Robust dose-painting-by-numbers vs. nonselective dose escalation for non-small cell lung cancer patients.

nonselective dose escalation (NSDE) radiotherapy robust dose-painting-by-numbers (DPBN) treatment planning tumor control probability (TCP) uncertainty-based planning

Journal

Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Historique:
revised: 03 03 2021
received: 01 10 2020
accepted: 03 03 2021
pubmed: 16 3 2021
medline: 10 7 2021
entrez: 15 3 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Theoretical studies have shown that dose-painting-by-numbers (DPBN) could lead to large gains in tumor control probability (TCP) compared to conventional dose distributions. However, these gains may vary considerably among patients due to (a) variations in the overall radiosensitivity of the tumor, (b) variations in the 3D distribution of intra-tumor radiosensitivity within the tumor in combination with patient anatomy, (c) uncertainties of the 3D radiosensitivity maps, (d) geometrical uncertainties, and (e) temporal changes in radiosensitivity. The goal of this study was to investigate how much of the theoretical gains of DPBN remain when accounting for these factors. DPBN was compared to both a homogeneous reference dose distribution and to nonselective dose escalation (NSDE), that uses the same dose constraints as DPBN, but does not require 3D radiosensitivity maps. A fully automated DPBN treatment planning strategy was developed and implemented in our in-house developed treatment planning system (TPS) that is robust to uncertainties in radiosensitivity and patient positioning. The method optimized the expected TCP based on 3D maps of intra-tumor radiosensitivity, while accounting for normal tissue constraints, uncertainties in radiosensitivity, and setup uncertainties. Based on FDG-PETCT scans of 12 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, data of 324 virtual patients were created synthetically with large variations in the aforementioned parameters. DPBN was compared to both a uniform dose distribution of 60 Gy, and NSDE. In total, 360 DPBN and 24 NSDE treatment plans were optimized. The average gain in TCP over all patients and radiosensitivity maps of DPBN was 0.54 ± 0.20 (range 0-0.97) compared to the 60 Gy uniform reference dose distribution, but only 0.03 ± 0.03 (range 0-0.22) compared to NSDE. The gains varied per patient depending on the radiosensitivity of the entire tumor and the 3D radiosensitivity maps. Uncertainty in radiosensitivity led to a considerable loss in TCP gain, which could be recovered almost completely by accounting for the uncertainty directly in the optimization. Our results suggest that the gains of DPBN can be considerable compared to a 60 Gy uniform reference dose distribution, but small compared to NSDE for most patients. Using the robust DPBN treatment planning system developed in this work, the optimal DPBN treatment plan could be derived for any patient for whom 3D intra-tumor radiosensitivity maps are known, and can be used to select patients that might benefit from DPBN. NSDE could be an effective strategy to increase TCP without requiring biological information of the tumor.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33721350
doi: 10.1002/mp.14840
pmc: PMC8411426
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

3096-3108

Subventions

Organisme : Dutch Cancer Society
ID : KWF EMCR 2014-6667

Informations de copyright

© 2021 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Références

Radiother Oncol. 2014 Jun;111(3):354-9
pubmed: 24880742
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Nov 21;53(22):6345-62
pubmed: 18941280
Radiat Oncol. 2018 May 2;13(1):81
pubmed: 29716617
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Jun;91(3):386-92
pubmed: 19329207
Phys Med Biol. 2004 May 21;49(10):1991-2013
pubmed: 15214537
Med Phys. 2004 Jun;31(6):1452-61
pubmed: 15259648
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Dec 1;57(5):1460-71
pubmed: 14630286
Lung Cancer. 1999 Apr;24(1):31-7
pubmed: 10403692
BMC Cancer. 2019 Feb 21;19(1):167
pubmed: 30791889
Phys Med Biol. 2009 Apr 7;54(7):2179-96
pubmed: 19293465
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Oct 1;69(2):541-51
pubmed: 17869667
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 May 1;68(1):291-300
pubmed: 17448882
Radiother Oncol. 2007 Feb;82(2):145-52
pubmed: 17258339
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Mar 1;70(3):773-81
pubmed: 18262090
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Oct 1;63(2):324-33
pubmed: 16168827
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Aug;128(2):343-348
pubmed: 29970259
Phys Med Biol. 2007 Jan 21;52(2):499-513
pubmed: 17202629
Acta Oncol. 2018 May;57(5):574-581
pubmed: 29260950
Radiother Oncol. 2012 Jul;104(1):67-71
pubmed: 22483675
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Jun 14;62(14):5575-5588
pubmed: 28557799
Phys Med Biol. 2009 Mar 21;54(6):1483-501
pubmed: 19218733
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994 Feb 1;28(3):723-30
pubmed: 8113118
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Mar 15;70(4):1229-38
pubmed: 18313530
Acta Oncol. 2014 Jan;53(1):88-95
pubmed: 24041257
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Jul 1;47(4):1121-35
pubmed: 10863086
Phys Med Biol. 1987 Mar;32(3):327-34
pubmed: 3575415
Phys Med Biol. 2002 Oct 7;47(19):3465-73
pubmed: 12408475
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Feb;131:166-173
pubmed: 30327236
Radiat Oncol. 2020 Jul 13;15(1):172
pubmed: 32660504
Phys Med Biol. 2003 Jan 21;48(2):N31-5
pubmed: 12587912
J Clin Oncol. 2010 May 1;28(13):2181-90
pubmed: 20351327
Acta Oncol. 1987;26(5):377-85
pubmed: 3426851
Acta Oncol. 2010 Nov;49(8):1374-84
pubmed: 20429729
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2011 Apr;21(2):101-10
pubmed: 21356478
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Jun;91(3):393-8
pubmed: 19328570
Acta Oncol. 2015 Feb;54(2):253-60
pubmed: 24991892
Strahlenther Onkol. 2017 May;193(5):402-409
pubmed: 28314877
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Aug 1;71(5):1402-7
pubmed: 18234432
Phys Med Biol. 2009 Dec 7;54(23):7199-209
pubmed: 19920305
Radiother Oncol. 2021 Jan;154:235-242
pubmed: 33035624
Acta Oncol. 2013 Nov;52(8):1723-9
pubmed: 23317145
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Jul 07;60(13):5211-24
pubmed: 26083082
Radiother Oncol. 2006 Jun;79(3):249-58
pubmed: 16564588
Radiother Oncol. 2017 Sep;124(3):513-520
pubmed: 28502472

Auteurs

Steven F Petit (SF)

Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Sebastiaan Breedveld (S)

Department of Radiotherapy, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Jan Unkelbach (J)

Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.

Dick den Hertog (D)

Department of Econometrics and Operations Research, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

Marleen Balvert (M)

Department of Econometrics and Operations Research, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH