Dosim        ISSN: 1873-4022            Impact factor:   1.482


  6 in total

1.  Volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs. c-IMRT in esophageal cancer: a treatment planning comparison.

Authors:  Li Yin; Hao Wu; Jian Gong; Jian-Hao Geng; Fan Jiang; An-Hui Shi; Rong Yu; Yong-Heng Li; Shu-Kui Han; Bo Xu; Guang-Ying Zhu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-10-07       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Image-guided radiotherapy of the prostate using daily CBCT: the feasibility and likely benefit of implementing a margin reduction.

Authors:  I F Maund; R J Benson; J Fairfoul; J Cook; R Huddart; A Poynter
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Voxel-based population analysis for correlating local dose and rectal toxicity in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  Oscar Acosta; Gael Drean; Juan D Ospina; Antoine Simon; Pascal Haigron; Caroline Lafond; Renaud de Crevoisier
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Comparison of Radiobiological Models for Radiation Therapy Plans of Prostate Cancer: Three-dimensional Conformal versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy.

Authors:  Mesbahi A; Rasouli N; Mohammadzadeh M; Nasiri Motlagh B; Ozan Tekin H
Journal:  J Biomed Phys Eng       Date:  2019-06-01

Review 5.  A Ten-year-long Update on Radiation Proctitis Among Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Curative External Beam Radiotherapy.

Authors:  Gianluca Ferini; Stefano Pergolizzi
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 2.406

6.  A dosimetric phantom study of thoracic radiotherapy based on three-dimensional modeling of mediastinal lymph nodes.

Authors:  Ji-Bin Zhang; Li-Rong Zhao; Tian-Xiang Cui; Xie-Wan Chen; Qiao Yang; Yi-Bing Zhou; Zheng-Tang Chen; Shao-Xiang Zhang; Jian-Guo Sun
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 2.967

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.