No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Normal tissue complication probabilities of lung SABR patients from a UK centre and its implication on personalised radiotherapy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 May 2022
Abstract
Introduction:
This work reports on the normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) from a UK cohort of previously treated peripheral lung SABR patients (n = 198) supplementing our previous publication on tumour control probabilities (TCP). Each patient was recalculated for alternative schedules.
Materials and Methods:
NTCP for 3 (54 Gy), 5 (55 and 60 Gy) and 8 (50 Gy) fraction (#) schemes were calculated with the Lyman Kutcher Burman (LKB) model in the software platform ‘Biosuite’ (Version 12·01) for lung and chest wall. Patients treated with 5 # or 8 # were then recomputed for alternative fractionations and doses (3 # and 5 #, for both 55 Gy and 60 Gy).
Results:
The mean lung NTCP (NTCPLUNG, for the outcome of radiation pneumonitis) was 2·8% (range 0·6 – 10·6). The mean chest wall NTCP (NTCPCW, for the outcome of rib fracture) was 1·4% (range 0·0–55·9). There were no statistically significant differences observed between male and female, tumour status or fractionation groups except for the NTCPLUNG between 5 # and 3 #. When recalculating NTCP and TCP individually, for 8 # patients, no differences were observed between mean TCP, NTCPLUNG or NTCPCW compared with 3 # or 5 # indicating that fractionation reduction is possible. Parity was observed between the 60 Gy group when recalculated for 55 Gy. For the 60 Gy in 5 # group, the NTCPCW increased significantly when recalculated for 3 #.
Conclusion:
NTCPs achievable with current UK planning techniques have been presented indicating SABR Consortium compliant centres are likely to have low complication population risks (< 3 %). 5 # schedules could be justified for 8 # patients, thereby reducing the number of treatment visits. Where there is a large overlap of PTV and chest wall, this indicates an NTCP/TCP calculation is required to investigate if fractionation reduction is individually appropriate.
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Murray, P, Franks, K, Hanna, GG. A systematic review of outcomes following stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in the treatment of early-stage primary lung cancer. Br J Radiol 2017; 90: 20160732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
UK SABR Consortium. Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy (SABR): a Resource. London: The Faculty of Clinical Oncology of The Royal College of Radiologists, 2019.Google Scholar
Uzan, J, Nahum, AE. Radiobiologically guided optimisation of the prescription dose and fractionation scheme in radiotherapy using BioSuite. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: 1279–1286.Google Scholar
Liu, F, Tai, A, Lee, P et al. Tumor control probability modeling for stereotactic body radiation therapy of early-stage lung cancer using multiple bio-physical models. Radiother Oncol 2017; 122: 286–294.Google ScholarPubMed
Alaswad, M, Kleefeld, C, Foley, M. Optimal tumour control for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: a radiobiological modelling perspective. Physica Medica (AIFB) 2019; 66: 55–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marsden, J. Tumour control probability of a UK cohort of lung SABR patients. J Radiother Pract 2022; 21: 297–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nahum, AE, Uzan, J. (Radio)Biological optimization of external-beam radiotherapy. Comput Math Methods Med 2012; 2012: 329214–329213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chairmadurai, A, Goel, H C, Jain, SK, Kumar, P. Radiobiological analysis of stereotactic body radiation therapy for an evidence-based planning target volume of the lung using multiphase CT images obtained with a pneumatic abdominal compression apparatus: a case study. Radiol Phys Technol 2017; 10: 525–534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stam, B, van Der Bijl, E, Peulen, H, Rossi, M M G, Belderbos, JSA, Sonke, J-J. Dose–effect analysis of radiation induced rib fractures after thoracic SBRT. Radiother Oncol 2017; 123: 176–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seppenwoolde, Y, Lebesque, J V, de Jaeger, K et al. Comparing different NTCP models that predict the incidence of radiation pneumonitis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 55: 724–735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stam, B, Peulen, H, Rossi, MMG, Belderbos, JSA, Sonke, J-J. Validation of automatic segmentation of ribs for NTCP modeling. Radiother oncology 2015; 118: 528–534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aliotta, E, Nourzadeh, H, Choi, W, Leandro Alves, VG, Siebers, JV. An automated workflow to improve efficiency in radiation therapy treatment planning by prioritizing organs at risk. Adv Radiat Oncol 2020; 5: 1324–1333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, J Y, Lin, Z, Lin, PX, Huang, BT. Comparison of three radiobiological models in stereotactic body radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer. J Cancer 2019; 10: 4655–4661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willner, J, Barier, K, Caragiani, E, Tschammler, A, Flentje, M. Dose, volume, and tumor control prediction in primary radiotherapy of non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 52: 382–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marsden, J, Wieczorek, A. Outcomes data of lung SABR from a single UK centre, including Case Study. Clin Oncol 2018; 30: e60–e61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar