B Sánchez-Nieto1, M Romero-Expósito2, J A Terrón3, L Irazola4, M T García Hernández5, J C Mateos6, J Roselló7, D Planes5, M Paiusco8, F Sánchez-Doblado9. 1. Instituto de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. Electronic address: bsanchez@fis.puc.cl. 2. Departament de Física, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain. 3. Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain. 4. Departamento de Fisiología Médica y Biofísica, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain. 5. ERESA, Valencia, Spain. 6. Departamento de Fisiología Médica y Biofísica, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain; Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, Spain. 7. ERESA, Valencia, Spain; Departamento de Fisiología, Universidad de Valencia, Spain. 8. Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV - IRCCS, Padua, Italy. 9. Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain; Departamento de Fisiología Médica y Biofísica, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic and thorough assessment, using the Uncomplicated and Cancer-Free Control Probability (UCFCP) function, of a broad range of photon prostate cancer RT treatments, on the same scenario (a unique pelvic CT set). UCFCP considers, together with the probabilities of local tumour control (TCP) and deterministic (late) sequelae (NTCP), the second primary cancer risk (SPCR) due to photon and neutron peripheral doses. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-six radiotherapy plans were produced for the same CT. 6, 10, 15 and 18 MV 3DCRT, IMRT and VMAT (77.4 Gy in 43 fractions) and 6 and 10 MV SBRT (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions with flattened and FFF beams) for Elekta, Siemens and Varian Linacs plans were included. DVH and peripheral organ dosimetry were used to compute TCP, NTCP, and SPCR (the competition and LNT models) for further plan ranking. RESULTS: Biological models (and parameters) used predicted an outcome which is in agreement with epidemiological findings. SBRT plans showed the lowest SPCR and a below average NTCPrectal. High energy plans did not rank worse than the low energy ones. Intensity modulated plans were ranked above the 3D conformal techniques. CONCLUSIONS: According to UCFCP, the best plans were the10 MV SBRTs. SPCR rates were low and did not show a substantial impact on plan ranking. High energy intensity-modulated plans did not increase in excess the average of SPCR. Even more, they ranked among the best, provided that MU were efficiently managed.
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic and thorough assessment, using the Uncomplicated and Cancer-Free Control Probability (UCFCP) function, of a broad range of photon prostate cancer RT treatments, on the same scenario (a unique pelvic CT set). UCFCP considers, together with the probabilities of local tumour control (TCP) and deterministic (late) sequelae (NTCP), the second primary cancer risk (SPCR) due to photon and neutron peripheral doses. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-six radiotherapy plans were produced for the same CT. 6, 10, 15 and 18 MV 3DCRT, IMRT and VMAT (77.4 Gy in 43 fractions) and 6 and 10 MV SBRT (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions with flattened and FFF beams) for Elekta, Siemens and Varian Linacs plans were included. DVH and peripheral organ dosimetry were used to compute TCP, NTCP, and SPCR (the competition and LNT models) for further plan ranking. RESULTS: Biological models (and parameters) used predicted an outcome which is in agreement with epidemiological findings. SBRT plans showed the lowest SPCR and a below average NTCPrectal. High energy plans did not rank worse than the low energy ones. Intensity modulated plans were ranked above the 3D conformal techniques. CONCLUSIONS: According to UCFCP, the best plans were the10 MV SBRTs. SPCR rates were low and did not show a substantial impact on plan ranking. High energy intensity-modulated plans did not increase in excess the average of SPCR. Even more, they ranked among the best, provided that MU were efficiently managed.
Keywords:
Normal tissue complication probability; Prostate radiotherapy treatment; Radiation protection of the patient; Radiobiological modelling; Radiotherapy plan optimisation; Second primary cancer risk; Tumour control probability
Authors: Carles Domingo; Juan Ignacio Lagares; Maite Romero-Expósito; Beatriz Sánchez-Nieto; Jaime J Nieto-Camero; Jose Antonio Terrón; Leticia Irazola; Alexandru Dasu; Francisco Sánchez-Doblado Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Marie-Christina Jahreiß; Katja K H Aben; Mischa S Hoogeman; Maarten L P Dirkx; Kim C de Vries; Luca Incrocci; Wilma D Heemsbergen Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Marc Vogel; Jonas Gade; Bernd Timm; Michaela Schürmann; Hendrik Auerbach; Frank Nüsken; Christian Rübe; Patrick Melchior; Yvonne Dzierma Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 5.738