Gastrointestinal Toxicity Prediction Not Influenced by Rectal Contour or Dose-Volume Histogram Definition.


Journal

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
ISSN: 1879-355X
Titre abrégé: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7603616

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 Dec 2023
Historique:
received: 10 03 2023
revised: 01 06 2023
accepted: 03 07 2023
medline: 20 11 2023
pubmed: 12 7 2023
entrez: 11 7 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Rectal dose delivered during prostate radiation therapy is associated with gastrointestinal toxicity. Treatment plans are commonly optimized using rectal dose-volume constraints, often whole-rectum relative-volumes (%). We investigated whether improved rectal contouring, use of absolute-volumes (cc), or rectal truncation might improve toxicity prediction. Patients from the CHHiP trial (receiving 74 Gy/37 fractions [Fr] vs 60 Gy/20 Fr vs 57 Gy/19 Fr) were included if radiation therapy plans were available (2350/3216 patients), plus toxicity data for relevant analyses (2170/3216 patients). Whole solid rectum relative-volumes (%) dose-volume-histogram (DVH), as submitted by treating center (original contour), was assumed standard-of-care. Three investigational rectal DVHs were generated: (1) reviewed contour per CHHiP protocol; (2) original contour absolute volumes (cc); and (3) truncated original contour (2 versions; ±0 and ±2 cm from planning target volume [PTV]). Dose levels of interest (V30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 74 Gy) in 74 Gy arm were converted by equivalent-dose-in-2 Gy-Fr (EQD2 The alternative dose/volume parameters were compared with the original relative-volume (%) DVH of the whole rectal contour, itself fitted as a weak predictor of toxicity (AUC range, 0.57-0.65 across the 8 toxicity measures). There were no significant differences in toxicity prediction for: (1) original versus reviewed rectal contours (AUCs, 0.57-0.66; P = .21-.98); (2) relative- versus absolute-volumes (AUCs, 0.56-0.63; P = .07-.91); and (3) whole-rectum versus truncation at PTV ± 2 cm (AUCs, 0.57-0.65; P = .05-.99) or PTV ± 0 cm (AUCs, 0.57-0.66; P = .27-.98). We used whole-rectum relative-volume DVH, submitted by the treating center, as the standard-of-care dosimetric predictor for rectal toxicity. There were no statistically significant differences in prediction performance when using central rectal contour review, with the use of absolute-volume dosimetry, or with rectal truncation relative to PTV. Whole-rectum relative-volumes were not improved upon for toxicity prediction and should remain standard-of-care.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37433374
pii: S0360-3016(23)07628-9
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.07.002
pmc: PMC10680426
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1163-1173

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Références

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Oct 1;57(2):573-9
pubmed: 12957271
Strahlenther Onkol. 2019 Feb;195(2):103-112
pubmed: 30191285
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):630-642
pubmed: 27591931
Radiat Oncol. 2014 Dec 13;9:282
pubmed: 25498565
Oncol Lett. 2018 Aug;16(2):2741-2749
pubmed: 30013669
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Jun 1;110(2):596-608
pubmed: 33412260
J Urol. 2018 Apr;199(4):990-997
pubmed: 29331546
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020 Apr 1;106(5):928-938
pubmed: 31987974
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2017 Nov 06;7:62-70
pubmed: 29594231
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3):747-54
pubmed: 19540054
Radiother Oncol. 2000 Jul;56(1):73-83
pubmed: 10869758
Radiother Oncol. 2019 Jun;135:19-24
pubmed: 31015166
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Nov;121(2):169-179
pubmed: 27729166
Radiat Oncol. 2009 May 11;4:14
pubmed: 19432953
Radiother Oncol. 2002 Jun;63(3):249-55
pubmed: 12142088
Med Phys. 2003 May;30(5):979-85
pubmed: 12773007
Br J Radiol. 2017 Feb;90(1070):20160370
pubmed: 27936891
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Aug 1;62(5):1297-308
pubmed: 16029785
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Jan 22;63(3):035001
pubmed: 29300184
Cancer J. 2002 Jan-Feb;8(1):62-6
pubmed: 11895204
J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Aug 19;28:117
pubmed: 19689825
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Oct 1;81(2):600-5
pubmed: 21377288
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Nov 15;57(4):953-62
pubmed: 14575825
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Mar 15;58(4):1072-82
pubmed: 15001247
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Aug;17(8):1047-1060
pubmed: 27339115
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2019 Sep;31(9):611-620
pubmed: 31201110
Front Oncol. 2020 Apr 03;10:469
pubmed: 32346534

Auteurs

Douglas H Brand (DH)

Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: douglas.brand@icr.ac.uk.

Sarah C Brüningk (SC)

Department of Health Science and Technology, ETH Zurich, Basel, Switzerland; Swiss Institute for Bioinformatics (SIB), Lausanne, Switzerland.

Anna Wilkins (A)

Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit.

Olivia Naismith (O)

Radiotherapy Trials QA Group (RTTQA), Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Annie Gao (A)

Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit.

Isabel Syndikus (I)

Radiotherapy Department, Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

David P Dearnaley (DP)

Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit.

Emma Hall (E)

Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.

Nicholas van As (N)

Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit.

Alison C Tree (AC)

Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom; Urology Unit.

Sarah Gulliford (S)

Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

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