On the sensitivity of α/β prediction to dose calculation methodology in prostate brachytherapy

AAPM Task Group Report 267: A joint AAPM GEC-ESTRO report on biophysical models and tools for the planning and evaluation of brachytherapy

Brachytherapy utilizes a multitude of radioactive sources and treatment techniques that often exhibit widely different spatial and temporal dose delivery patterns. Biophysical models, capable of modeling the key interacting effects of dose delivery patterns with the underlying cellular processes of the irradiated tissues, can be a potentially useful tool for elucidating the radiobiological effects of complex brachytherapy dose delivery patterns and for comparing their relative clinical effectiveness. While the biophysical models have been used largely in research settings by experts, it has also been used increasingly by clinical medical physicists over the last two decades. A good understanding of the potentials and limitations of the biophysical models and their intended use is critically important in the widespread use of these models. To facilitate meaningful and consistent use of biophysical models in brachytherapy, Task Group 267 (TG-267) was formed jointly with the American Association of Physics in Medicine (AAPM) and The Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie and the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) to review the existing biophysical models, model parameters, and their use in selected brachytherapy modalities and to develop practice guidelines for clinical medical physicists regarding the selection, use, and interpretation of biophysical models. The report provides an overview of the clinical background and the rationale for the development of biophysical models in radiation oncology and, particularly, in brachytherapy; a summary of the results of literature review of the existing biophysical models that have been used in brachytherapy; a focused discussion of the applications of relevant biophysical models for five selected brachytherapy modalities; and the task group recommendations on the use, reporting, and implementation of biophysical models for brachytherapy treatment planning and evaluation. The report concludes with discussions on the challenges and opportunities in using biophysical models for brachytherapy and with an outlook for future developments.

Modern Tools for Modern Brachytherapy

This review aims to showcase the brachytherapy tools and technologies that have emerged during the last 10 years. Soft-tissue contrast using magnetic resonance and ultrasound imaging has seen enormous growth in use to plan all forms of brachytherapy. The era of image-guided brachytherapy has encouraged the development of advanced applicators and given rise to the growth of individualised 3D printing to achieve reproducible and predictable implants. These advances increase the quality of implants to better direct radiation to target volumes while sparing normal tissue. Applicator reconstruction has moved beyond manual digitising, to drag and drop of three-dimensional applicator models with embedded pre-defined source pathways, ready for auto-recognition and automation. The simplified TG-43 dose calculation formalism directly linked to reference air kerma rate of high-energy sources in the medium water remains clinically robust. Model-based dose calculation algorithms accounting for tissue heterogeneity and applicator material will advance the field of brachytherapy dosimetry to become more clinically accurate. Improved dose-optimising toolkits contribute to the real-time and adaptive planning portfolio that harmonises and expedites the entire image-guided brachytherapy process. Traditional planning strategies remain relevant to validate emerging technologies and should continue to be incorporated in practice, particularly for cervical cancer. Overall, technological developments need commissioning and validation to make the best use of the advanced features by understanding their strengths and limitations. Brachytherapy has become high-tech and modern by respecting tradition and remaining accessible to all.

How Low Can You Go? The Radiobiology of Hypofractionation

Hypofractionated radical radiotherapy is now an accepted standard of care for tumour sites such as prostate and breast cancer. Much research effort is being directed towards more profoundly hypofractionated (ultrahypofractionated) schedules, with some reaching UK standard of care (e.g. adjuvant breast). Hypofractionation exerts varying influences on each of the major clinical end points of radiotherapy studies: acute toxicity, late toxicity and local control. This review will discuss these effects from the viewpoint of the traditional 5 Rs of radiobiology, before considering non-canonical radiobiological effects that may be relevant to ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy. The principles outlined here may assist the reader in their interpretation of the wealth of clinical data presented in the tumour site-specific articles in this special issue.

Dosimetric and radiobiological investigation of permanent implant prostate brachytherapy based on Monte Carlo calculations

PURPOSE

Permanent implant prostate brachytherapy plays an important role in prostate cancer treatment, but dose evaluations typically follow the water-based TG-43 formalism, ignoring patient anatomy and interseed attenuation. The purpose of this study is to investigate advanced TG-186 model-based dose calculations via retrospective dosimetric and radiobiological analysis for a new patient cohort.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A cohort of 155 patients treated with permanent implant prostate brachytherapy from The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre is considered. Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations are performed using tissue-based virtual patient models. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) metrics (target, organs at risk) are extracted from 3D dose distributions and compared with those from calculations under TG-43 assumptions (TG43). Equivalent uniform biologically effective dose and tumor control probability are calculated.

RESULTS

For the target, D₉₀ (V₁₀₀) is 136.7 ± 20.6 Gy (85.8% ± 7.8%) for TG43 and 132.8 ± 20.1 Gy (84.1% ± 8.2%) for MC; D₉₀ is 3.0% ± 1.1% lower for MC than TG43. For organs at risk, MC D_1cc = 104.4 ± 27.4 Gy (TG43: 106.3 ± 28.3 Gy) for rectum and 80.8 ± 29.7 Gy (TG43: 78.4 ± 28.4 Gy) for bladder; D_1cc = 185.9 ± 30.2 Gy (TG43: 191.1 ± 32.0 Gy) for urethra. Equivalent uniform biologically effective dose and tumor control probability are generally lower when evaluated using MC doses. The largest dosimetric and radiobiological discrepancies between TG43 and MC are for patients with intraprostatic calcifications, for whom there are low doses (cold spots) in the vicinity of calcifications within the target, identified with MC but not TG43.

CONCLUSIONS

DVH metrics and radiobiological indices evaluated with TG43 are systematically inaccurate by upward of several percent compared with MC patient-specific models. Mean cohort DVH metrics and their MC:TG43 variances are sensitive to patient cohort and clinical practice, underlining the importance of further retrospective MC studies toward widespread clinical adoption of advanced model-based dose calculations.

Clinical analysis of the approximate, 3-dimensional, biological effective dose equation in multiphase treatment plans

A multiphase, approximate biological effective dose (BED_A) equation was introduced because most treatment planning systems (TPS) are incapable of calculating the true BED (BED_T). This work investigates the accuracy and precision of the multiphase BED_A relative to the BED_T in clinical cases. Ten patients with head and neck cancer and 10 patients with prostate cancer were studied using their treatment plans from Pinnacle³ 9.2 (Philips Medical, Fitchburg, WI). The organs at risk (OARs) that were studied are the normal brain, left and right optic nerves, optic chiasm, spinal cord, brainstem, bladder, and rectum. BED_A and BED_T distributions were calculated using MATLAB 2010b (MathWorks, Natick, MA) and analyzed on a voxel basis for percent error, percent error volume histograms (PEVHs), Pearson correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis. The maximum BED values that were calculated using the BED_A and BED_T methods were also analyzed. BED_A was found to always underestimate BED_T. The accuracy and precision of BED_A distributions varied between the organs: for optic chiasm and brainstem, 50% of the patients had an overall BED_A percent error of <1%; for left and right optic nerves, rectum, and bladder, 60% to 70% of the patients had an overall BED_A percent error of <1%; and for normal brain and spinal cord, 80% of the patients had an overall BED_A percent error of <1%. BED_A distributions had maximum errors ranging from 2% to 11%, with the 11% error occurring for bladder. BED_A produced much more accurate maximum BED values with adjacent organs such as normal brain, bladder, and rectum. This study has shown that BED_A can calculate BED distributions with acceptable accuracy under certain circumstances. However, its consistency and accuracy strongly depend on the dose distributions of the different treatment phases. One should be cautious when using BED_A.

Coupling I-125 permanent implant prostate brachytherapy Monte Carlo dose calculations with radiobiological models

PURPOSE

To investigate the coupling of radiobiological models with patient-specific Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations for permanent implant prostate brachytherapy (PIPB). To compare radiobiological indices evaluated with different radiobiological models using MC and simulated AAPM TG-43 dose calculations.

METHODS

Three-dimensional dose distributions previously computed using MC techniques with two types of patient models, TG43sim (AAPM TG-43 water-based conditions) and MCDmm (realistic tissues and interseed effects), for 613 PIPB patients are coupled with biological dose and tumour control probability (TCP) models. Two approaches and their extensions are considered to evaluate biological doses, biologically effective dose (BED) and isoeffective dose (IED), as well as two methods to evaluate TCP. Three novel extensions of equivalent uniform biologically effective dose (EUBED) are suggested which consider the spatial distribution of doses within the target volume. Adopted radiobiological model parameter values (α, β, etc) are those suggested by AAPM TG-137, and sensitivity to parameter choice is discussed.

RESULTS

MCDmm dose calculations can reveal low doses in the prostate target volume, due to tissue heterogeneities or inter-seed effects; considering these low doses in EUBED calculations can lower TCP estimates by up to 70%, with largest differences in patients with calcifications. There are large variations in biological doses and TCPs evaluated over the 613 patient cohort for each radiobiological model considered, reflecting the spectrum of physical doses calculated for these patients with either MCDmm or TG43sim. Depending on the model details, BED, IED and EUBED are, on average, 6.0-9.8%, 7.4-9.2% and 1.8-15% higher, respectively, with TG43sim than MCDmm. TCP estimates computed using MCDmm dose distributions are much lower than expected based on past treatment outcome studies, suggesting a need to re-assess model parameters when evaluating radiobiological indices coupled with heterogeneous tissue model-based dose calculations.

CONCLUSIONS

Cohort average differences in biological dose and TCP estimates between radiobiological models are generally larger than differences for any one radiobiological model evaluated with TG43sim or MCDmm dose calculations. However, heterogeneous tissue dose calculations, like MCDmm, can identify clinically-relevant low dose volumes, e.g., in patients with calcifications, which would otherwise be missed with TG-43. In addition to affecting physical dose distributions, these low dose volumes can largely impact radiobiological dose and TCP estimates, which further motivates the clinical implementation of model-based dose calculations for PIPB.

Alpha/beta (α/β) ratio for prostate cancer derived from external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy boost

OBJECTIVE

There is disagreement regarding the value of the α/β ratio for prostate cancer. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) may dominate the effects of dose fractionation on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response and confound estimates of the α/β ratio. We estimate this ratio from combined data on external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy (BT)-treated patients, providing a range of doses per fraction, while accounting for the effects of ADT.

METHODS

We analyse data on 289 patients with local prostate cancer treated with EBRT (2 Gy per fraction) or EBRT plus one or two BT boosts of 10 Gy each. The timing of ADT was heterogeneous. We develop statistical models to estimate the α/β ratio based upon PSA measurements at 1 year as a surrogate for the surviving fraction of cancer cells as well as combined biochemical + clinical recurrence-free survival (bcRFS), controlling for ADT.

RESULTS

For the PSA-based end point, the α/β ratio estimate is 7.7 Gy [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.1 to 12.5]. Based on the bcRFS end point, the estimate is 18.0 Gy (95% CI: 8.2 to ∞).

CONCLUSION

Our model-based estimates of the α/β ratio, which account for the effects of ADT and other important confounders, are higher than some previous estimates.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Although dose inhomogeneities and other limitations may limit the scope of our findings, the data suggest caution regarding the assumptions of the α/β ratio for prostate cancer in some clinical environments.