Fractionated Grid Therapy in Treating Cervical Cancer

  • Hualin Zhang
  • Jian Z. Wang
  • Nina Mayr
  • William Yuh
  • John Grecula
  • Joseph Montebello
Conference paper
Part of the IFMBE Proceedings book series (IFMBE, volume 14)

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the potential therapeutic advantage of external beam grid therapy in treating cervical cancers in comparison of conventional open field radiotherapy.

Method and Materials: A Monte Carlo technique is employed to calculate 2-dimensinal dose distribution of a commercially available grid, and the linear-quadratic (LQ) model was applied to study the therapeutic advantage of using grid therapy for treating cervical cancers. A list of cervical cancer cell lines with known LQ parameters were employed to calculate the radiotherapy response. Acutely responding Normal muscle with α/β value of 3.1 Gy was used to evaluate the outcome between the open and grid field irradiations. The normal muscle tissue was further classified as three types of cells according to their response to a 2Gy open field. The therapeutic ratio based on normal cell survival has been defined and calculated for treating both the acute and late responding cervical cancer. 2Gy per fraction and 5 to 20 fractions were used in the calculations.

Results: The normal tissue as well as tumor cell survival fractions and therapeutic ratios for the open and grid field are calculated. An appreciable therapeutic advantage has been demonstrated. Therapeutic ratio up to 9.5 for radio-sensitive normal muscles was found. However, the radio-resistant muscle does not show apparent advantage benefiting from the grid therapy. The results of data analysis showed that the therapeutic outcome is dependent not only on the single value α/β, but also on the individual α and β values from both the tumor and normal tissue cells.

Conclusion: Monte Carlo technique was proven to be able to provide the dosimetric characteristics for grid therapy. The grid therapy in this study was found to be advantageous for treating the acutely responding cervical tumors (α/β>6), but not for late responding ones (α/β≤6). The acutely responding tumors and radio-sensitive normal tissues are more suitable for using the grid therapy.

Keywords

Cervical Cancer Dose Distribution Intensity Modulate Radiation Therapy Cervical Cancer Cell Line Therapeutic Ratio 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Puri DR, Chou W, Lee N, “Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in head and neck cancers: dosimetric advantages and update of clinical results”, Am J Clin Oncol., 28(4): 415–23 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chapet O, Thomas E, Kessler ML, Fraass BA, Ten Haken RK, “Esophagus sparing with IMRT in lung tumor irradiation: An EUDbased optimization technique”, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys., 63(1):179–87 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen YJ, Liu A, Tsai PT, Vora NL, Pezner RD, Schultheiss TE, Wong JY, “Organ sparing by conformal avoidance intensity-modulated radiation therapy for anal cancer: Dosimetric evaluation of coverage of pelvis and inguinal/femoral nodes”, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 63(1): 274–81 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cozzi L, Fogliata A, Nicolini G, Bernier J, “Clinical experience in breast irradiation with intensity modulated photon beams”, Acta Oncol, 44(5): 467–74 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biancia CD, Yorke E, Chui CS, Giraud P, Rosenzweig K, Amols H, Ling C, Mageras GS, “Comparison of end normal inspiration and expiration for gated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of lung cancer”, Radiother Oncol, 75(2): 149–56 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sathishkumar S, Dey S, Meigooni AS, Regine WF, Kudrimoti MS, Ahmed MM, Mohiuddin M, “The impact of TNF-alpha on Therapeutic efficacy following high dose spatially fractionated (GRID) radiation”, Technol Cancer Res Treat., 1(2): 141–7 (2002).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miller RC, Wilson KG, Feola JM, Urano M, Yaes RJ, McLaughlin P, Maruyama Y, “Megavoltage grid total body irradiation of C3Hf/SED mice”, Strahlenther Onkol., 168(7): 423 6 (1992).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mohiuddin M, Curtis DL, Grizos WT, et al. “Palliative treatment of advanced cancer using multiple nonconfluent pencil beam radiation”, Cancer 66:114–118(1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mohiuddin M, Fujita M, Grizos WT, et al. “High dose spatially fractionated radiation (Grid): A new paradigm in the management of advanced cancers”. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 45:721–727(1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marks H., “Clinical experience with irradiation through a grid.” Radiology 58:338–342(1952).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reiff J.E., M.S. Huq, M. Mohiuddin and N. Suntharalingam, “Dosimetric Properties of megavoltage Grid therapy”, Int. J.Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., Vol. 33(4), 937–942(1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Trapp JV, Warrington AP, Partridge M, Philps A, Glees J, Tait D, Ahmed R, Leach MO, Webb S, “Measurement of the threedimensional distribution of radiation dose in grid therapy”, Phys Med Biol., 49(19):N317–23 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meigooni AS, Parker SA, Zheng J, Kalbaugh KJ, Regine WF, Mohiuddin M, “Dosimetric characteristics with spatial fractionation using electron grid therapy”, Med Dosim., 27(1):37–42 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Zwicker, Ali. Meigooni and M. Mohiuddin, “Therapeutic advantage of Grid irradiation for large single fraction”, Int. J. Radiation Oncology Bio.Phys.,Vol. 58:1309–1315; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dogan N, Leybovich LB, Sethi A., “Comparative evaluation of Kodak EDR2 and XV2 films for verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy”,Phys Med Biol., 47(22):4121–30 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nathan L. Childress and Issac I. Rosen, “Effect of processing time delay on the dose response of Kodak EDDR2 film”, Med. Phys. 31(8) 2284–2287(2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.S. Hendricks, G.W. Mckinney, L.S. Waters, T.L. Roberts, et al “MCNPX user’s manual, version 2.5e”. LA-UR-04-0569. Repot of Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    RSICC Computer code collection “Monte Carlo N-particle Transport Code System”. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. J. Hall, Radiobiology for the Radiologist, p 34, J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA, 4th ed., 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brenner, D.J. and E. J. Hall, “Conditions for the equivalence of continuous to pulsed low dose rate brachytherapy”, Int. J. Radiation Oncology Bio. Phys. 20:181–190; 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brenner D.J., Alvaro A. Martinez, G.K. Edmundson, Christina Mitchell, Howard D. Thames, and Elwood P. Armour, “Direct evidence that prostate tumors show high sensitivity to fractionation (low /a/b ratio), similar to late responding normal tissue”. Int. J. Radiation Oncology Bio. Phys. 52:6–13; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Withers H. Rodney, KLester J. Peters, Jeremy M. G. Taylor, et al, “Late Normal tissue sequelae from radiation therapy for carcinoma of the tonsil: Patterns of fractionation study of radiobiology”, Int. J. Radiation Oncology Bio. Phys. 33:563–568; 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thames H.D, S.M. Bentzen, I. Turesson, M. Overgaard and W. Van Den Bogaert, “Fractionation parameters for human tissues and tumors”, Int. J. Radiation Oncology Bio. Phys. 56:701–710; 1989.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bodey Rachel K., Phil M. Evans and Glenn D. Flux, “Application of the linear-quadratic model to combined modality radiotherapy”. Int. J. Radiation Oncology Bio. Phys. 59:228–241; 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hualin Zhang
    • 1
  • Jian Z. Wang
    • 1
  • Nina Mayr
    • 1
  • William Yuh
    • 2
  • John Grecula
    • 1
  • Joseph Montebello
    • 1
  1. 1.The Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyThe Ohio State University Columbus

Personalised recommendations