PURPOSE/ BACKGROUND: Validating a predictive model for late rectal bleeding following external beam treatment for prostate cancer would enable safer treatments or dose escalation. We tested the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model recommended in the recent QUANTEC review (quantitative analysis of normal tissue effects in the clinic). MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty one prostate cancer patients were treated with 3D conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer at the British Columbia Cancer Agency in a prospective protocol. The total prescription dose for all patients was 74 Gy, delivered in 2 Gy/fraction. 159 3D treatment planning datasets were available for analysis. Rectal dose volume histograms were extracted and fitted to a Lyman-Kutcher-Burman NTCP model. RESULTS: Late rectal bleeding (>grade 2) was observed in 12/159 patients (7.5%). Multivariate logistic regression with dose-volume parameters (V50, V60, V70, etc.) was non-significant. Among clinical variables, only age was significant on a Kaplan-Meier log-rank test (p=0.007, with an optimal cut point of 77 years). Best-fit Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model parameters (with 95% confidence intervals) were: n = 0.068 (0.01, +infinity); m =0.14 (0.0, 0.86); and TD50 = 81 (27, 136) Gy. The peak values fall within the 95% QUANTEC confidence intervals. On this dataset, both models had only modest ability to predict complications: the best-fit model had a Spearman's rank correlation coefficient of rs = 0.099 (p = 0.11) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.62; the QUANTEC model had rs=0.096 (p= 0.11) and a corresponding AUC of 0.61. Although the QUANTEC model consistently predicted higher NTCP values, it could not be rejected according to the χ(2) test (p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Observed complications, and best-fit parameter estimates, were consistent with the QUANTEC-preferred NTCP model. However, predictive power was low, at least partly because the rectal dose distribution characteristics do not vary greatly within this patient cohort.
PURPOSE/ BACKGROUND: Validating a predictive model for late rectal bleeding following external beam treatment for prostate cancer would enable safer treatments or dose escalation. We tested the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model recommended in the recent QUANTEC review (quantitative analysis of normal tissue effects in the clinic). MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty one prostate cancerpatients were treated with 3D conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer at the British Columbia Cancer Agency in a prospective protocol. The total prescription dose for all patients was 74 Gy, delivered in 2 Gy/fraction. 159 3D treatment planning datasets were available for analysis. Rectal dose volume histograms were extracted and fitted to a Lyman-Kutcher-Burman NTCP model. RESULTS:Late rectal bleeding (>grade 2) was observed in 12/159 patients (7.5%). Multivariate logistic regression with dose-volume parameters (V50, V60, V70, etc.) was non-significant. Among clinical variables, only age was significant on a Kaplan-Meier log-rank test (p=0.007, with an optimal cut point of 77 years). Best-fit Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model parameters (with 95% confidence intervals) were: n = 0.068 (0.01, +infinity); m =0.14 (0.0, 0.86); and TD50 = 81 (27, 136) Gy. The peak values fall within the 95% QUANTEC confidence intervals. On this dataset, both models had only modest ability to predict complications: the best-fit model had a Spearman's rank correlation coefficient of rs = 0.099 (p = 0.11) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.62; the QUANTEC model had rs=0.096 (p= 0.11) and a corresponding AUC of 0.61. Although the QUANTEC model consistently predicted higher NTCP values, it could not be rejected according to the χ(2) test (p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Observed complications, and best-fit parameter estimates, were consistent with the QUANTEC-preferred NTCP model. However, predictive power was low, at least partly because the rectal dose distribution characteristics do not vary greatly within this patient cohort.
Authors: Joseph O Deasy; Søren M Bentzen; Andrew Jackson; Randall K Ten Haken; Ellen D Yorke; Louis S Constine; Ashish Sharma; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David A Jaffray; Patricia E Lindsay; Kristy K Brock; Joseph O Deasy; W A Tomé Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stephanie T H Peeters; Joos V Lebesque; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Wim L J van Putten; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Peter C M Koper Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-01-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jeff M Michalski; Hiram Gay; Andrew Jackson; Susan L Tucker; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sarah L Gulliford; Kerwyn Foo; Rachel C Morgan; Edwin G Aird; A Margaret Bidmead; Helen Critchley; Philip M Evans; Stefano Gianolini; W Philip Mayles; A Rollo Moore; Beatriz Sánchez-Nieto; Mike Partridge; Matthew R Sydes; Steve Webb; David P Dearnaley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-06-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Maria Thor; Aditya Apte; Joseph O Deasy; Àsa Karlsdóttir; Vitali Moiseenko; Mitchell Liu; Ludvig Paul Muren Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Oscar Casares-Magaz; Ludvig Paul Muren; Vitali Moiseenko; Stine E Petersen; Niclas Johan Pettersson; Morten Høyer; Joseph O Deasy; Maria Thor Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Vittoria D'Avino; Giuseppe Palma; Raffaele Liuzzi; Manuel Conson; Francesca Doria; Marco Salvatore; Roberto Pacelli; Laura Cella Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Yvonka van Wijk; Bram Ramaekers; Ben G L Vanneste; Iva Halilaj; Cary Oberije; Avishek Chatterjee; Tom Marcelissen; Arthur Jochems; Henry C Woodruff; Philippe Lambin Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 6.639