Literature DB >> 7607946

Radiation dose-response of human tumors.

P Okunieff1, D Morgan, A Niemierko, H D Suit.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The dose of radiation that locally controls human tumors treated electively or for gross disease is rarely well defined. These doses can be useful in understanding the dose requirements of novel therapies featuring inhomogeneous dosimetry and in an adjuvant setting. The goal of this study was to compute the dose of radiation that locally controls 50% (TCD50) of tumors in human subjects. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Logit regression was used with data collected from single institutions or from combinations of local control data accumulated from several institutions treating the same disease.
RESULTS: 90 dose response curves were calculated; 62 of macroscopic tumor therapy, 28 of elective therapy with surgery for primary control. The mean and median TCD50 for gross disease were 50.0 and 51.9 Gy, respectively. The mean and median TCD50 for microscopic disease control were 39.3 and 37.9 Gy, respectively. At the TCD50, an additional dose of 1 Gy controlled an additional 2.5% (median) additional patients with macroscopic disease and 4.2% (median) additional patients with microscopic disease. For both macro- and microscopic disease, an increase of 1% of dose at the TCD50 increased control rates approximately 1% (median) or 2-3% (mean). A predominance of dose response curves had shallow slopes accounting for the discrepancy between mean and median values.
CONCLUSION: Doses to control microscopic disease are approximately 12 Gy less than that required to control macroscopic disease, and are about 79% of the dose required to control macroscopic disease. The percentage increase in cures expected for a 1% increase in dose is similar for macroscopic microscopic disease, with a median value of approximately 1%/% and a mean of approximately 2.7%/%.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7607946     DOI: 10.1016/0360-3016(94)00475-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  89 in total

1.  Practical approaches to four-dimensional heavy-charged-particle lung therapy.

Authors:  Shinichiro Mori; Ziji Wu; Michael R Folkert; Motoki Kumagai; Suguru Dobashi; Toshio Sugane; Masayuki Baba
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2009-10-14

2.  A graphic user interface toolkit for specification, report and comparison of dose-response relations and treatment plans using the biologically effective uniform dose.

Authors:  Fan-Chi Su; Panayiotis Mavroidis; Chengyu Shi; Brigida Costa Ferreira; Niko Papanikolaou
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 5.428

3.  The use of TCP based EUD to rank and compare lung radiotherapy plans: in-silico study to evaluate the correlation between TCP with physical quality indices.

Authors:  Abdulhamid Chaikh; Jacques Balosso
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2017-06

4.  Impact of dose calculation models on radiotherapy outcomes and quality adjusted life years for lung cancer treatment: do we need to measure radiotherapy outcomes to tune the radiobiological parameters of a normal tissue complication probability model?

Authors:  Abdulhamid Chaikh; Nicolas Docquière; Pierre-Yves Bondiau; Jacques Balosso
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2016-12

5.  On the radiobiological impact of metal artifacts in head-and-neck IMRT in terms of tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP).

Authors:  Yusung Kim; Wolfgang A Tomé
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2007-06-16       Impact factor: 2.602

6.  P-selectin is a nanotherapeutic delivery target in the tumor microenvironment.

Authors:  Yosi Shamay; Moshe Elkabets; Hongyan Li; Janki Shah; Samuel Brook; Feng Wang; Keren Adler; Emily Baut; Maurizio Scaltriti; Prakrit V Jena; Eric E Gardner; John T Poirier; Charles M Rudin; José Baselga; Adriana Haimovitz-Friedman; Daniel A Heller
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 17.956

7.  A Prospective Comparison of the Effects of Interfractional Variations on Proton Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Maryam Moteabbed; Alexei Trofimov; Gregory C Sharp; Yi Wang; Anthony L Zietman; Jason A Efstathiou; Hsiao-Ming Lu
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Single-dose radiotherapy disables tumor cell homologous recombination via ischemia/reperfusion injury.

Authors:  Sahra Bodo; Cécile Campagne; Tin Htwe Thin; Daniel S Higginson; H Alberto Vargas; Guoqiang Hua; John D Fuller; Ellen Ackerstaff; James Russell; Zhigang Zhang; Stefan Klingler; HyungJoon Cho; Matthew G Kaag; Yousef Mazaheri; Andreas Rimner; Katia Manova-Todorova; Boris Epel; Joan Zatcky; Cristian R Cleary; Shyam S Rao; Yoshiya Yamada; Michael J Zelefsky; Howard J Halpern; Jason A Koutcher; Carlos Cordon-Cardo; Carlo Greco; Adriana Haimovitz-Friedman; Evis Sala; Simon N Powell; Richard Kolesnick; Zvi Fuks
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 14.808

9.  Assessing four-dimensional radiotherapy planning and respiratory motion-induced dose difference based on biologically effective uniform dose.

Authors:  F-C Su; C Shi; P Mavroidis; V Goytia; R Crownover; P Rassiah-Szegedi; N Papanikolaou
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2009-06

10.  Multi-institutional comparison of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning strategies and planning results for nasopharyngeal cancer.

Authors:  Sung Ho Park; Hee Chul Park; Suk Won Park; Do Hoon Oh; Youngmin Choi; Jeung Kee Kim; Yong Chan Ahn; Won Park; Hyun Sook Suh; Rena Lee; Hoonsik Bae
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2009-04-20       Impact factor: 2.153

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.