Evaluation of various common prostate IMRT techniques based on estimated tumor control and normal tissue complication probabilities in correlation with patients anatomical parameters derived from the CT scans

• Autorzy: Banaei Amin , Hashemi Bijan , Bakhshandeh Mohsen , Mofid Bahram

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/pjmpe-2019-0006

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Background: The relationship between the prostate IMRT techniques and patients anatomical parameters has been rarely investigated. Objective: to evaluate various prostate IMRT techniques based on tumor control and normal tissue complication probability (TCP and NTCP) values and also the correlation of such techniques with patients anatomical parameters. Methods: Four IMRT techniques (9, 7 and 5 fields and also automatic) were planned on the CT scans of 63 prostate cancer patients. The sum of distances between the organs at risk (OARs) and target tissue and also their average joint volumes were measured and assumed as anatomical parameters. Selected dosimetric and radiobiological parameters (TCP and NTCP) values were compared among various techniques and the correlation with the above anatomical parameters were assessed using Pearsons’ correlation. Results: High correlations were found between the dosimetric/radiobiological parameters of OARs with the joint volumes and with the distances between the OARs and target tissue in all the techniques. The TCP and complication free tumor control probability (P+) values were decreased with increasing the joint volume and decreasing the distances between the OARs and target tissue (as poly-nominal functions). The NTCP values were increased with increasing the joint volumes and decreasing the distances (3-degree poly-nominal functions). For the low percent joint volumes (<20%) and high distances (>7 cm), The TCP, NTCP and P+ showed no statistical differences between various techniques (P-value>0.07). However, 9 and 7 fields techniques indicated better radiobiological results (P-value<0.05) in almost other ranges (>20% joint volumes and <7 cm distances). Conclusion: Based on our results, it would be possible to compare radiobiological effects of various common IMRT techniques and choose the best one regarding to patients anatomical parameters derived from the CT scans.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

prostate cancer; intensity-modulated radiotherapy; radiobiology; TCP; NTCP; anatomical parameters

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Fizyki Medycznej ; De Gruyter
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: Vol. 25, Iss. 1
• Strony: 35--41
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 21 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Banaei Amin

• Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran

autor

Hashemi Bijan

• Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran

autor

Bakhshandeh Mohsen

• Department of Radiology Technology, Faculty of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran

autor

Mofid Bahram

• Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran

Bibliografia

• [1] Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 2012;61(6):1079-1092.
• [2] Khan FM, Gerbi BJ. Treatment planning in radiation oncology. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
• [3] Pan HY, Jiang J, Hoffman KE, et al. Comparative toxicities and cost of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, proton radiation, and stereotactic body radiotherapy among younger men with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(18):1823-1830.
• [4] Mavroidis P, Komisopoulos G, Buckey C, et al. Radiobiological evaluation of prostate cancer IMRT and conformal-RT plans using different treatment protocols. Phys Med. 2017;40:33-41.
• [5] Luxton G, Hancock SL, Boyer AL. Dosimetry and radiobiologic model comparison of IMRT and 3D conformal radiotherapy in treatment of carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59(1):267-284.
• [6] Deb P, Fielding AL. Radiobiological model comparison of 3D conformal radiotherapy and IMRT plans for the treatment of prostate cancer. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2009;32(2):51-61.
• [7] Mesbahi A, Rasouli N, Mohammadzadeh M, et al . Comparison of Radiobiological Models for Radiation Therapy Plans of Prostate Cancer: Three-dimensional Conformal versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2018;8(3):1-12.
• [8] Khan MI, Jiang R, Kiciak A, et al. Dosimetric and radiobiological characterizations of prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy: A single-institution review of ninety cases. J Med Phys. 2016;41(3):162-168.
• [9] Chow J, Jiang R, Kiciak A. Dose-volume consistency and radiobiological characterization between prostate IMRT and VMAT plans. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2016;4(4).
• [10] Chow JC, Jiang R, Kiciak A, Markel D. Dosimetric comparison between the prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using the planning target volume (PTV) dose–volume factor. J Radiother Pract. 2016;15(3):263-268.
• [11] Schreibmann E, Xing L. Feasibility study of beam orientation class‐solutions for prostate IMRT. Med Phys. 2004;31(10):2863-2870.
• [12] Schreibmann E, Lahanas M, Xing L, et al. Multiobjective evolutionary optimization of the number of beams, their orientations and weights for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2004;49(5):747-770.
• [13] Yang R, Dai J, Yang Y, et al. Beam orientation optimization for intensity-modulated radiation therapy using mixed integer programming. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(15):3653-3666.
• [14] Yuan L, Ge Y, Lee WR, et al. Quantitative analysis of the factors which affect the interpatient organ‐at‐risk dose sparing variation in IMRT plans. Med Phys. 2012;39(11):6868-6878.
• [15] Wu B, Ricchetti F, Sanguineti G, et al. Patient geometry‐driven information retrieval for IMRT treatment plan quality control. Med Phys. 2009;36(12):5497-5505.
• [16] Källman P, Agren A, Brahme A. Tumour and normal tissue responses to fractionated non-uniform dose delivery. Int J Radiat Biol. 1992;62(2):249-262.
• [17] Pollack A, Walker G, Horwitz EM, et al. Randomized trial of hypofractionated external-beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(31):3860-3868.
• [18] Sanchez-Nieto B, Nahum AE. BIOPLAN: software for the biological evaluation of radiotherapy treatment plans. Med Dosim. 2000;25(2):71-76.
• [19] Hodapp N. The ICRU Report 83: prescribing, recording and reporting photon-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Strahlenther Onkol. 2012;188(1):97-99.
• [20] Lee WR, Amin MB, Bruner DW, et al. A phase III randomized study of hypofractionated 3D-CRT/IMRT versus conventionally fractionated 3D-CRT/IMRT in patients with favorable-risk prostate cancer. Clinical Trial NCT00331773.
• [21] Pollack A, Hanlon AL, Horwitz EM, et al. Dosimetry and preliminary acute toxicity in the first 100 men treated for prostate cancer on a randomized hypofractionation dose escalation trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64(2):518-526.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2020).