Ivan R Vogelius1, Søren M Bentzen. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. vogelius@gmail.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: To present a novel method for meta-analysis of the fractionation sensitivity of tumors as applied to prostate cancer in the presence of an overall time factor. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic search for radiation dose-fractionation trials in prostate cancer was performed using PubMed and by manual search. Published trials comparing standard fractionated external beam radiation therapy with alternative fractionation were eligible. For each trial the α/β ratio and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were extracted, and the data were synthesized with each study weighted by the inverse variance. An overall time factor was included in the analysis, and its influence on α/β was investigated. RESULTS: Five studies involving 1965 patients were included in the meta-analysis of α/β. The synthesized α/β assuming no effect of overall treatment time was -0.07 Gy (95% CI -0.73-0.59), which was increased to 0.47 Gy (95% CI -0.55-1.50) if a single highly weighted study was excluded. In a separate analysis, 2 studies based on 10,808 patients in total allowed extraction of a synthesized estimate of a time factor of 0.31 Gy/d (95% CI 0.20-0.42). The time factor increased the α/β estimate to 0.58 Gy (95% CI -0.53-1.69)/1.93 Gy (95% CI -0.27-4.14) with/without the heavily weighted study. An analysis of the uncertainty of the α/β estimate showed a loss of information when the hypofractionated arm was underdosed compared with the normo-fractionated arm. CONCLUSIONS: The current external beam fractionation studies are consistent with a very low α/β ratio for prostate cancer, although the CIs include α/β ratios up to 4.14 Gy in the presence of a time factor. Details of the dose fractionation in the 2 trial arms have critical influence on the information that can be extracted from a study. Studies with unfortunate designs will supply little or no information about α/β regardless of the number of subjects enrolled.
PURPOSE: To present a novel method for meta-analysis of the fractionation sensitivity of tumors as applied to prostate cancer in the presence of an overall time factor. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic search for radiation dose-fractionation trials in prostate cancer was performed using PubMed and by manual search. Published trials comparing standard fractionated external beam radiation therapy with alternative fractionation were eligible. For each trial the α/β ratio and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were extracted, and the data were synthesized with each study weighted by the inverse variance. An overall time factor was included in the analysis, and its influence on α/β was investigated. RESULTS: Five studies involving 1965 patients were included in the meta-analysis of α/β. The synthesized α/β assuming no effect of overall treatment time was -0.07 Gy (95% CI -0.73-0.59), which was increased to 0.47 Gy (95% CI -0.55-1.50) if a single highly weighted study was excluded. In a separate analysis, 2 studies based on 10,808 patients in total allowed extraction of a synthesized estimate of a time factor of 0.31 Gy/d (95% CI 0.20-0.42). The time factor increased the α/β estimate to 0.58 Gy (95% CI -0.53-1.69)/1.93 Gy (95% CI -0.27-4.14) with/without the heavily weighted study. An analysis of the uncertainty of the α/β estimate showed a loss of information when the hypofractionated arm was underdosed compared with the normo-fractionated arm. CONCLUSIONS: The current external beam fractionation studies are consistent with a very low α/β ratio for prostate cancer, although the CIs include α/β ratios up to 4.14 Gy in the presence of a time factor. Details of the dose fractionation in the 2 trial arms have critical influence on the information that can be extracted from a study. Studies with unfortunate designs will supply little or no information about α/β regardless of the number of subjects enrolled.
Authors: Himu Lukka; Charles Hayter; Jim A Julian; Padraig Warde; W James Morris; Mary Gospodarowicz; Mark Levine; Jinka Sathya; Richard Choo; Hugh Prichard; Michael Brundage; Winkle Kwan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David J D'Ambrosio; Tianyu Li; Eric M Horwitz; David Y T Chen; Alan Pollack; Mark K Buyyounouski Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Scott G Williams; Jeremy M G Taylor; Ning Liu; Yolande Tra; Gillian M Duchesne; Larry L Kestin; Alvaro Martinez; Gary R Pratt; Howard Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Philip S Boonstra; Jeremy M G Taylor; Beata Smolska-Ciszewska; Katarzyna Behrendt; Tomasz Dworzecki; Marzena Gawkowska-Suwinska; Brygida Bialas; Rafal Suwinski Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Dario Pasalic; Deborah A Kuban; Pamela K Allen; Chad Tang; Shane M Mesko; Stephen R Grant; Alexander A Augustyn; Steven J Frank; Seungtaek Choi; Karen E Hoffman; Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; Sean E McGuire; Alan Pollack; Mitchell S Anscher Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-03-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Raymond B King; Sarah Os Osman; Ciaran Fairmichael; Denise M Irvine; Ciara A Lyons; Ananth Ravi; Joe M O'Sullivan; Alan R Hounsell; Darren M Mitchell; Conor K McGarry; Suneil Jain Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Nitin Ohri; Timothy N Showalter; Adam P Dicker; Robert B Den Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Stefan Höcht; Daniel M Aebersold; Clemens Albrecht; Dirk Böhmer; Michael Flentje; Ute Ganswindt; Tobias Hölscher; Thomas Martin; Felix Sedlmayer; Frederik Wenz; Daniel Zips; Thomas Wiegel Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 3.621