Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Radiobiological model comparison of 3D conformal radiotherapy and IMRT plans for the treatment of prostate cancer

  • Scientific Papers
  • Published:
Australasian Physics & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main aim of radiotherapy is to deliver a dose of radiation that is high enough to destroy the tumour cells while at the same time minimising the damage to normal healthy tissues. Clinically, this has been achieved by assigning a prescription dose to the tumour volume and a set of dose constraints on critical structures. Once an optimal treatment plan has been achieved the dosimetry is assessed using the physical parameters of dose and volume. There has been an interest in using radiobiological parameters to evaluate and predict the outcome of a treatment plan in terms of both a tumour control probability (TCP) and a normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). In this study, simple radiobiological models that are available in a commercial treatment planning system were used to compare three dimensional conformal radiotherapy treatments (3D-CRT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatments of the prostate. Initially both 3D-CRT and IMRT were planned for 2 Gy/fraction to a total dose of 60 Gy to the prostate. The sensitivity of the TCP and the NTCP to both conventional dose escalation and hypo-fractionation was investigated. The biological responses were calculated using the Källman S-model. The complication free tumour control probability (P+) is generated from the combined NTCP and TCP response values. It has been suggested that the α/β ratio for prostate carcinoma cells may be lower than for most other tumour cell types. The effect of this on the modelled biological response for the different fractionation schedules was also investigated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  1. Pavone-Macaluso, M.,Patient selection criteria for surgery, inRadiotherapy of prostate cancer, Greco, C. and Zelefsky, M.J., Editors. Harwood Academic Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands. p. 69–74, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Small, W., Jr. and Woloschak, G.,Introduction, inRadiation Toxicity A Practical Guide, Small, W., Jr. and Woloschak, G., Editors. Springer: Chicago, IL, USA, 2006.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Schlegel, W.,New technologies in conformal radiation therapy inThree-Dimensional Radiation Treatment technological innovations and clinical results, Feldmann, H.J., Kneschaurek, P., and Molls, M., Editors. Karger: Basel, Switzerland. p. 26–39, 2000.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Al-Mamgani, A., et al.,Update of Dutch Multicenter Dose-Escalation Trial of Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 72(4): p. 980–988, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pollack, A., Zagars, G.K., and Starkschall, G.,Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the MD Anderson phase III randomized trial, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 53(5): p. 1097–1105, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Prado, K.L., Starkschall, G., and Mohan, R.,Threedimensional conformal radiation therapy, inTreatment Planning in Radiation Oncology, Khan, F.M., Editor. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA. p. 116–141, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kutcher, G.J.,Quantitative plan evaluation: TCP/NTCP models, in3-D Conformal Radiotherapy A New Era in the Irradiation of Cancer, Meyer, J.L. and Purdy, J.A., Editors. Karger: Basel, Switzerland. p. 67–80, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Webb, S.,The Physics of Conformal Radiotherapy, Institute of Physics Publishing., Bristol, UK., 1997.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Kutcher, G.J.,Quantitative plan evaluation, in Advances in Radiation Oncology Physics Dosimetry, Treatment Planning, and Brachytherapy, Purdy, J.A., Editor. American Association of Physicists in Medicine: Kansas, USA, p. 998–1021, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Haken, R.K.T. and Kessler, M.L.,Quantitaitve tools for plan evaluation, inGeneral Practice of Radiation Oncology Physics in the 21st Century, Shiu, A.S. and Mellenberg, D.E., Editors. Medical Physics Publishing: Illinois, USA, p. 16–36 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.Niemierko, A.,Current status of TCP and NTCP calculations, in3-D Conformal and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy: Physics & Clinical Applications, Purdy, J.A., et al., Editors. Advanced Medical Publishing: Madison, WI, USA, p. 95–111, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brahme, A.,Optimized radiation therapy based on radiobiological objectives, Seminars in Radiation Oncology, 9(1): p. 35–47, 1999.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McAneney, H. and O’Rourke, S.F.C.,Investigation of various growth mechanisms of solid tumour growth within the linearquadratic model for radiotherapy, Phys. Med. Biol., 52: p. 1039–1054, 2007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fowler, J., Chappell, R., and Ritter, M.,Is α/β for prostate tumors really low? International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 50(4): p. 1021–1031, 2001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fowler, J.F.,Development of radiobiology for oncology-a personal view, Physics in Medicine and Biology, 51: p. R263-R286, 2006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Garcia, L.M., Wilkins, D.E., and Raaphorst, G.P.,α/β ratio: a dose range dependence study, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 67(2): p. 587–593, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kal, H.B. and M. P. van Gellekom,How low is the alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer? International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 57: p. 1116–1121, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  18. King, C.R. and Fowler, J.F.,A simple analytic derivation suggests that prostate cancer alpha/beta ratio is low, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 51(1): p. 213–214, 2001.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang, J.Z., Guerrero, M., and Li, X.A.,How low is the α/β ratio for prostate cancer? International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 55: p. 194–203, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Williams, S.G., et al.,Use of individual fraction size data from 3756 patients to directly determine the α/β ratio of prostate cancer, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 68(1): p. 24–33, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Muriel, V.P.,Hypofractionation in radiotherapy, Clinical and Translational Oncology, 9(1): p. 21–27, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nahum, A.E., et al.,Incorporating clinical measurements of hypoxia into tumor local control modelling of prostate cancer: Implications for the alpha/beta ratio, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 57: p. 391–401, 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brahme, A., Nilsson, J., and Belkic, D.,Biologically optimized radiation therapy, Acta Oncologica, 40(6): p. 725–734, 2001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Haworth, A., et al.,Prostate implant evaluation using tumour control probability-the effect of input parameters, Physics in Medicine and Biology, 49: p. 3649–3664, 2004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ebert, M.,Ranking radiotherapy treatment plans: physical or biological objectives? Radiology Oncology, 35(3): p. 215–24, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zaider, M. and Minerbo, G.N.,Tumour control probability: a formulation applicable to any temporal protocol of dose delivery, Physics in Medicine and Biology, 45: p. 279–293, 2000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Stavrev, P., et al.,An objective function for TCP/NTCP curve fitting, Medical Physics, 34(6): p.2417, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kallman, P., Agren, A., and Brahme, A.,Tumour and normal tissue responses to fractionated non uniform dose delivery, Int. J. Radiat. Biol., 62(2): p. 249–262, 1992.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lof, J.,Development of a general framework for optimization of radiation therapy, 2000, Stockholm University: Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Agren, A. K., Brahme, A. and Turesson, I.,Optimization of uncomplicated control for head and neck tumours, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 19(4): p. 1077–85, 1990.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) Report 50,Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy, 1993: Bethesda, MD, USA.

  32. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) Report 62,Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy (Supplement to ICRU Report 50), 1999: Bethesda, MD, USA.

  33. Fowler, J.F.,The radiobiology of prostate cancer including new aspects of fractionated radiotherapy, Acta Oncologica, 44: p. 265–276, 2005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Moiseenko, V., Duzenli, C., and Durand, R.E.,In vitro study of cell survival following dynamic MLC intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose delivery, Medical Physics, 34(4): p. 1514, 2007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Suchowerska, N., et al.,In vitro response of tumour cells to non-uniform irradiation, Physics in Medicine and Biology, 50: p. 3041–3051, 2005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Khoo, V. S. and Dearnaley, D. P.,Question of Dose, Fractionation and Technique: Ingredients for Testing Hypofractionation in Prostate Cancer-the CHHiP Trial, Clinical Oncology, 20: p. 12–14, 2008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Martin, J.M., et al.,Phase II trial of hypofractionated imageguided intensity modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate adenocarcinoma, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 69(4): p. 1084–1089, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kupelian, P.A., et al.,Hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction) for localized prostate cancer: Cleveland clinic experience, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 68(5): p. 1424–1430, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Livsey, J.E., et al.,Hypofractionated conformal radiotherapy in carcinoma of the prostate: five-year outcome analysis, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 57(5): p. 1254–1259, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Yeoh, E.E., et al.,Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiation therapy for prostate carcinoma: updated results of a phase III randomized trial, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 66(4): p. 1072–1083, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Radiations, RMIT University, PO Box 71, 3083, Bundoora, VIC, Australia

    P. Deb

  2. School of Human Life Sciences, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia

    P. Deb

  3. School of Physical and Chemical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

    P. Deb & A. Fielding

Authors
  1. P. Deb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Fielding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Deb.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Deb, P., Fielding, A. Radiobiological model comparison of 3D conformal radiotherapy and IMRT plans for the treatment of prostate cancer. Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 32, 51–61 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178629

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178629

Key words

Search

Navigation