Is it beneficial to selectively boost high-risk tumor subvolumes? A comparison of selectively boosting high-risk tumor subvolumes versus homogeneous dose escalation of the entire tumor based on equivalent EUD plans

Yusung Kim, Wolfgang A. Tome

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose. To quantify and compare expected local tumor control and expected normal tissue toxicities between selective boosting IMRT and homogeneous dose escalation IMRT for the case of prostate cancer. Methods. Four different selective boosting scenarios and three different high-risk tumor subvolume geometries were designed to compare selective boosting and homogeneous dose escalation IMRT plans delivering the same equivalent uniform dose (EUD) to the entire PTV. For each scenario, differences in tumor control probability between both boosting strategies were calculated for the high-risk tumor subvolume and remaining low-risk PTV, and were visualized using voxel based iso-TCP maps. Differences in expected rectal and bladder complications were quantified using radiobiological indices (generalized EUD (gEUD) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP)) as well as %-volumes. Results. For all investigated scenarios and high-risk tumor subvolume geometries, selective boosting IMRT improves expected TCP compared to homogeneous dose escalation IMRT, especially when lack of control of the high-risk tumor subvolume could be the cause for tumor recurrence. Employing, selective boosting IMRT significant increases in expected TCP can be achieved for the high-risk tumor subvolumes. The three conventional selective boosting IMRT strategies, employing physical dose objectives, did not show significant improvement in rectal and bladder sparing as compared to their counterpart homogeneous dose escalation plans. However, risk-adaptive optimization, utilizing radiobiological objective functions, resulted in reduction in NTCP for the rectum when compared to its corresponding homogeneous dose escalation plan. Conclusions. Selective boosting is a more effective method than homogeneous dose escalation for achieving optimal treatment outcomes. Furthermore, risk-adaptive optimization increases the therapeutic ratio as compared to conventional selective boosting IMRT.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)906-916
Number of pages11
JournalActa Oncologica
Volume47
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Neoplasms
Urinary Bladder
Rectum
Prostatic Neoplasms
Recurrence
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology

Cite this

@article{48ac9e0eb97c4aff9b23d13fad371845,
title = "Is it beneficial to selectively boost high-risk tumor subvolumes? A comparison of selectively boosting high-risk tumor subvolumes versus homogeneous dose escalation of the entire tumor based on equivalent EUD plans",
abstract = "Purpose. To quantify and compare expected local tumor control and expected normal tissue toxicities between selective boosting IMRT and homogeneous dose escalation IMRT for the case of prostate cancer. Methods. Four different selective boosting scenarios and three different high-risk tumor subvolume geometries were designed to compare selective boosting and homogeneous dose escalation IMRT plans delivering the same equivalent uniform dose (EUD) to the entire PTV. For each scenario, differences in tumor control probability between both boosting strategies were calculated for the high-risk tumor subvolume and remaining low-risk PTV, and were visualized using voxel based iso-TCP maps. Differences in expected rectal and bladder complications were quantified using radiobiological indices (generalized EUD (gEUD) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP)) as well as {\%}-volumes. Results. For all investigated scenarios and high-risk tumor subvolume geometries, selective boosting IMRT improves expected TCP compared to homogeneous dose escalation IMRT, especially when lack of control of the high-risk tumor subvolume could be the cause for tumor recurrence. Employing, selective boosting IMRT significant increases in expected TCP can be achieved for the high-risk tumor subvolumes. The three conventional selective boosting IMRT strategies, employing physical dose objectives, did not show significant improvement in rectal and bladder sparing as compared to their counterpart homogeneous dose escalation plans. However, risk-adaptive optimization, utilizing radiobiological objective functions, resulted in reduction in NTCP for the rectum when compared to its corresponding homogeneous dose escalation plan. Conclusions. Selective boosting is a more effective method than homogeneous dose escalation for achieving optimal treatment outcomes. Furthermore, risk-adaptive optimization increases the therapeutic ratio as compared to conventional selective boosting IMRT.",
author = "Yusung Kim and Tome, {Wolfgang A.}",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.1080/02841860701843050",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "47",
pages = "906--916",
journal = "Acta Oncologica",
issn = "0284-186X",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is it beneficial to selectively boost high-risk tumor subvolumes? A comparison of selectively boosting high-risk tumor subvolumes versus homogeneous dose escalation of the entire tumor based on equivalent EUD plans

AU - Kim, Yusung

AU - Tome, Wolfgang A.

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - Purpose. To quantify and compare expected local tumor control and expected normal tissue toxicities between selective boosting IMRT and homogeneous dose escalation IMRT for the case of prostate cancer. Methods. Four different selective boosting scenarios and three different high-risk tumor subvolume geometries were designed to compare selective boosting and homogeneous dose escalation IMRT plans delivering the same equivalent uniform dose (EUD) to the entire PTV. For each scenario, differences in tumor control probability between both boosting strategies were calculated for the high-risk tumor subvolume and remaining low-risk PTV, and were visualized using voxel based iso-TCP maps. Differences in expected rectal and bladder complications were quantified using radiobiological indices (generalized EUD (gEUD) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP)) as well as %-volumes. Results. For all investigated scenarios and high-risk tumor subvolume geometries, selective boosting IMRT improves expected TCP compared to homogeneous dose escalation IMRT, especially when lack of control of the high-risk tumor subvolume could be the cause for tumor recurrence. Employing, selective boosting IMRT significant increases in expected TCP can be achieved for the high-risk tumor subvolumes. The three conventional selective boosting IMRT strategies, employing physical dose objectives, did not show significant improvement in rectal and bladder sparing as compared to their counterpart homogeneous dose escalation plans. However, risk-adaptive optimization, utilizing radiobiological objective functions, resulted in reduction in NTCP for the rectum when compared to its corresponding homogeneous dose escalation plan. Conclusions. Selective boosting is a more effective method than homogeneous dose escalation for achieving optimal treatment outcomes. Furthermore, risk-adaptive optimization increases the therapeutic ratio as compared to conventional selective boosting IMRT.

AB - Purpose. To quantify and compare expected local tumor control and expected normal tissue toxicities between selective boosting IMRT and homogeneous dose escalation IMRT for the case of prostate cancer. Methods. Four different selective boosting scenarios and three different high-risk tumor subvolume geometries were designed to compare selective boosting and homogeneous dose escalation IMRT plans delivering the same equivalent uniform dose (EUD) to the entire PTV. For each scenario, differences in tumor control probability between both boosting strategies were calculated for the high-risk tumor subvolume and remaining low-risk PTV, and were visualized using voxel based iso-TCP maps. Differences in expected rectal and bladder complications were quantified using radiobiological indices (generalized EUD (gEUD) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP)) as well as %-volumes. Results. For all investigated scenarios and high-risk tumor subvolume geometries, selective boosting IMRT improves expected TCP compared to homogeneous dose escalation IMRT, especially when lack of control of the high-risk tumor subvolume could be the cause for tumor recurrence. Employing, selective boosting IMRT significant increases in expected TCP can be achieved for the high-risk tumor subvolumes. The three conventional selective boosting IMRT strategies, employing physical dose objectives, did not show significant improvement in rectal and bladder sparing as compared to their counterpart homogeneous dose escalation plans. However, risk-adaptive optimization, utilizing radiobiological objective functions, resulted in reduction in NTCP for the rectum when compared to its corresponding homogeneous dose escalation plan. Conclusions. Selective boosting is a more effective method than homogeneous dose escalation for achieving optimal treatment outcomes. Furthermore, risk-adaptive optimization increases the therapeutic ratio as compared to conventional selective boosting IMRT.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=45849093738&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=45849093738&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/02841860701843050

DO - 10.1080/02841860701843050

M3 - Article

VL - 47

SP - 906

EP - 916

JO - Acta Oncologica

JF - Acta Oncologica

SN - 0284-186X

IS - 5

ER -