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
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
1163-1173Informations 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