D J Brenner1, P B Schiff, Y Huang, E J Hall. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Center for Radiological Research, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To design pulsed-brachytherapy (PDR) protocols that are expected to be at least as clinically efficacious (in terms of both tumor control and late sequelae) as continuous low-dose-rate (CLDR) regimens, but that involve irradiation only during extended office hours. Both interstitial and intracavitary brachytherapy protocols are considered. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The linear quadratic formalism was used in which the late normal tissue damage and tumor control for one protocol relative to another are assumed to be determined primarily by the level of cellular survival. PDR schedules were designed in which pulses are delivered during "extended office hours" (8 A.M. to 8 P.M.) with no irradiation overnight. Generally, the proposed PDR regimes last the same number of treatment days as the corresponding CLDR regimen, but the PDR treatment lasts longer on the final day (i.e., until 8 P.M.). PDR doses were calculated such as to produce a tumor control which is equivalent to standard CLDR protocols, and the corresponding predicted late complication rate was compared with that for CLDR. Ranges of plausible values for the half-times of sublethal damage repair for tumors and for late-responding normal tissues were considered. RESULTS: As has been previously shown, the efficacy of PDR relative to CLDR depends considerably on the repair rates for sublethal damage repair. Clinical and experimental evidence suggests that average repair half-times for early effects (e.g., tumor control) are less than about a half hour, and for late sequelae are more than about an hour. If these estimates are correct, daytime PDR regimes can usually be designed which take the same number of days as the corresponding CLDR regimen, but have comparable or better therapeutic ratios than CLDR. CONCLUSION: Protocols for PDR can be designed to involve irradiation only during extended office hours, that are likely to result in clinical results comparable or better than CLDR, for any expected combination of the repair half-times of early- and late-responding tissues. The suggested protocols allow all of the advantages of a computerized remote-controlled afterloader while preserving the benefits of low dose rate. In addition, the protocols could allow the patient to go home overnight, or to stay overnight in an adjacent medical inn or hospital-associated hotel, rather than in a hospital bed-which could have major economic benefits. In such an economic situation, an extra treatment day for the daytime PDR could well be considered, which would virtually guarantee an improved clinical advantage relative to CLDR.
PURPOSE: To design pulsed-brachytherapy (PDR) protocols that are expected to be at least as clinically efficacious (in terms of both tumor control and late sequelae) as continuous low-dose-rate (CLDR) regimens, but that involve irradiation only during extended office hours. Both interstitial and intracavitary brachytherapy protocols are considered. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The linear quadratic formalism was used in which the late normal tissue damage and tumor control for one protocol relative to another are assumed to be determined primarily by the level of cellular survival. PDR schedules were designed in which pulses are delivered during "extended office hours" (8 A.M. to 8 P.M.) with no irradiation overnight. Generally, the proposed PDR regimes last the same number of treatment days as the corresponding CLDR regimen, but the PDR treatment lasts longer on the final day (i.e., until 8 P.M.). PDR doses were calculated such as to produce a tumor control which is equivalent to standard CLDR protocols, and the corresponding predicted late complication rate was compared with that for CLDR. Ranges of plausible values for the half-times of sublethal damage repair for tumors and for late-responding normal tissues were considered. RESULTS: As has been previously shown, the efficacy of PDR relative to CLDR depends considerably on the repair rates for sublethal damage repair. Clinical and experimental evidence suggests that average repair half-times for early effects (e.g., tumor control) are less than about a half hour, and for late sequelae are more than about an hour. If these estimates are correct, daytime PDR regimes can usually be designed which take the same number of days as the corresponding CLDR regimen, but have comparable or better therapeutic ratios than CLDR. CONCLUSION: Protocols for PDR can be designed to involve irradiation only during extended office hours, that are likely to result in clinical results comparable or better than CLDR, for any expected combination of the repair half-times of early- and late-responding tissues. The suggested protocols allow all of the advantages of a computerized remote-controlled afterloader while preserving the benefits of low dose rate. In addition, the protocols could allow the patient to go home overnight, or to stay overnight in an adjacent medical inn or hospital-associated hotel, rather than in a hospital bed-which could have major economic benefits. In such an economic situation, an extra treatment day for the daytime PDR could well be considered, which would virtually guarantee an improved clinical advantage relative to CLDR.