Jolien Heukelom1, Michael E Kantor2, Abdallah S R Mohamed3, Hesham Elhalawani3, Esengul Kocak-Uzel4, Timothy Lin3, Jinzhong Yang2, Michalis Aristophanous5, Coen R Rasch6, Clifton David Fuller3, Jan-Jakob Sonke7. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. 3. Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. 4. Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, SBU Sisli Etfal Teaching and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey. 5. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA; Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, The University of Chicago, Chicago, USA. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.sonke@nki.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Anatomical changes induce differences between planned and delivered dose. Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) may reduce these differences but the optimal implementation is insufficiently clear. The aims of this study were to quantify the difference between planned and delivered dose in HNC patients, assess the consequential difference in normal tissue complication probability (ΔNTCP) and to explore the value of ΔNTCP as an objective selection strategy for ART. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 52 patients, daily doses were accumulated to estimate the delivered dose. The difference from planned dose was analyzed for CTVs and 9 organs-at-risk (OAR). ΔNTCP was calculated for xerostomia, dysphagia, parotid gland dysfunction and tube feeding dependency at 6 months. ART was deemed necessary if ΔNTCP was >5%. The positive predicted value (PPV) was calculated for identification of ART-patients by clinical judgement, and ΔNTCP at fraction 10 and 15. RESULTS: ΔNTCP >5% was seen five times for dysphagia and twice for the other toxicities. Only 5/9 patients with any ΔNTCP >5% clinically received ART, although ART had been done for 13/52 patients (PPV: 0.38). PPV was 0.86 and 0.75 for accumulated dose at fraction 10 and 15, respectively, using a ΔNTCP cut-off for the allocation of ART of 5%. Using other ΔNTCP cut-offs did not substantially improve PPV. With this cut-off the negative predictive value was 0.93 for ΔNTCP method of fraction 10 and fraction 15, and 0.90 for clinical judgement. CONCLUSION: To identify patients accurately for ART, NTCP calculations based on the dose differences between planned and delivered dose at fraction 10 are superior to clinical judgement.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Anatomical changes induce differences between planned and delivered dose. Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) may reduce these differences but the optimal implementation is insufficiently clear. The aims of this study were to quantify the difference between planned and delivered dose in HNC patients, assess the consequential difference in normal tissue complication probability (ΔNTCP) and to explore the value of ΔNTCP as an objective selection strategy for ART. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 52 patients, daily doses were accumulated to estimate the delivered dose. The difference from planned dose was analyzed for CTVs and 9 organs-at-risk (OAR). ΔNTCP was calculated for xerostomia, dysphagia, parotid gland dysfunction and tube feeding dependency at 6 months. ART was deemed necessary if ΔNTCP was >5%. The positive predicted value (PPV) was calculated for identification of ART-patients by clinical judgement, and ΔNTCP at fraction 10 and 15. RESULTS: ΔNTCP >5% was seen five times for dysphagia and twice for the other toxicities. Only 5/9 patients with any ΔNTCP >5% clinically received ART, although ART had been done for 13/52 patients (PPV: 0.38). PPV was 0.86 and 0.75 for accumulated dose at fraction 10 and 15, respectively, using a ΔNTCP cut-off for the allocation of ART of 5%. Using other ΔNTCP cut-offs did not substantially improve PPV. With this cut-off the negative predictive value was 0.93 for ΔNTCP method of fraction 10 and fraction 15, and 0.90 for clinical judgement. CONCLUSION: To identify patients accurately for ART, NTCP calculations based on the dose differences between planned and delivered dose at fraction 10 are superior to clinical judgement.
Authors: Johannes A Langendijk; Philippe Lambin; Dirk De Ruysscher; Joachim Widder; Mike Bos; Marcel Verheij Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Carlos E Cardenas; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Randa Tao; Andrew J R Wong; Mussadiq J Awan; Shirly Kuruvila; Michalis Aristophanous; G Brandon Gunn; Jack Phan; Beth M Beadle; Steven J Frank; Adam S Garden; William H Morrison; Clifton D Fuller; David I Rosenthal Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-11-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Pierre Graff; Neil Kirby; Vivian Weinberg; Josephine Chen; Sue S Yom; Louise Lambert; Jean Pouliot Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-12-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tim Dijkema; Cornelis P J Raaijmakers; Randall K Ten Haken; Judith M Roesink; Pètra M Braam; Anette C Houweling; Marinus A Moerland; Avraham Eisbruch; Chris H J Terhaard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-01-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jerry L Barker; Adam S Garden; K Kian Ang; Jennifer C O'Daniel; He Wang; Laurence E Court; William H Morrison; David I Rosenthal; K S Clifford Chao; Susan L Tucker; Radhe Mohan; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jennifer C O'Daniel; Adam S Garden; David L Schwartz; He Wang; Kian K Ang; Anesa Ahamad; David I Rosenthal; William H Morrison; Joshua A Asper; Lifei Zhang; Shih-Ming Tung; Radhe Mohan; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David L Schwartz; Adam S Garden; Shalin J Shah; Gregory Chronowski; Samir Sejpal; David I Rosenthal; Yipei Chen; Yongbin Zhang; Lifei Zhang; Pei-Fong Wong; John A Garcia; K Kian Ang; Lei Dong Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Brigid A McDonald; Sastry Vedam; Jinzhong Yang; Jihong Wang; Pamela Castillo; Belinda Lee; Angela Sobremonte; Sara Ahmed; Yao Ding; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Peter Balter; Neil Hughes; Daniela Thorwarth; Marcel Nachbar; Marielle E P Philippens; Chris H J Terhaard; Daniel Zips; Simon Böke; Musaddiq J Awan; John Christodouleas; Clifton D Fuller Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 7.038