Oscar Casares-Magaz1, Ludvig Paul Muren1, Vitali Moiseenko2, Stine E Petersen3, Niclas Johan Pettersson2, Morten Høyer4, Joseph O Deasy5, Maria Thor5. 1. a Department of Medical Physics , Aarhus University Hospital , Aarhus , Denmark. 2. b Department of Radiation, Medicine and Applied Sciences , University of California San Diego , San Diego , CA , USA. 3. c Department of Radiation Oncology , Aarhus University Hospital , Aarhus , Denmark. 4. d Danish Center for Particle Therapy , Aarhus University Hospital , Aarhus , Denmark. 5. e Department of Medical Physics , Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center , New York City , NY , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicity after radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer reduces patient's quality of life. In this study, we explored associations between spatial rectal dose/volume metrics and patient-reported GI symptoms after RT for localized prostate cancer, and compared these with those of dose-surface/volume histogram (DSH/DVH) metrics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Dose distributions and six GI symptoms (defecation urgency/emptying difficulties/fecal leakage, ≥Grade 2, median follow-up: 3.6 y) were extracted for 200 patients treated with image-guided RT in 2005-2007. Three hundred and nine metrics assessed from 2D rectal dose maps or DSHs/DVHs were subject to 50-times iterated five-fold cross-validated univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis (UVA, MVA). Performance of the most frequently selected MVA models was evaluated by the area under the receiving-operating characteristics curve (AUC). RESULTS: The AUC increased for dose-map compared to DSH/DVH-based models (mean SD: 0.64 ± 0.03 vs. 0.61 ± 0.01), and significant relations were found for six versus four symptoms. Defecation urgency and faecal leakage were explained by high doses at the central/upper and central areas, respectively; while emptying difficulties were explained by longitudinal extensions of intermediate doses. CONCLUSIONS: Predictability of patient-reported GI toxicity increased using spatial metrics compared to DSH/DVH metrics. Novel associations were particularly identified for emptying difficulties using both approaches in which intermediate doses were emphasized.
BACKGROUND: Gastro-intestinal (GI) toxicity after radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer reduces patient's quality of life. In this study, we explored associations between spatial rectal dose/volume metrics and patient-reported GI symptoms after RT for localized prostate cancer, and compared these with those of dose-surface/volume histogram (DSH/DVH) metrics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Dose distributions and six GI symptoms (defecation urgency/emptying difficulties/fecal leakage, ≥Grade 2, median follow-up: 3.6 y) were extracted for 200 patients treated with image-guided RT in 2005-2007. Three hundred and nine metrics assessed from 2D rectal dose maps or DSHs/DVHs were subject to 50-times iterated five-fold cross-validated univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis (UVA, MVA). Performance of the most frequently selected MVA models was evaluated by the area under the receiving-operating characteristics curve (AUC). RESULTS: The AUC increased for dose-map compared to DSH/DVH-based models (mean SD: 0.64 ± 0.03 vs. 0.61 ± 0.01), and significant relations were found for six versus four symptoms. Defecation urgency and faecal leakage were explained by high doses at the central/upper and central areas, respectively; while emptying difficulties were explained by longitudinal extensions of intermediate doses. CONCLUSIONS: Predictability of patient-reported GI toxicity increased using spatial metrics compared to DSH/DVH metrics. Novel associations were particularly identified for emptying difficulties using both approaches in which intermediate doses were emphasized.
Authors: Andrew Jackson; Lawrence B Marks; Søren M Bentzen; Avraham Eisbruch; Ellen D Yorke; Randal K Ten Haken; Louis S Constine; Joseph O Deasy Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Wilma D Heemsbergen; Mischa S Hoogeman; Guus A M Hart; Joos V Lebesque; Peter C M Koper Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: I El Naqa; G Suneja; P E Lindsay; A J Hope; J R Alaly; M Vicic; J D Bradley; A Apte; J O Deasy Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2006-10-19 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Stephanie T H Peeters; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Peter C M Koper; Wim L J van Putten; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Johannes M G Bonfrer; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Susan L Tucker; Ming Zhang; Lei Dong; Radhe Mohan; Deborah Kuban; Howard D Thames Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Ronald C Chen; Karen E Hoffman; Alexei Trofimov; Jason A Efstathiou; John J Coen; William U Shipley; Anthony L Zietman; James A Talcott Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-06 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: Leila E A Shelley; Michael P F Sutcliffe; Simon J Thomas; David J Noble; Marina Romanchikova; Karl Harrison; Amy M Bates; Neil G Burnet; Raj Jena Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-04
Authors: Peijin Han; Pranav Lakshminarayanan; Wei Jiang; Ilya Shpitser; Xuan Hui; Sang Ho Lee; Zhi Cheng; Yue Guo; Russell H Taylor; Sauleh A Siddiqui; Michael Bowers; Khadija Sheikh; Ana Kiess; Brandi R Page; Junghoon Lee; Harry Quon; Todd R McNutt Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 4.379