Radiobiological evaluation of prostate cancer IMRT and conformal-RT plans using different treatment protocols.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of both step-and-shoot IMRT and 3D-Conformal Radiation Therapy modalities (CRT) in treating prostate cancer using radiobiological measures. Another aim was to estimate the risks for developing secondary malignancies in bladder and rectum due to radiotherapy from the corresponding modalities. The treatment plans of ten prostate cancer patients were developed using IMRT and CRT. For the IMRT plans, two beam energies and two treatment protocols were used (the RTOG 0415 and a most restrictive one proposed by Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC)). For the evaluation of these plans, the complication-free tumor control probability, the total probability of injury, the total probability of control/benefit, and the biologically effective uniform dose were employed. Furthermore, based on the dosimetric data of IMRT and CRT, the risk for secondary malignancies was calculated for bladder and rectum. The average risk for secondary malignancy was lower for the bladder (0.37%) compared to the rectum (0.81%) based on all the treatment plans of the ten prostate cancer patients. The highest average risk for secondary malignancy for bladder and rectum was for the CRT-6X modality (0.46% and 1.12%, respectively) and the lowest was for the IMRT RTOG-18X modality (0.33% and 0.56%, respectively). The ≥ Grade 2 LENT/SOMA response probability was lower for the bladder than for the rectum in all the plans. For the bladder the highest average value was for the IMRT RTOG-18X (0.9%) and the lowest was for the CRT-18X modality (0.1%). For the rectum, the highest average value was for the IMRT RTOG-6X (11.9%) and the lowest was for the IMRT FCCC-18X modality (2.2%). By using radiobiological measures it is shown that the IMRT FCCC plans had the lowest risks for normal tissue complications, whereas the IMRT RTOG had the highest. Regarding the risk for secondary malignancies, the CRT plans showed the highest values for both bladder and rectum.

Radiobiologic comparison of helical tomotherapy, intensity modulated radiotherapy, and conformal radiotherapy in treating lung cancer accounting for secondary malignancy risks.

The aim of the present study is to examine the importance of using measures to predict the risk of inducing secondary malignancies in association with the clinical effectiveness of treatment plans in terms of tumor control and normal tissue complication probabilities. This is achieved by using radiobiologic parameters and measures, which may provide a closer association between clinical outcome and treatment delivery. Overall, 4 patients having been treated for lung cancer were examined. For each of them, 3 treatment plans were developed based on the helical tomotherapy (HT), multileaf collimator-based intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (CRT) modalities. The different plans were evaluated using the complication-free tumor control probability (p+), the overall probability of injury (pI), the overall probability of control/benefit (pB), and the biologically effective uniform dose (D¯¯). These radiobiologic measures were used to develop dose-response curves (p-D¯¯ diagram), which can help to evaluate different treatment plans when used in conjunction with standard dosimetric criteria. The risks for secondary malignancies in the heart and the contralateral lung were calculated for the 3 radiation modalities based on the corresponding dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of each patient. Regarding the overall evaluation of the different radiation modalities based on the p+ index, the average values of the HT, IMRT, and CRT are 67.3%, 61.2%, and 68.2%, respectively. The corresponding average values of pB are 75.6%, 70.5%, and 71.0%, respectively, whereas the average values of pI are 8.3%, 9.3%, and 2.8%, respectively. Among the organs at risk (OARs), lungs show the highest probabilities for complications, which are 7.1%, 8.0%, and 1.3% for the HT, IMRT, and CRT modalities, respectively. Similarly, the biologically effective prescription doses (DB¯¯) for the HT, IMRT, and CRT modalities are 64.0, 60.9, and 60.8Gy, respectively. Regarding the risk for secondary cancer, for the heart, the lowest average risk is produced by IMRT (0.10%) compared with the HT (0.17%) and CRT (0.12%) modalities, whereas the 3 radiation modalities show almost equivalent results regarding the contralateral lung (0.8% for HT, 0.9% for IMRT, and 0.9% for CRT). The use of radiobiologic parameters in the evaluation of different treatment plans and estimation of their expected clinical outcome is shown to provide very useful clinical information. The radiobiologic analysis of the response probabilities showed that different radiation modalities appear to be more effective in different patient geometries and target sizes and locations. Furthermore, there is not a clear pattern between the plans that appear to be more effective for the treatment and the risk of secondary malignancy. It seems that radiobiologically based treatment planning taking into account the risk of secondary cancer can be established as an effective clinical tool for a more clinically relevant treatment optimization.

Interpretation of the dosimetric results of three uniformity regularization methods in terms of expected treatment outcome.

In IMRT treatment plan optimization there are various methods that try to regularize the variation of dose nonuniformity using purely dosimetric measures. However, although these methods can help in finding a good dose distribution, they do not provide any information regarding the expected treatment outcome. When a treatment plan optimization is performed using biological measures, the final goal should be some indication about the expected tumor control or normal tissue complications, which is the primary goal of treatment planning (the association of treatment configurations and dose prescription with the treatment outcome). In this study, this issue is analyzed distinguishing the dose-oriented treatment plan optimization from the response-oriented optimization. Three different dose distributions were obtained by using a dose-based optimization technique, an EUD-based optimization without applying any technique for regularizing the nonuniformity of the dose distribution, and an EUD-based optimization using a variational regularization technique, which controls dose nonuniformity. The clinical effectiveness of the three dose distributions was investigated by calculating the response probabilities of the tumors and organs-at-risk (OARs) involved in two head and neck and prostate cancer cases. The radiobiological models used are the linear-quadratic-Poisson and the Relative Seriality models. Furthermore, the complication-free tumor control probability and the biologically effective uniform dose (D) were used for treatment plan evaluation and comparison. The radiobiological comparison shows that the EUD-based optimization using L-curve regularization gives better results than the EUD-based optimization without regularization and dose-based optimization in both clinical cases. Concluding, it appears that the applied dose nonuniformity regularization technique is expected to improve the effectiveness of the optimized IMRT dose distributions. However, more patient cases are needed to validate the statistical significance of the results and conclusions presented in this paper.