Do we need fractionation-corrected doses in sequential two-phase treatments? A quantification of dose differences between non-corrected and corrected combined non-uniform dose distributions in normal tissue

Voxel based evaluation of sequential radiotherapy treatment plans with different dose fractionation schemes

OBJECTIVE

This study presents a methodology for voxel-based evaluation of two phase sequential radiotherapy treatment plans having conventional dose scheme in the first phase and subsequent hypofractionation dose scheme in the second phase based upon different priority [planning target volume (PTV), clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OAR)] of display modes.

METHODS

A case of carcinoma prostate was selected for demonstration. Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) was used for contouring and planning. In the first phase, a dose of 52 Gy in 26 fractions to the PTV and in the second phase, a dose of 19.5 Gy in 3 fractions to the PTV Boost was planned on the same CT data set. Both the plans (Phase 1 and Phase 2) were exported and processed using "Voxel-based radiobiology display (VRb) tool". Plan Sum for Biologically effective dose (BED)-Cube and equivalent dose of 2Gy (EQD₂)-Cube was reconstructed using a combination of linear quadratic (LQ) and linear quadratic-linear (LQ-L) radiobiological models. Tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for different target volumes and organs were also calculated using EQD₂-volume histograms of the Plan Sum.

RESULTS

An in-house graphical user interface (GUI) is developed to present the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the multiphase treatment plans with different display modes and dose regimens. The voxel based TCP obtained for the combined target volume was 90.56%. NTCP for the bladder and rectum was calculated from the Plan Sum histograms and found to be 0.33% and ~0.0% respectively.

CONCLUSION

The proposed methodology using the VRb tool offers superior plan evaluation for multiphase sequential radiotherapy treatment plans over the existing methods.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

PTV, CTV and OAR priority based display modes in VRb tool offers better understanding of radiobiological evaluation of sequential radiotherapy treatment plans.

A Systematic Post-QUANTEC Review of Tolerance Doses for Late Toxicity After Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to systematically review tolerance doses for late distinct gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary (GU), and sexual dysfunction (SD) symptoms after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone and treatments involving brachytherapy (BT) for prostate cancer after Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) and ultimately to perform quantitative syntheses of identified dose/volume tolerances represented by dose-volume histogram (DVH) thresholds, that is, statistically significant (P ≤ .05) cutoff points between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients in a certain study.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

PubMed was scrutinized for full-text articles in English after QUANTEC (January 1, 2010). The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, or cohort studies with tolerance doses for late distinct symptoms ≥3 months after primary radiation therapy for prostate cancer (N > 30). All DVH thresholds were converted into equivalent doses in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2α/β) and were fitted with a linear or linear-quadratic function (goodness of fit, R2). The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016042464).

RESULTS

From 33 identified studies, which included 36 to 746 patients per symptom domain, the majority of dose/volume tolerances were derived for GI toxicity after EBRT alone (GI, 97 thresholds; GU, 8 thresholds; SD, 1 threshold). For 5 symptoms (defecation urgency, diarrhea, fecal incontinence, proctitis, and rectal bleeding), relationships between dose/volume tolerances across studies (R2 = 0.93 [0.82-1.00]), and across symptoms, leading to a curve for overall GI toxicity (R2 = 0.98), could be determined. For these symptoms, mainly rectal thresholds were found throughout low and high doses (10 Gy ≤ equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions using α/β = 3Gy (EQD23) ≤ 50 Gy and 55 Gy ≤ EQD23 ≤ 78 Gy, respectively). For BT with or without EBRT, dose/volume tolerances were also mainly identified for GI toxicity (GI, 14 thresholds; GU, 4 thresholds; SD, 2 thresholds) with the largest number of DVH thresholds concerning rectal bleeding (5 thresholds).

CONCLUSIONS

Updated dose/volume tolerances after QUANTEC were found for 17 GI, GU, or SD symptoms. A DVH curve described the relationship between dose/volume tolerances across 5 GI symptoms after EBRT alone. Restricting treatments for EBRT alone using the lower boundaries of this curve is likely to limit overall GI toxicity, but this should be explored prospectively. Dose/volume tolerances for GU and SD toxicity after EBRT alone and after BT with or without EBRT were scarce and support further research including data-sharing initiatives to untangle the dose/volume relationships for these symptoms.

Importance of deformable image registration and biological dose summation in planning of radiotherapy retreatments

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of nonrigid and fractionation-corrected dose summation on total doses in radiotherapy and to demonstrate the benefits of such dose summation on clinical decision-making for planning of retreatments. Dose summation of organs at risk (OARs) was investigated for 3 clinical cases with need of retreatment to the same site: head and neck, brain, and mediastinum. Three different summation methods over old and new radiotherapy treatment plans are presented and compared: (1) rigid raw sum with rigid registration of the planning images and direct dose summing; (2) deformable raw sum with deformable image registration and direct dose summing; and (3) deformable biological sum with deformable registration and takes into account the dose per fraction in biological manner in certain critical organs. In 2 cases, a user-defined dose downscaling is applied to take into account the time between the treatments and the healing from the radiation-induced effects. Of the 3 summation methods presented, the deformable biological sum was considered to offer the most biologically plausible account of the treatment. There were remarkable differences between near-maximum doses (D0.1cc) and dose-volume histogram (DVH) curves for OARs between different summation methods. The differences between deformable raw sum and rigid raw sum D0.1cc doses are in the range from -8 Gy to 2 Gy. Similarly, the deviation was from -14 Gy to 5 Gy for the deformable biological sum compared with the rigid raw sum. These differences come from incorrect summation of doses in the rigid raw sum case, and from the dose per fraction effect in biological summation. We conclude that computing the 3-dimensional deformable biological summation could be a valuable tool for treating patients with complex retreatments. It has the potential to assist the oncologist in refining plans for maximally curative doses while respecting appropriate tissue tolerances.

A new plan quality index for dose painting radiotherapy

Dose painting radiotherapy is considered a promising radiotherapy technology that enables more targeted dose delivery to tumor rich regions while saving critical normal tissues. Obviously, dose painting planning would be more complicated and hard to be evaluated with current plan quality index systems that were developed under the paradigm of uniform dose prescription. In this study, we introduce a new plan quality index, named “index of achievement (IOA)” that assesses how close the planned dose distribution is to the prescribed one in a dose painting radiotherapy plan. By using voxel‐based comparison between planned and prescribed dose distributions in its formulation, the index allows for a single‐value evaluation regardless of the number of prescribed dose levels, which cannot be achieved with the conventional indices such as conventional homogeneity index. Benchmark calculations using patient data demonstrated feasibility of the index not only for contour‐based dose painting plans, but also for dose painting by numbers plans. Also, it was shown that there is strong correlation between the new index and conventional indices, which indicates a potential of the new index as an alternative to conventional ones in general radiotherapy plan evaluation.

PACS number: 87.55.D‐