Is the prostrate alpha/beta ratio of 1.5 from Brenner & Hall a modeling artifact

Prostate hypofractionated radiotherapy (62Gy at 3.1Gy per fraction) with injection of hyaluronic acid: final results of the RPAH1 study

OBJECTIVES

The present multicenter Phase II study evaluated the rate of late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities at 3 years, after hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFR) of prostate cancer with injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) between the prostate and the rectum.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2013, 36 patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were treated by HFR/IMRT-IGRT. 20 fractions of 3.1 Gy were delivered, 5 days per week for a total dose of 62 Gy. A transperineal injection of 10cc of HA was performed between the rectum and the prostate. Late toxicities were evaluated between 3 and 36 months after the end of treatment (CTCAE v4).

RESULTS

Median pretreatment prostate-specific antigen was 8 ng ml-1. Among the 36 included patients, 2 were not evaluated because they withdrew the study in the first 3 months of follow-up, and 4 withdrew between 3 and 36 months, the per protocol population was therefore composed.Late grade ≥2 GI toxicities occurred in 4 (12%) patients with 3 (9%) Grade 2 rectal bleedings and one diarrhoea. Therefore, the inefficacy hypothesis following Fleming one-stage design cannot be rejected. None of the patients experienced late Grade 3-4 toxicities. Among the 30 patients completing the 36 months' visit, none still had a grade ≥2 GI toxicity. Late grade ≥2 genitourinary (GU) toxicities occurred in 14 (41%) patients. The most frequent toxicities were dysuria and pollakiuria. Four patients still experienced a grade ≥2 GU toxicity at 36 months.The biochemical relapse rate (nadir +2 ng ml-1) was 6% (2 patients). Overall, HA was very well tolerated with no pain or discomfort.

CONCLUSION

Despite the inefficacy of HA injection was not rejected, we observed the absence of Grade 3 or 4 rectal toxicity as well as a rate of Grade 2 rectal bleeding below 10% at 36 months of follow-up. Late urinary toxicities are the most frequent but the rate decreases largely at 3 years.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

With an injection of HA, hypofractionated irradiation in 4 weeks is well tolerated with no Grade 3 or 4 GI toxicity and a rate of Grade 2 rectal bleeding below 10% at 36 months of follow-up.

RBE variation in prostate carcinoma cells in active scanning proton beams: In-vitro measurements in comparison with phenomenological models

PURPOSE

In-vitro radiobiological studies are essential for modelling the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in proton therapy. The purpose of this study was to experimentally determine the RBE values in proton beams along the beam path for human prostate carcinoma cells (Du-145). RBE-dose and RBE-LET_d (dose-averaged linear energy transfer) dependencies were investigated and three phenomenological RBE models, i.e. McNamara, Rørvik and Wilkens were benchmarked for this cell line.

METHODS

Cells were placed at multiple positions along the beam path, employing an in-house developed solid phantom. The experimental setup reflected the clinical prostate treatment scenario in terms of field size, depth, and required proton energies (127.2-180.1 MeV) and the physical doses from 0.5 to 6 Gy were delivered. The reference irradiation was performed with 200 kV X-ray beams. Respective (α/β) values were determined using the linear quadratic model and LET_d was derived from the treatment planning system at the exact location of cells.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Independent of the cell survival level, all experimental RBE values were consistently higher in the target than the generic clinical RBE value of 1.1; with the lowest RBE value of 1.28 obtained at the beginning of the SOBP. A systematic RBE decrease with increasing dose was observed for the investigated dose range. The RBE values from all three applied models were considerably smaller than the experimental values. A clear increase of experimental RBE values with LET_d parameter suggests that proton LET must be taken into consideration for this low (α/β) tissue.

Radiobiological parameters in a tumour control probability model for prostate cancer LDR brachytherapy

To provide recommendations for the selection of radiobiological parameters for prostate cancer treatment planning. Recommendations were based on validation of the previously published values, parameter estimation and a consideration of their sensitivity within a tumour control probability (TCP) model using clinical outcomes data from low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy. The proposed TCP model incorporated radiosensitivity (α) heterogeneity and a non-uniform distribution of clonogens. The clinical outcomes data included 849 prostate cancer patients treated with LDR brachytherapy at four Australian centres between 1995 and 2012. Phoenix definition of biochemical failure was used. Validation of the published values from four selected literature and parameter estimation was performed with a maximum likelihood estimation method. Each parameter was varied to evaluate the change in calculated TCP to quantify the sensitivity of the model to its radiobiological parameters. Using a previously published parameter set and a total clonogen number of 196 000 provided TCP estimates that best described the patient cohort. Fitting of all parameters with a maximum likelihood estimation was not possible. Variations in prostate TCP ranged from 0.004% to 0.67% per 1% change in each parameter. The largest variation was caused by the log-normal distribution parameters for α (mean, [Formula: see text], and standard deviation, σ _α ). Based on the results using the clinical cohort data, we recommend a previously published dataset is used for future application of the TCP model with inclusion of a patient-specific, non-uniform clonogen density distribution which could be derived from multiparametric imaging. The reduction in uncertainties in these parameters will improve the confidence in using biological models for clinical radiotherapy planning.

The alfa and beta of tumours: a review of parameters of the linear-quadratic model, derived from clinical radiotherapy studies

BACKGROUND

Prediction of radiobiological response is a major challenge in radiotherapy. Of several radiobiological models, the linear-quadratic (LQ) model has been best validated by experimental and clinical data. Clinically, the LQ model is mainly used to estimate equivalent radiotherapy schedules (e.g. calculate the equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions, EQD₂), but increasingly also to predict tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) using logistic models. The selection of accurate LQ parameters α, β and α/β is pivotal for a reliable estimate of radiation response. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of published values for the LQ parameters of human tumours as a guideline for radiation oncologists and radiation researchers to select appropriate radiobiological parameter values for LQ modelling in clinical radiotherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We performed a systematic literature search and found sixty-four clinical studies reporting α, β and α/β for tumours. Tumour site, histology, stage, number of patients, type of LQ model, radiation type, TCP model, clinical endpoint and radiobiological parameter estimates were extracted. Next, we stratified by tumour site and by tumour histology. Study heterogeneity was expressed by the I² statistic, i.e. the percentage of variance in reported values not explained by chance.

RESULTS

A large heterogeneity in LQ parameters was found within and between studies (I² > 75%). For the same tumour site, differences in histology partially explain differences in the LQ parameters: epithelial tumours have higher α/β values than adenocarcinomas. For tumour sites with different histologies, such as in oesophageal cancer, the α/β estimates correlate well with histology. However, many other factors contribute to the study heterogeneity of LQ parameters, e.g. tumour stage, type of LQ model, TCP model and clinical endpoint (i.e. survival, tumour control and biochemical control).

CONCLUSIONS

The value of LQ parameters for tumours as published in clinical radiotherapy studies depends on many clinical and methodological factors. Therefore, for clinical use of the LQ model, LQ parameters for tumour should be selected carefully, based on tumour site, histology and the applied LQ model. To account for uncertainties in LQ parameter estimates, exploring a range of values is recommended.

The alfa and beta of tumours: a review of parameters of the linear-quadratic model, derived from clinical radiotherapy studies

Background

Prediction of radiobiological response is a major challenge in radiotherapy. Of several radiobiological models, the linear-quadratic (LQ) model has been best validated by experimental and clinical data. Clinically, the LQ model is mainly used to estimate equivalent radiotherapy schedules (e.g. calculate the equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions, EQD₂), but increasingly also to predict tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) using logistic models. The selection of accurate LQ parameters α, β and α/β is pivotal for a reliable estimate of radiation response. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of published values for the LQ parameters of human tumours as a guideline for radiation oncologists and radiation researchers to select appropriate radiobiological parameter values for LQ modelling in clinical radiotherapy.

Methods and materials

We performed a systematic literature search and found sixty-four clinical studies reporting α, β and α/β for tumours. Tumour site, histology, stage, number of patients, type of LQ model, radiation type, TCP model, clinical endpoint and radiobiological parameter estimates were extracted. Next, we stratified by tumour site and by tumour histology. Study heterogeneity was expressed by the I² statistic, i.e. the percentage of variance in reported values not explained by chance.

Results

A large heterogeneity in LQ parameters was found within and between studies (I² > 75%). For the same tumour site, differences in histology partially explain differences in the LQ parameters: epithelial tumours have higher α/β values than adenocarcinomas. For tumour sites with different histologies, such as in oesophageal cancer, the α/β estimates correlate well with histology. However, many other factors contribute to the study heterogeneity of LQ parameters, e.g. tumour stage, type of LQ model, TCP model and clinical endpoint (i.e. survival, tumour control and biochemical control).

Conclusions

The value of LQ parameters for tumours as published in clinical radiotherapy studies depends on many clinical and methodological factors. Therefore, for clinical use of the LQ model, LQ parameters for tumour should be selected carefully, based on tumour site, histology and the applied LQ model. To account for uncertainties in LQ parameter estimates, exploring a range of values is recommended.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13014-018-1040-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

[Hypofractionated irradiation of prostate cancer: What is the radiobiological understanding in 2017?]

For prostate cancer, hypofractionation has been based since 1999 on radiobiological data, which calculated a very low alpha/beta ratio (1.2 to 1.5Gy). This suggested that a better local control could be obtained, without any toxicity increase. Consequently, two types of hypofractionated schemes were proposed: "moderate" hypofractionation, with fractions of 2.5 to 4Gy, and "extreme" hypofractionation, utilizing stereotactic techniques, with fractions of 7 to 10Gy. For moderate hypofractionation, the linear-quadratic (LQ) model has been used to calculate the equivalent doses of the new protocols. The available trials have often shown a "non-inferiority", but no advantage, while the equivalent doses calculated for the hypofractionated arms were sometimes very superior to the doses of the conventional arms. This finding could suggest either an alpha/beta ratio lower than previously calculated, or a negative impact of other radiobiological parameters, which had not been taken into account. For "extreme" hypofractionation, the use of the LQ model is discussed for high dose fractions. Moreover, a number of radiobiological questions are still pending. The reduced overall irradiation time could be either a positive point (better local control) or a negative one (reduced reoxygenation). The prolonged duration of the fractions could lead to a decrease of efficacy (because allowing for reparation of sublethal lesions). Finally, the impact of the large fractions on the microenvironment and/or immunity remains discussed. The reported series appear to show encouraging short to mid-term results, but the results of randomized trials are still awaited. Today, it seems reasonable to only propose those extreme hypofractionated schemes to well-selected patients, treating small volumes with high-level stereotactic techniques.

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.

Quality of life outcomes from a dose-per-fraction escalation trial of hypofractionation in prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

This multi-institutional phase I/II trial explored patient-assessed tolerance of increasingly hypofractionated (HPFX) radiation for low/intermediate risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

347 patients enrolled from 2002 to 2010. Three increasing dose-per-fraction schedules of 64.7 Gy/22 fx, 58.08 Gy/16 fx and 51.6 Gy/12 fx were each designed to yield equivalent predicted late toxicity. Three quality of life (QoL) surveys were administered prior to treatment and annually upto 3 years.

RESULTS

Bowel QoL data at 3years revealed no significant difference among regimens (p=0.469). Bowel QoL for all regimens declined transiently, largely recovering by three years, with only the 22 fraction decrement reaching significance. Bladder outcomes at 3 years were comparable (p=0.343) although, for all patients combined, a significant decline was observed from the baseline (p=0.008). Spitzer quality of life data revealed similarly excellent, 3-year means (p=0.188). International erectile function data also revealed no significant differences at 3 years although all measures except intercourse satisfaction worsened post-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-year QoL changes for bowel, bladder and SQLI were modest and similar for 3 HPFX regimens spanning 2.94-4.3 Gy per fraction. These favorable patient-scored outcomes demonstrate the safety and tolerability of such regimens and may be leveraged to support further implementation of mild to moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy in the setting of low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Prostate hypofractionated radiation therapy with injection of hyaluronic acid: acute toxicities in a phase 2 study

PURPOSE

Hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) in prostate cancer can be developed only if the risk of rectal toxicity is controlled. In a multicenter phase 2 trial, hypofractionated irradiation was combined with an injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) to preserve the rectal wall. Tolerance of the injection and acute toxicity rates are reported.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The study was designed to assess late grade 2 toxicity rates. The results described here correspond to the secondary objectives. Acute toxicity was defined as occurring during RT or within 3 months after RT and graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. HA tolerance was evaluated with a visual analog scale during the injection and 30 minutes after injection and then by use of the Common Terminology Criteria at each visit.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2012, 36 patients with low-risk to intermediate-risk prostate cancer were included. The HA injection induced a mean pain score of 4.6/10 ± 2.3. Thirty minutes after the injection, 2 patients still reported pain (2/10 and 3/10), which persisted after the intervention. Thirty-three patients experienced at least 1 acute genitourinary toxicity and 20 patients at least 1 acute gastrointestinal toxicity. Grade 2 toxicities were reported for 19 patients with urinary obstruction, frequency, or both and for 1 patient with proctitis. No grade 3 or 4 toxicities were reported. At the 3-month visit, 4 patients described grade 2 obstruction or frequency, and no patients had any grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

The injection of HA makes it possible to deliver hypofractionated irradiation over 4 weeks with a dose per fraction of > 3 Gy, with limited acute rectal toxicity.

Hypofractionation in prostate cancer: radiobiological basis and clinical appliance

External beam radiation therapy with conventional fractionation to a total dose of 76–80 Gy represents the most adopted treatment modality for prostate cancer. Dose escalation in this setting has been demonstrated to improve biochemical control with acceptable toxicity using contemporary radiotherapy techniques. Hypofractionated radiotherapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy have gained an increasing interest in recent years and they have the potential to become the standard of care even if long-term data about their efficacy and safety are not well established. Strong radiobiological basis supports the use of high dose for fraction in prostate cancer, due to the demonstrated exceptionally low values of α/β. Clinical experiences with hypofractionated and stereotactic radiotherapy (with an adequate biologically equivalent dose) demonstrated good tolerance, a PSA control comparable to conventional fractionation, and the advantage of shorter time period of treatment. This paper reviews the radiobiological findings that have led to the increasing use of hypofractionation in the management of prostate cancer and briefly analyzes the clinical experience in this setting.

Is biochemical relapse-free survival after profoundly hypofractionated radiotherapy consistent with current radiobiological models?

AIMS

The α/β ratio for prostate cancer is thought to be low and less than for the rectum, which is usually the dose-limiting organ. Hypofractionated radiotherapy should therefore improve the therapeutic ratio, increasing cure rates with less toxicity. A number of models for predicting biochemical relapse-free survival have been developed from large series of patients treated with conventional and moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. The purpose of this study was to test these models when significant numbers of patients treated with profoundly hypofractionated radiotherapy were included.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature with regard to hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer was conducted, focussing on data recently presented on prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy. For the work described here, we have taken published biochemical control rates for a range of moderately and profoundly fractionated schedules and plotted these together with a range of radiobiological models, which are described.

RESULTS

The data reviewed show consistency between the various radiobiological model predictions and the currently observed data.

CONCLUSION

Current radiobiological models provide accurate predictions of biochemical relapse-free survival, even when profoundly hypofractionated patients are included in the analysis.

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

PURPOSE

To study the relationship between the accuracy of the dose calculation in brachytherapy and the estimations of the radiosensitivity parameter, α/β, for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In this study, Monte Carlo methods and more specifically the code ALGEBRA was used to produce accurate dose calculations in the case of prostate brachytherapy. Equivalent uniform biologically effective dose was calculated for these dose distributions and was used in an iso-effectiveness relationship with external beam radiation therapy.

RESULTS

By considering different levels of detail in the calculations, the estimation for the α/β parameter varied from 1.9 to 6.3 Gy, compared with a value of 3.0 Gy suggested by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 137.

CONCLUSIONS

Large variations of the α/β show the sensitivity of this parameter to dose calculation modality. The use of accurate dose calculation engines is critical for better evaluating the biological outcomes of treatments.

[Alpha/beta ratio revisited in the era of hypofractionation]

Large doses per fraction are not recommended in daily radiotherapy due to a higher risk of late normal tissue injury. The technical refinements of modern radiotherapy and suggestions that some tumors could be sensitive to dose per fraction have renewed the interest in hypofractionated schedules. The estimation of α/β ratio value requires large samples of carefully evaluated patients in whom total and fractional doses have varied independently. Tumor repopulation has to be considered when the treatment duration is altered. Without setting aside conflicting publication, the α/β ratio values for prostate and breast (after lumpectomy) cancers could be as low as 2.5 Gy and 4 Gy, respectively. While it is too early to change our routine protocols, the time has come to conduct clinical trials comparing different fractionation schedules.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy in prostate cancer

In regards to prostate cancer, the classic radiotherapy dose ranges from 70-80 Gy, administered in daily 2-Gy fractions. However, when taking into account the particular radiobiological model of prostate cancer cells, one realizes that there is a potential theoretical advantage to delivering a greater biological effective dose per treatment in a lower number of fractions. Both recent and older publications have attempted to explore this treatment option. This critical review comprehensively examines the current state of knowledge concerning hypofractionated radiotherapy in prostate cancer.

Dose-fractionation sensitivity of prostate cancer deduced from radiotherapy outcomes of 5,969 patients in seven international institutional datasets: α/β = 1.4 (0.9-2.2) Gy

PURPOSE

There are reports of a high sensitivity of prostate cancer to radiotherapy dose fractionation, and this has prompted several trials of hypofractionation schedules. It remains unclear whether hypofractionation will provide a significant therapeutic benefit in the treatment of prostate cancer, and whether there are different fractionation sensitivities for different stages of disease. In order to address this, multiple primary datasets have been collected for analysis.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Seven datasets were assembled from institutions worldwide. A total of 5969 patients were treated using external beams with or without androgen deprivation (AD). Standard fractionation (1.8-2.0 Gy per fraction) was used for 40% of the patients, and hypofractionation (2.5-6.7 Gy per fraction) for the remainder. The overall treatment time ranged from 1 to 8 weeks. Low-risk patients comprised 23% of the total, intermediate-risk 44%, and high-risk 33%. Direct analysis of the primary data for tumor control at 5 years was undertaken, using the Phoenix criterion of biochemical relapse-free survival, in order to calculate values in the linear-quadratic equation of k (natural log of the effective target cell number), α (dose-response slope using very low doses per fraction), and the ratio α/β that characterizes dose-fractionation sensitivity.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the α/β value for the three risk groups, and the value of α/β for the pooled data was 1.4 (95% CI = 0.9-2.2) Gy. Androgen deprivation improved the bNED outcome index by about 5% for all risk groups, but did not affect the α/β value.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall α/β value was consistently low, unaffected by AD deprivation, and lower than the appropriate values for late normal-tissue morbidity. Hence the fractionation sensitivity differential (tumor/normal tissue) favors the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules for all risk groups, which is also very beneficial logistically in limited-resource settings.

When tumor repopulation starts? The onset time of prostate cancer during radiation therapy

PURPOSE

To analyze published clinical data and provide a preliminary estimate of tumor repopulation rate and its onset time during radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

METHODS

Data on prostate cancer treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) by Perez et al. (2004), Amdur et al. (1990) and Lai et al. (1991) were analyzed in this study. The stage-combined pelvic control rate from Perez et al. was calculated to be 0.95±0.01, 0.87±0.02, and 0.72±0.04 for patients treated ≤7 weeks, 7.1-9 weeks, and >9 weeks respectively. Based on the Linear-Quadratic model, extended to account for tumor repopulation, the least χ² method was used to fit the clinical data and derive the onset time (T(k)) and effective doubling time (T(d)) for prostate cancer. Similar analysis was performed for the other two datasets.

RESULTS

Best fit was achieved with onset time T(k)=34±7 days and doubling time T(d)=12±2 days. These parameters were independent of the choice of the α/β values currently published in the literature. Analyses of the other two datasets showed T(k)=42±7 days with T(d)=9 ± 3 days, and T(k)=34±6 days with T(d)=34±5 days, respectively. T(k) was found to be dependent on tumor stage.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent values for onset time T(k) were obtained from different datasets, while the range of doubling time T(d) was large. Tumor repopulation starts no later than 58 days (at 90% confidence level) in the course of EBRT for prostate cancer.

Methods to calculate normal tissue complication and tumour control probabilities for fractionated inhomogeneous dose distribution of intensity-modulated radiation therapy

Objectives: This study is designed to present and evaluate radiobiological-based dose–volume histogram (DVH) reduction schemes to calculate normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and tumour control probability (TCP) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

Methods: The proposed DVH reduction schemes were derived for 2 Gy per fraction and prescribed dose per fraction for critical organs and tumours, respectively. Sample computed tomography scans were used to generate two IMRT plans to deliver 54 Gy to PTV1 and 24 Gy to PTV2 via sequential IMRT boost (SqIB) and simultaneous integrated IMRT boost (SIB) plans. Differential DVHs were used to calculate effective volumes using published values of related parameters of critical organs and prostate.

Results: NTCP values for bladder were almost zero for both IMRT plans. The plots between k and NTCP for rectum and femurs (k = 0.1–1.0) show higher NTCP for SqIB than that for SIB. The TCP decreases with increasing clonogenic cell density and is higher for SIB than that for SqIB for all clonogenic cell densities. The value of α proposed by Brenner and Hall shows very low radio sensitivity of clonogens of the prostate, which gives very low TCP for conventional doses of 70–80 Gy delivered in 7–8 weeks, even for very low clonogenic cell density in the prostate.

Conclusion: The presented DVH reduction schemes have radiobiological bearing and therefore seem to be effective in calculating fairly accurate NTCP and TCP.

Analytic investigation into effect of population heterogeneity on parameter ratio estimates

PURPOSE

A homogeneous tumor control probability (TCP) model has previously been used to estimate the alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer from clinical dose-response data. For the ratio to be meaningful, it must be assumed that parameter ratios are not sensitive to the type of tumor control model used. We investigated the validity of this assumption by deriving analytic relationships between the alpha/beta estimates from a homogeneous TCP model, ignoring interpatient heterogeneity, and those of the corresponding heterogeneous (population-averaged) model that incorporated heterogeneity.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The homogeneous and heterogeneous TCP models can both be written in terms of the geometric parameters D(50) and gamma(50). We show that the functional forms of these models are similar. This similarity was used to develop an expression relating the homogeneous and heterogeneous estimates for the alpha/beta ratio. The expression was verified numerically by generating pseudo-data from a TCP curve with known parameters and then using the homogeneous and heterogeneous TCP models to estimate the alpha/beta ratio for the pseudo-data.

RESULTS

When the dominant form of interpatient heterogeneity is that of radiosensitivity, the homogeneous and heterogeneous alpha/beta estimates differ. This indicates that the presence of this heterogeneity affects the value of the alpha/beta ratio derived from analysis of TCP curves.

CONCLUSIONS

The alpha/beta ratio estimated from clinical dose-response data is model dependent--a heterogeneous TCP model that accounts for heterogeneity in radiosensitivity will produce a greater alpha/beta estimate than that resulting from a homogeneous TCP model.

Is the α/β Value for Prostate Tumours Low Enough to be Safely Used in Clinical Trials?

There has been an intense debate over the past several years on the relevant alpha/beta value that could be used to describe the fractionation response of prostate tumours. Previously it has been assumed that prostate tumours have high alpha/beta values, similar to most other tumours and the early reacting normal tissues. However, the proliferation behaviour of the prostate tumours is more like that of the late reacting tissues, with slow doubling times and low alpha/beta values. The analyses of clinical results carried out in the past few years have indeed suggested that the alpha/beta value that characterises the fractionation response of the prostate is low, possibly even below the 3 Gy commonly assumed for most late complications, and hence that hypofractionation of the radiation treatment might improve the therapeutic ratio (better control at the same or lower complication rate). However, hypofractionation might also increase the complication rates in the surrounding late responding tissues and if their alpha/beta value is not larger that of prostate tumours it could even lead to a decrease in the therapeutic ratio. Therefore, the important question is whether the alpha/beta value for the prostate is lower than the alpha/beta values of the surrounding late responding tissues at risk. This paper reviews the clinical and experimental data regarding the radiobiological differential that might exist between prostate tumours and the late normal tissues around them. Several prospective hypofractionated trials that have been initiated recently in order to determine the alpha/beta value or the range of values that describe the fractionation response of prostate tumours are also reviewed. In spite of several confounding factors that interfere with the derivation of a precise value, it seems that most data support a trend towards lower alpha/beta values for prostate tumours than for rectum or bladder.

Dose escalation to combat hypoxia in prostate cancer: a radiobiological study on clinical data

Earlier studies have demonstrated that hypoxic regions exist in human prostate cancer and the degree of hypoxia correlates with the treatment outcome of radiotherapy. Using the concept of the clinical oxygen enhancement ratio (COER), the linear-quadratic (LQ) model was extended to account for the effect of tumour hypoxia. The clinical data collected at the Fox Chase Cancer Center for prostate cancer were analysed based on the LQ model as well as the tumour control probability (TCP) model. The LQ and TCP parameters (alpha = 0.15 Gy (-1), alpha/beta = 3.1 Gy and the number of clonogens K = 10(6) approximately 10(7) cells) determined in earlier studies were used to derive the COER for prostate cancer: COER = 1.4 with a standard confidence interval (CI) of (1.2, 1.8). The result is consistent with the in vitro OER measurements of human tumour cell lines under chronic hypoxia conditions. This implies that a higher dose is needed to overcome tumour hypoxia. For prostate tumours, the prescription dose required to overcome tumour hypoxia is 165 Gy (CI: 153 approximately 186 Gy) for permanent 125I implants and 88 Gy (CI: 74 approximately 118 Gy) in 2 Gy fractions for external-beam radiotherapy. The impact of LQ parameters on the calculations of COER and dose escalation was discussed. This study provides a preliminary estimate of the dose escalation needed to overcome tumour hypoxia based on clinical data. More clinical data with better statistics and longer follow-up time are required to further tune the radiobiological modelling of hypoxia for prostate cancer.

Outcome analysis of 300 prostate cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and hypofractionated radiotherapy

PURPOSE

Neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and radical radiotherapy is an established treatment for localized prostate carcinoma. This study sought to analyze the outcomes of patients treated with relatively low-dose hypofractionated radiotherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Three hundred patients with T1-T3 prostate cancer were treated between 1996 and 2001. Patients were prescribed 3 months of neoadjuvant androgen deprivation before receiving 5250 cGy in 20 fractions. Patients' case notes and the oncology database were used to retrospectively assess outcomes. Median follow-up was 58 months.

RESULTS

Patients presented with prostate cancer with poorer prognostic indicators than that reported in other series. At 5 years, the actuarial cause-specific survival rate was 83.2% and the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse rate was 57.3%. Metastatic disease had developed in 23.4% of patients. PSA relapse continued to occur 5 years from treatment in all prognostic groups. Independent prognostic factors for relapse included treatment near the start of the study period, neoadjuvant oral anti-androgen monotherapy rather than neoadjuvant luteinizing hormone releasing hormone therapy, and diagnosis through transurethral resection of the prostate rather than transrectal ultrasound.

CONCLUSION

This is the largest reported series of patients treated with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation and hypofractionated radiotherapy in the United Kingdom. Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy did not appear to adequately compensate for the relatively low effective radiation dose used.

Effect of edema, relative biological effectiveness, and dose heterogeneity on prostate brachytherapya)

Many factors influence response in low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy of prostate cancer. Among them, edema, relative biological effectiveness (RBE), and dose heterogeneity have not been fully modeled previously. In this work, the generalized linear-quadratic (LQ) model, extended to account for the effects of edema, RBE, and dose heterogeneity, was used to assess these factors and their combination effect. Published clinical data have shown that prostate edema after seed implant has a magnitude (ratio of post- to preimplant volume) of 1.3-2.0 and resolves exponentially with a half-life of 4-25 days over the duration of the implant dose delivery. Based on these parameters and a representative dose-volume histogram (DVH), we investigated the influence of edema on the implant dose distribution. The LQ parameters (alpha=0.15 Gy(-1) and alpha/beta=3.1 Gy) determined in earlier studies were used to calculate the equivalent uniform dose in 2 Gy fractions (EUD2) with respect to three effects: edema, RBE, and dose heterogeneity for 125I and 103Pd implants. The EUD2 analysis shows a negative effect of edema and dose heterogeneity on tumor cell killing because the prostate edema degrades the dose coverage to tumor target. For the representative DVH, the V100 (volume covered by 100% of prescription dose) decreases from 93% to 91% and 86%, and the D90 (dose covering 90% of target volume) decrease from 107% to 102% and 94% of prescription dose for 125I and 103Pd implants, respectively. Conversely, the RBE effect of LDR brachytherapy [versus external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy] enhances dose effect on tumor cell kill. In order to balance the negative effects of edema and dose heterogeneity, the RBE of prostate brachytherapy was determined to be approximately 1.2-1.4 for 125I and 1.3-1.6 for 103Pd implants. These RBE values are consistent with the RBE data published in the literature. These results may explain why in earlier modeling studies, when the effects of edema, dose heterogeneity, and RBE were all ignored simultaneously, prostate LDR brachytherapy was reported to show an overall similar dose effect as EBRT and HDR brachytherapy, which are independent of edema and RBE effects and have a better dose coverage.

Dosimetry and preliminary acute toxicity in the first 100 men treated for prostate cancer on a randomized hypofractionation dose escalation trial

PURPOSE

The alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer is postulated to be between 1 and 3, giving rise to the hypothesis that there may be a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionation. The dosimetry and acute toxicity are described in the first 100 men enrolled in a randomized trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The trial compares 76 Gy in 38 fractions (Arm I) to 70.2 Gy in 26 fractions (Arm II) using intensity modulated radiotherapy. The planning target volume (PTV) margins in Arms I and II were 5 mm and 3 mm posteriorly and 8 mm and 7 mm in all other dimensions. The PTV D95% was at least the prescription dose.

RESULTS

The mean PTV doses for Arms I and II were 81.1 and 73.8 Gy. There were no differences in overall maximum acute gastrointestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) toxicity acutely. However, there was a slight but significant increase in Arm II GI toxicity during Weeks 2, 3, and 4. In multivariate analyses, only the combined rectal DVH parameter of V65 Gy/V50 Gy was significant for GI toxicity and the bladder volume for GU toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Hypofractionation at 2.7 Gy per fraction to 70.2 Gy was well tolerated acutely using the planning conditions described.

Curiethérapie du cancer prostatique : haut débit ou bas débit de dose ?

Low-dose brachytherapy for prostate cancer was actually proposed in the first years of the XXth century. Its modern version (iodin 125 or palladium 103 permanent implants) now benefits from some 15 years of experience in a few pioneer centers, with very satisfactory results in term of efficacy/toxicity ratio. More recently, a high-dose rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy technique has been introduced. Initially utilized essentially as a "boost" irradiation combined with external radiotherapy, it is now being proposed by some authors as a monotherapy for selected localized prostate cancers. Although sophisticated radiobiological models have been proposed to compare those two dose-rates, they are not considered to be valid and reliable enough to compare such different irradiation schemes (A low-dose rate irradiation lasting several months vs a few high-dose fractions given in a few days). When it comes to the implantation techniques, it seems that most of the technical problems which arose for both schemes have been solved, and that the experience of a given team is now much more important than the technique itself. Clinical results cannot be reliably compared so far, the follow-up of the patients treated by HDR brachytherapy being usually shorter, and the patients treated with HDR usually presenting with more advanced lesions. Radioprotection features are very different, with no accident reported for low-dose rate implants. For HDR no irradiation is given at all to the staff and family during a normal application, but one has to face the threat of manipulating high activity sources, with a few accidents or incidents reported in the literature. Financial studies show that for more than 20-30 patients treated in a year, HDR is more economical, although a decrease in the cost of the seeds could change the picture. In conclusion, for low-risk localized prostate cancer, it does not appear reasonable to give up using a low-dose rate technique, which proved to be both efficient and poorly toxic. This actually corresponds to the recent GEC-ESTRO recommendations. For the other patients, a dose escalation is appealing: this could be performed using brachytherapy (LDR or HDR), with or without hormonotherapy. Several trials are ongoing or will be activated very soon to try and answer.

Hypofractionnement en radiothérapie : le retour ?

Hypofractionation (i.e. the use of fewer higher fractional doses than usual) is not a new concept. It had actually been proposed in the early year of Radiotherapy by the German and Austrian specialists. In the seventy's, supported by the - wrong - hypotheses which gave birth to the NSD (Nominal Standard Dose), hypofractionation reappears. The consequential increase of late complications which was observed led the radiation oncologists to give up again using large doses per fraction, except for a few specific situations, such as palliative treatments. We are recently facing a new "come-back" of hypofractionation, in particular for breast and prostate cancers. In the case of breast cancer, the aim is clearly to look for more "convenience" for both the patients and the physicians, proposing shorter irradiation schedules including a lesser number of fractions. Some "modestly" hypofractionated schemes have been proposed and used, without apparently altering the efficacy/toxicity ratio, but these results have been seriously questioned. As for prostate cancer, the situation is different, since in that case new radiobiological data are at the origin of the newly proposed hypofractionation schedules. A number of papers actually strongly suggested that the fractionation sensitivity of prostate cancer could be higher than the one of the tissues responsible for late toxicity (i.e the exact opposite of the classical dogma). Based on those data, several hypofractionated schemes have been proposed, with a few preliminary results looking similar to the ones obtained by the classical schedules. However, no randomised study is available so far, and a few recent radiobiological data are now questioning the new dogma of the high fractionation sensitivity of prostate cancer. For those two - frequent - cancers, it seems therefore that prudence should prevail before altering classical irradiation schedules which have proven their efficacy, while staying open to new concepts and proposing well-designed randomised trials in specific cases.

Limitations of a TCP model incorporating population heterogeneity

The variation between individuals in their dose-response characteristics complicates attempts to extract estimates of radiobiological parameters (e.g. alpha, beta, etc) from fits to clinical dose-response data. The use of 'population' dose-response models that explicitly account for this variability is necessary to avoid obtaining skewed parameter estimates. In this work, we evaluated an example of a 'population' tumour control probability (TCP) model in terms of its ability to provide reliable parameter estimates. This was accomplished by performing fits of this population model to 'pseudo' data sets, which were generated with Monte Carlo techniques and based on preset values for the various radiobiological parameters. The fitting exercises illustrated considerable correlations between the model parameters. Especially significant was the large correlation observed between the parameter mu=alpha/sigmaalpha used to characterize the level of population heterogeneity in radiosensitivity and the alpha/beta parameter typically used to describe the response to fractionation. The results imply that fits to clinical data may not be able to distinguish between tumours exhibiting a high degree of heterogeneity and a strong beta-mechanism and those containing little heterogeneity and having a weak beta-mechanism. One implication is that basing the design of optimal fractionation regimes on such fitting results may be error-prone. If in vitro assays are to be used to independently determine biologically reasonable ranges for parameter values, an accurate knowledge of the relationship between in vitro and in vivo dose-response characteristics is required.

Effect of patient variation on standard- and hypo-fractionated radiotherapy of prostate cancer

Recent publications suggested that the alpha/beta ratio in the well-known linear quadratic (LQ) model could be as low as 1.5 Gy for prostate cancer, indicating that prostate cancer control might be very sensitive to changes in the dose fractionation scheme. This also suggests that the standard-fractionation scheme based on large alpha/beta ratios may not be optimal for the radio-therapeutic management of prostate cancer. Hypo-fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer has received more attention recently as an alternative treatment strategy, which may lead to reduced treatment time and cost. However, hypo-fractionated radiotherapy may be more sensitive to patient variation in terms of disease control than standard-fractionated radiotherapy. The variation of LQ parameters alpha and beta for a patient population may compromise the outcome of the treatment. This effect can be studied by the introduction of the sigmaalpha and sigmabeta parameters, which are the standard deviations of Gaussian distributions around alpha0 and beta0. The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of patient variation in alpha and beta on tumour control probability for standard- and hypo-fractionated radiotherapy of prostate cancer. The tumour control probability based on the LQ model is calculated using parameters alpha, beta, sigmaalpha and sigmabeta. Our results show that sigmaalpha is an important parameter for radiotherapy fractionation, independent of the alpha/beta ratio. A large sigmaalpha will result in a significant increase in the radiation dose required to achieve the same 95% TCP. Compared with the standard-fractionated scheme, sigmaalpha has a smaller effect on hypo-fractionated treatment at lower alpha/beta ratios. On the other hand, for lower alpha/beta ratios, the beta term also plays a more important role in cell-killing and therefore the patient variation parameter sigmabeta must be considered when designing a new dose fractionation scheme.

Impact of tumor repopulation on radiotherapy planning

PURPOSE

Biologic/functional imaging (e.g., fluorodeoxyglucose/3'-deoxy-3'-fluorothymidine-positron emission tomography) is promising to provide information on tumor cell repopulation. Such information is important in the design of biologically conformal radiotherapy for cancer. The questions remaining unclear are whether it is necessary to escalate the dose to the regions with rapid cell repopulation in the tumor target and, if so, by how much. The purpose of this work was to address these questions using radiobiologic modeling.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The generalized linear-quadratic model, extended to account for the effect of clonogenic cell repopulation, was used to calculate the cell-killing efficiency of radiotherapy. The standard Poisson tumor control probability (TCP) model was used to bridge cell killing to treatment outcome. Prostate cancer was chosen as the example for this study. In situ measurements of prostate cancer patients have shown that the potential doubling time of tumor cells has a large variation, ranging from 15 to 170 days. On the basis of the linear-quadratic and TCP parameters (alpha = 0.14 Gy(-1), alpha/beta = 3.1 Gy, and the number of clonogens K = 10(6)-10(7) cells) determined in earlier studies, we evaluated the influence of tumor cell repopulation during protracted treatment courses on treatment outcome. The dose escalations, which can be used to combat aggressive cell repopulation in regions with different doubling times (15-170 days) and sizes (5, 10, 15, and 40 cm(3) of a 40-cm(3) tumor), were calculated for commonly practiced radiotherapy modalities. The influence of linear-quadratic parameters on this calculation was also considered.

RESULTS

The impact of tumor cell repopulation on TCP and the corresponding dose escalation required to account for this impact were investigated for both external beam radiotherapy and permanent implantation. The results indicated that for regions with aggressive tumor cell growth, dose escalation is necessary to compensate for the repopulation effect. For example, for tumors with an effective doubling time changing from 42 days to 15 days, the prescription dose of external beam radiotherapy needs to be increased from 75.6 to 81 Gy to maintain a target TCP of 80% for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. For (125)I implants, dose escalation from 152 to 160 Gy is required for the same target TCP. These data were calculated on the basis of an alpha/beta ratio of 3.1 Gy. Greater dose escalations are required if the alpha/beta ratio is 1.5 Gy (e.g., 88 Gy for external beam radiotherapy or 180 Gy for (125)I implantation for the same treatment outcome). Our study results showed that it is important to cover the entire tumor volume, including all aggressive spots, with the desired prescription dose, especially for low-dose-rate brachytherapy.

CONCLUSION

Dose escalation is necessary to offset the accelerated tumor cell repopulation during prolonged treatment courses. This study provides a preliminary estimate of the dose escalation for prostate cancer based on the in situ measurements of potential doubling time and radiobiologic models. The proposed dose prescriptions are technically feasible for clinical trials.

Assessment of i-125 prostate implants by tumor bioeffect

PURPOSE

A method of prostate implant dose distribution assessment using a bioeffect model that incorporates a distribution of tumor cell densities is demonstrated. This method provides both a quantitative method of describing implant quality and spatial information related to the location of underdosed regions of the prostate. This model, unlike any other, takes into account the likelihood of finding cancer cells in the underdosed region.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

The prostate volumes of 5 patients were divided into multiple subsections and a unique cell density was assigned to each subsection. The assigned cell density was a function of probability of finding tumor foci in that subsection. The tumor control probability (TCP) for each subsection was then calculated to identify the location of any significantly underdosed part of the prostate. In addition, a single TCP value for the entire prostate was calculated to score the overall quality of the implant.

RESULTS

Adequately dosed subsections scored TCP values greater than 0.80. The TCP for underdosed regions fell dramatically particularly in subsections at higher risk of containing tumor cells.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite uncertainties in radiobiological parameters used to calculate the TCP and the distribution of cancer foci through the prostate, the bioeffect model was found to be useful in identifying regions of underdosed prostate that may be at risk of local recurrence due to inadequate dose. Unlike the isodose distribution, the model has the potential to demonstrate that small volumes of tissue underdosed in regions most likely to contain higher numbers of tumor cells may be more significant than larger volumes irradiated to a lower dose but with a lower probability of containing cancer cells.

Prostate implant evaluation using tumour control probability—the effect of input parameters

In this paper, we examine the effect of treatment parameters in a model used to evaluate permanent prostate implants. The model considers the prostate to be composed of 12 sub-sections, each sub-section is assigned a cell density based on the probability of finding cancer foci in that sub-section. Wasted dose as a result of the dose rate from the implant falling below a level adequate to counteract repopulation was found to vary by 2-16% over the range of radiosensitivity and repopulation rates considered. Within the model, applied to five dose distributions, the uncertainty in the tumour control probability (TCP) values calculated for each sub-section as a result of differences in the model parameters, was found to be less than 12% in most cases for the good quality implants. The difference in TCP values was much larger for the poor quality implant. Substituting a heterogeneous distribution of alpha for a single mean value resulted in generally lower TCP values though introducing a cutoff value with a Gaussian distribution had a profound effect on the calculated values. Despite uncertainties in the parameters, the model was able to identify sub-sections at risk of local recurrence but as a result of these uncertainties, the TCP values can only be considered in the relative rather than absolute sense.

Dosimetry and radiobiologic model comparison of IMRT and 3D conformal radiotherapy in treatment of carcinoma of the prostate

INTRODUCTION

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has introduced novel dosimetry that often features increased dose heterogeneity to target and normal structures. This raises questions of the biologic effects of IMRT compared to conventional treatment. We compared dosimetry and radiobiologic model predictions of tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for prostate cancer patients planned for IMRT as opposed to standardized three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Segmented multileaf collimator IMRT treatment plans for 32 prostate cancer patients were compared to 3DCRT plans for the same patients. Twenty-two received local-field irradiation (LFI), and 10 received extended-field irradiation (EFI) that included pelvic lymph nodes. For LFI, IMRT was planned for delivery of 2 Gy minimum dose to the prostate (> or =99% volume coverage) for 35 fractions. The 3DCRT plans, characterized by more homogenous dose to the target, were designed according to a different protocol to deliver 2 Gy to the center of the prostate for 37 fractions. Mean total dose from 35 fractions of IMRT was equal to mean total dose from 37 fractions of 3DCRT. For EFI, both IMRT and 3DCRT were planned for 2 Gy per fraction to a total dose of 50 Gy to prostate and pelvic lymph nodes, followed by 2 Gy per fraction to 20 Gy to the prostate alone. Treatment dose for EFI-IMRT was defined as minimum dose to the target, whereas for EFI-3DCRT, it was defined as dose to the center of the prostate. TCP was calculated for the prostate in the linear-quadratic model for two choices of alpha/beta. NTCP was calculated with the Lyman model for organs at risk, using Kutcher-Burman dose-volume histogram reduction with Emami parameters.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Dose to the prostate, expressed as mean +/- standard deviation, was 74.7 +/- 1.1 Gy for IMRT vs. 74.6 +/- 0.3 Gy for 3D for the LFI plans, and 74.8 +/- 0.6 Gy for IMRT vs. 71.5 +/- 0.6 Gy for 3D for the EFI plans. For the studied protocols, TCP was greater for IMRT than for 3D across the full range of target sensitivity, for both localized- and extended-field irradiation. For LFI, this was due to the smaller number of fractions (35 vs. 37) used for IMRT, and for EFI, this was due to the greater mean dose for IMRT, compared to 3D. For all organs, mean NTCP tended to be lower for IMRT than for 3D, although NTCP values were very small for both 3D and IMRT. Differences were statistically significant for rectum (LFI and EFI), bladder (EFI), and bowel (EFI). For both LFI and EFI, the calculated NTCPs qualitatively agreed with early published clinical data comparing genitourinary and gastrointestinal complications of IMRT and 3D. Present calculations support the hypothesis that accurately delivered IMRT for prostate cancer can limit dose to normal tissue by reducing treatment margins relative to conventional 3D planning, to allow a reduction in complication rate spanning several sensitive structures while maintaining or increasing tumor control probability.

Late Urinary Morbidity With High Dose Prostate Brachytherapy as a Boost to Conventional External Beam Radiation Therapy for Local and Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Late urinary retention (UR) is a known complication that may occur when using high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-B) to boost external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) when treating prostate cancer. However, the dosimetric, treatment and clinical factors associated with this complication are not well-known.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From March 1997 to March 2000 a total of 108 patients with local or locally advanced prostate adenocarcinoma were treated with EBRT (45 Gy) and HDR-B as a boost, when 16 to 20 Gy was given in 4 fractions twice daily. Median patient age was 68 years and median followup was 44 months (range 36 to 72). Each implant was performed using 8 to 18 needles with a median active length of 3 cm. Planning ultrasound target volume ranged from 23 to 65 cc.

RESULTS

Biological effective doses for the urethral region ranged from 107 to 138 Gy3 (median 113). Crude and 5-year actuarial UR-free survival were 95.4% and 86.2%, respectively. Predictive factors for UR on univariate analysis were age more than 65 years (p = 0.0416), planning ultrasound target volume greater than 35 cc and active length of needles more than 3.5 cm (p = 0.0158). On multivariate analysis by Cox regression age was the only predictive factor (p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

HDR-B appears to offer a safe, reproducible and effective method of boosting conventional EBRT in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Results with this technology reveal late urinary morbidity rates paralleling those achieved with other forms of treatment, but further long-term followup is still needed to warrant a definitive conclusion.

The low alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer: what does the clinical outcome of HDR brachytherapy tell us?

PURPOSE

Accumulating evidence demonstrates that prostate cancer has a low alpha/beta ratio. However, several challenging issues have been raised from previous studies, including the biologic equivalence between external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy, the effect of relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) for permanent implantation, and the systematic uncertainties of multi-institutional and multi-modality clinical data. The purpose of this study is to address these issues by reexamining a reported clinical outcome of high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy and to confirm the low alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The generalized linear-quadratic (LQ) model with considerations of sublethal damage repair and clonogen repopulation was used to calculate the cell-killing efficiency of radiotherapy treatments for prostate cancer. Standard models of tumor cure based on Poisson statistics were used to bridge cell killing to treatment outcome. The data collected in a clinical trial using EBRT plus HDR brachytherapy boost for prostate cancer at William Beaumont Hospital (WBH) were reanalyzed. A 4-year post-treatment time endpoint was chosen as compared to the 3-year endpoint used in the previous study because of better maturity and stability of the data. The least chi-square method was employed to fit the clinical data to estimate the LQ parameters as well as their confidence intervals. The number of clonogens for prostate tumors derived in a separate study was used as a constraint for the data modeling to improve the confidence level.

RESULTS

Our analysis demonstrates that only relationships among the LQ parameters, not their definitive and unique values, can be derived from the WBH data set alone. This is due to the large statistical uncertainties, i.e., the small numbers of sampled patients. By combining with the results obtained with the clinical data from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), a new set of LQ parameters (alpha = 0.14 +/- 0.05 Gy(-1), alpha/beta = 3.1(-1.6)(+2.6) Gy) was obtained from the current analysis of the WBH data without dealing with data from permanent implants. The results are consistent with a previous study based on the biologic equivalence between EBRT and permanent implants with a consideration of tumor repopulation. This set of LQ parameters provides a consistent interpretation of clinical data currently available for prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides further evidence to support that prostate cancer has a low alpha/beta ratio of about 3.1 Gy. This study shows that the RBE effect in permanent implantation may not be clinically significant for prostate cancer. The consistency found between this analysis and the previous reported study supports the general biologic equivalence between EBRT and brachytherapy treatments for prostate cancer. The low alpha/beta ratio opens the door to search for more effective radiotherapeutic approaches for prostate cancer, e.g., hypofractionation radiotherapy.

The impact of geometric uncertainty on hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Recent publications indicate alpha/beta for prostate carcinoma could be lower than assumed. Therefore, hypofractionation might increase the therapeutic ratio. However, patient repositioning and organ motion may affect hypofractionated treatments more than conventional treatments. Our purpose is to evaluate the potential impact of geometric uncertainties on hypofractionated treatments.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) are calculated for simulated conventional and hypofractionated treatments, assuming alpha/beta of 1.5 Gy for prostate and 3.0 Gy for rectum. A Monte Carlo simulation randomly samples systematic and random displacements and produces the cumulative dose distribution for the prostate and rectum. The limiting number of fractions and the impact of different alpha/beta values are also explored.

RESULTS

A consistent but small reduction in TCP is seen with hypofractionation (generally <1%) as a result of geometric uncertainties. Escalated hypofractionation seems to allow large TCP gains ( approximately 20%) without increasing NTCP. Treatments of five fractions seem to affect outcome minimally. The alpha/beta value has a much greater impact on TCP than geometric uncertainties.

CONCLUSION

The potential increased influence of geometric uncertainties on hypofractionation seems small. Limited knowledge of radiobiologic response is likely a greater obstacle to prostate hypofractionation than geometric uncertainties.