BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the linear-quadratic (LQ) and the LQ-L formalism (linear cell survival curve beyond a threshold dose dT) for modeling local tumor control probability (TCP) in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is based on 395 patients from 13 German and Austrian centers treated with SBRT for stage I NSCLC. The median number of SBRT fractions was 3 (range 1-8) and median single fraction dose was 12.5 Gy (2.9-33 Gy); dose was prescribed to the median 65% PTV encompassing isodose (60-100%). Assuming an α/β-value of 10 Gy, we modeled TCP as a sigmoid-shaped function of the biologically effective dose (BED). Models were compared using maximum likelihood ratio tests as well as Bayes factors (BFs). RESULTS: There was strong evidence for a dose-response relationship in the total patient cohort (BFs>20), which was lacking in single-fraction SBRT (BFs<3). Using the PTV encompassing dose or maximum (isocentric) dose, our data indicated a LQ-L transition dose (dT) at 11 Gy (68% CI 8-14 Gy) or 22 Gy (14-42 Gy), respectively. However, the fit of the LQ-L models was not significantly better than a fit without the dT parameter (p=0.07, BF=2.1 and p=0.86, BF=0.8, respectively). Generally, isocentric doses resulted in much better dose-response relationships than PTV encompassing doses (BFs>20). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest accurate modeling of local tumor control in fractionated SBRT for stage I NSCLC with the traditional LQ formalism.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the linear-quadratic (LQ) and the LQ-L formalism (linear cell survival curve beyond a threshold dose dT) for modeling local tumor control probability (TCP) in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is based on 395 patients from 13 German and Austrian centers treated with SBRT for stage I NSCLC. The median number of SBRT fractions was 3 (range 1-8) and median single fraction dose was 12.5 Gy (2.9-33 Gy); dose was prescribed to the median 65% PTV encompassing isodose (60-100%). Assuming an α/β-value of 10 Gy, we modeled TCP as a sigmoid-shaped function of the biologically effective dose (BED). Models were compared using maximum likelihood ratio tests as well as Bayes factors (BFs). RESULTS: There was strong evidence for a dose-response relationship in the total patient cohort (BFs>20), which was lacking in single-fraction SBRT (BFs<3). Using the PTV encompassing dose or maximum (isocentric) dose, our data indicated a LQ-L transition dose (dT) at 11 Gy (68% CI 8-14 Gy) or 22 Gy (14-42 Gy), respectively. However, the fit of the LQ-L models was not significantly better than a fit without the dT parameter (p=0.07, BF=2.1 and p=0.86, BF=0.8, respectively). Generally, isocentric doses resulted in much better dose-response relationships than PTV encompassing doses (BFs>20). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest accurate modeling of local tumor control in fractionated SBRT for stage I NSCLC with the traditional LQ formalism.
Authors: S Adebahr; S Collette; E Shash; M Lambrecht; C Le Pechoux; C Faivre-Finn; D De Ruysscher; H Peulen; J Belderbos; R Dziadziuszko; C Fink; M Guckenberger; C Hurkmans; U Nestle Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Abraham J Wu; Eric Williams; Ankit Modh; Amanda Foster; Ellen Yorke; Andreas Rimner; Andrew Jackson Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-07-23 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Lotte Wilke; Nicolaus Andratschke; Oliver Blanck; Thomas B Brunner; Stephanie E Combs; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Christos Moustakis; Daniela Schmitt; Wolfgang W Baus; Matthias Guckenberger Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Feng Liu; An Tai; Percy Lee; Tithi Biswas; George X Ding; Isaam El Naqa; Jimm Grimm; Andrew Jackson; Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Tamara LaCouture; Billy Loo; Moyed Miften; Timothy Solberg; X Allen Li Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Jeho Jeong; Jung Hun Oh; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Jose Belderbos; Jeffrey D Bradley; Andrew N Fontanella; Shyam S Rao; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Susanne Temming; Martin Kocher; Erich Stoelben; Lars Hagmeyer; De-Hua Chang; Konrad Frank; Khosro Hekmat; Juergen Wolf; Wolfgang W Baus; Robert Semrau; Christian Baues; S Marnitz Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Till Tobias Böhlen; Jean-François Germond; Jean Bourhis; Marie-Catherine Vozenin; Claude Bailat; François Bochud; Raphaël Moeckli Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-10-22 Impact factor: 4.506