Literature DB >> 21266397

Pulsed brachytherapy: a modelled consideration of repair parameter uncertainties and their influence on treatment duration extension and daytime-only "block-schemes".

T S A Underwood1, R G Dale, A M Bidmead, C A Nalder, P R Blake.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The radiobiological modelling of all types of protracted brachytherapy is susceptible to uncertainties in the values of tissue repair parameters. Although this effect has been explored for many aspects of pulsed brachytherapy (PB), it is usually considered within the constraint of a fixed brachytherapy treatment time. Here the impact of repair parameter uncertainty is assessed for PB treatments of variable duration. The potential use of "block-schemes" (blocks of PB pulses separated by night-time gaps) is also investigated.
METHODS: PB schedule constraints are based on the cervical cancer protocols of the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH), but the methodology is applicable to any combination of starting schedule and treatment constraint. Calculations are performed using the biologically effective dose (BED) as a tissue-specific comparison metric. The ratio of normal tissue BED to tumour BED is considered for PB regimens with varying total pulse numbers and/or "block-schemes".
RESULTS: For matched brachytherapy duration, PB has a good "window of opportunity" relative to the existing RMH continuous low dose rate (CLDR) practice for all modelled repair half-times. The most clear-cut route to radiobiological optimisation of PB is via modest temporal extension of the PB regimen relative to the CLDR reference. This option may be practicable for those centres with scope to extend their relatively short CLDR treatment durations.
CONCLUSION: Although daytime-only "block-scheme" PB for cervical cancer has not yet been employed clinically, the possibilities appear to be theoretically promising, providing the overall (external beam plus brachytherapy) treatment duration is not extended relative to current practice, such that additional tumour repopulation becomes a concern.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21266397      PMCID: PMC3473649          DOI: 10.1259/bjr/58276427

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  28 in total

Review 1.  Practical methods for compensating for missed treatment days in radiotherapy, with particular reference to head and neck schedules.

Authors:  R G Dale; J H Hendry; B Jones; A G Robertson; C Deehan; J A Sinclair
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 4.126

Review 2.  21 years of biologically effective dose.

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

3.  High-dose-rate brachytherapy may be radiobiologically superior to low-dose rate due to slow repair of late-responding normal tissue cells.

Authors:  C G Orton
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2001-01-01       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Pulsed brachytherapy: the conditions for no significant loss of therapeutic ratio compared with traditional low dose rate brachytherapy.

Authors:  J Fowler; M Mount
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Possible dose rate dependence of recovery kinetics as deduced from a preliminary analysis of the effects of fractionated irradiations at varying dose rates.

Authors:  R G Dale; J Huczkowski; K R Trott
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  The application of the linear-quadratic dose-effect equation to fractionated and protracted radiotherapy.

Authors:  R G Dale
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  How worthwhile are short schedules in radiotherapy? A series of exploratory calculations.

Authors:  J F Fowler
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 6.280

8.  Low-dose-rate brachytherapy is superior to high-dose-rate brachytherapy for bladder cancer.

Authors:  Floris J Pos; Simon Horenblas; Joos Lebesque; Luc Moonen; Christoph Schneider; Peter Sminia; Harry Bartelink
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2004-07-01       Impact factor: 7.038

9.  Compensation for changes in dose-rate in radical low-dose-rate brachytherapy: a radiobiological analysis of a randomised clinical trial.

Authors:  Stephen A Roberts; Jolyon H Hendry; Richard Swindell; John M Wilkinson; Robin D Hunter
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 6.280

10.  Conditions for the equivalence of continuous to pulsed low dose rate brachytherapy.

Authors:  D J Brenner; E J Hall
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 7.038

View more
  1 in total

1.  Radiation repair models for clinical application.

Authors:  Roger G Dale
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 3.039

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.