J Nguyen1, M Moteabbed2, H Paganetti2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114 and Department of Physics, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg 69117, Germany. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114 and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02114.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Theoretical dose-response models offer the possibility to assess second cancer induction risks after external beam therapy. The parameters used in these models are determined with limited data from epidemiological studies. Risk estimations are thus associated with considerable uncertainties. This study aims at illustrating uncertainties when predicting the risk for organ-specific second cancers in the primary radiation field illustrated by choosing selected treatment plans for brain cancer patients. METHODS: A widely used risk model was considered in this study. The uncertainties of the model parameters were estimated with reported data of second cancer incidences for various organs. Standard error propagation was then subsequently applied to assess the uncertainty in the risk model. Next, second cancer risks of five pediatric patients treated for cancer in the head and neck regions were calculated. For each case, treatment plans for proton and photon therapy were designed to estimate the uncertainties (a) in the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) for a given treatment modality and (b) when comparing risks of two different treatment modalities. RESULTS: Uncertainties in excess of 100% of the risk were found for almost all organs considered. When applied to treatment plans, the calculated LAR values have uncertainties of the same magnitude. A comparison between cancer risks of different treatment modalities, however, does allow statistically significant conclusions. In the studied cases, the patient averaged LAR ratio of proton and photon treatments was 0.35, 0.56, and 0.59 for brain carcinoma, brain sarcoma, and bone sarcoma, respectively. Their corresponding uncertainties were estimated to be potentially below 5%, depending on uncertainties in dosimetry. CONCLUSIONS: The uncertainty in the dose-response curve in cancer risk models makes it currently impractical to predict the risk for an individual external beam treatment. On the other hand, the ratio of absolute risks between two modalities is less sensitive to the uncertainties in the risk model and can provide statistically significant estimates.
PURPOSE: Theoretical dose-response models offer the possibility to assess second cancer induction risks after external beam therapy. The parameters used in these models are determined with limited data from epidemiological studies. Risk estimations are thus associated with considerable uncertainties. This study aims at illustrating uncertainties when predicting the risk for organ-specific second cancers in the primary radiation field illustrated by choosing selected treatment plans for brain cancerpatients. METHODS: A widely used risk model was considered in this study. The uncertainties of the model parameters were estimated with reported data of second cancer incidences for various organs. Standard error propagation was then subsequently applied to assess the uncertainty in the risk model. Next, second cancer risks of five pediatric patients treated for cancer in the head and neck regions were calculated. For each case, treatment plans for proton and photon therapy were designed to estimate the uncertainties (a) in the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) for a given treatment modality and (b) when comparing risks of two different treatment modalities. RESULTS: Uncertainties in excess of 100% of the risk were found for almost all organs considered. When applied to treatment plans, the calculated LAR values have uncertainties of the same magnitude. A comparison between cancer risks of different treatment modalities, however, does allow statistically significant conclusions. In the studied cases, the patient averaged LAR ratio of proton and photon treatments was 0.35, 0.56, and 0.59 for brain carcinoma, brain sarcoma, and bone sarcoma, respectively. Their corresponding uncertainties were estimated to be potentially below 5%, depending on uncertainties in dosimetry. CONCLUSIONS: The uncertainty in the dose-response curve in cancer risk models makes it currently impractical to predict the risk for an individual external beam treatment. On the other hand, the ratio of absolute risks between two modalities is less sensitive to the uncertainties in the risk model and can provide statistically significant estimates.
Authors: Herman Suit; Saveli Goldberg; Andrzej Niemierko; Marek Ancukiewicz; Eric Hall; Michael Goitein; Winifred Wong; Harald Paganetti Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Carole Rubino; Akthar Shamsaldin; Monique G Lê; Martine Labbé; Jean-Marc Guinebretière; Jean Chavaudra; Florent de Vathaire Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Anil K Chaturvedi; Eric A Engels; Ethel S Gilbert; Bingshu E Chen; Hans Storm; Charles F Lynch; Per Hall; Froydis Langmark; Eero Pukkala; Magnus Kaijser; Michael Andersson; Sophie D Fosså; Heikki Joensuu; John D Boice; Ruth A Kleinerman; Lois B Travis Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-10-30 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J Douglas Rizzo; Rochelle E Curtis; Gérard Socié; Kathleen A Sobocinski; Ethel Gilbert; Ola Landgren; Lois B Travis; William D Travis; Mary E D Flowers; Debra L Friedman; Mary M Horowitz; John R Wingard; H Joachim Deeg Journal: Blood Date: 2008-10-29 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Tara O Henderson; John Whitton; Marilyn Stovall; Ann C Mertens; Pauline Mitby; Debra Friedman; Louise C Strong; Sue Hammond; Joseph P Neglia; Anna T Meadows; Leslie Robison; Lisa Diller Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-02-21 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Joseph P Neglia; Leslie L Robison; Marilyn Stovall; Yan Liu; Roger J Packer; Sue Hammond; Yutaka Yasui; Catherine E Kasper; Ann C Mertens; Sarah S Donaldson; Anna T Meadows; Peter D Inskip Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Alexandra Moignier; Edgar Gelover; Dongxu Wang; Blake Smith; Ryan Flynn; Maura Kirk; Liyong Lin; Timothy Solberg; Alexander Lin; Daniel Hyer Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2016-03-24
Authors: Jeffrey S Kneisl; Chad Ferguson; Myra Robinson; Anthony Crimaldi; Will Ahrens; James Symanowski; Michael Bates; Jennifer L Ersek; Michael Livingston; Joshua Patt; Edward S Kim Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2017-02-11 Impact factor: 4.452