Dataset Information

Towards a Clinical Decision Support System for External Beam Radiation Oncology Prostate Cancer Patients: Proton vs. Photon Radiotherapy? A Radiobiological Study of Robustness and Stability.

ABSTRACT: We present a methodology which can be utilized to select proton or photon radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients. Four state-of-the-art competing treatment modalities were compared (by way of an in silico trial) for a cohort of 25 prostate cancer patients, with and without correction strategies for prostate displacements. Metrics measured from clinical image guidance systems were used. Three correction strategies were investigated; no-correction, extended-no-action-limit, and online-correction. Clinical efficacy was estimated via radiobiological models incorporating robustness (how probable a given treatment plan was delivered) and stability (the consistency between the probable best and worst delivered treatments at the 95% confidence limit). The results obtained at the cohort level enabled the determination of a threshold for likely clinical benefit at the individual level. Depending on the imaging system and correction strategy; 24%, 32% and 44% of patients were identified as suitable candidates for proton therapy. For the constraints of this study: Intensity-modulated proton therapy with online-correction was on average the most effective modality. Irrespective of the imaging system, each treatment modality is similar in terms of robustness, with and without the correction strategies. Conversely, there is substantial variation in stability between the treatment modalities, which is greatly reduced by correction strategies. This study provides a 'proof-of-concept' methodology to enable the prospective identification of individual patients that will most likely (above a certain threshold) benefit from proton therapy.

SUBMITTER: Walsh S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5836087 | biostudies-other | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Towards a Clinical Decision Support System for External Beam Radiation Oncology Prostate Cancer Patients: Proton vs. Photon Radiotherapy? A Radiobiological Study of Robustness and Stability.

Walsh Seán S Roelofs Erik E Kuess Peter P van Wijk Yvonka Y Vanneste Ben B Dekker Andre A Lambin Philippe P Jones Bleddyn B Georg Dietmar D Verhaegen Frank F

Cancers 20180218 2

We present a methodology which can be utilized to select proton or photon radiotherapy in prostate cancer patients. Four state-of-the-art competing treatment modalities were compared (by way of an in silico trial) for a cohort of 25 prostate cancer patients, with and without correction strategies for prostate displacements. Metrics measured from clinical image guidance systems were used. Three correction strategies were investigated; no-correction, extended-no-action-limit, and online-correction ...[more]

PMID: 29463018

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: To compare treatment plans of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique for esophageal cancer (EC) of different locations using dosimetry and radiobiology. Methods: Forty EC patients were planned for IMRT, VMAT, and HT plans, including 10 cases located in the cervix, upper, middle, and lower thorax, respectively. Dose-volume metrics, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were analyzed to evaluate treatment plans. Results: HT showed significant improvement over IMRT and VMAT in terms of CI (p = 0.007), HI (p < 0.001), and TCP (p < 0.001) in cervical EC. IMRT yielded more superior CI, HI and TCP compared with VMAT and HT in upper and middle thoracic EC (all p < 0.05). Additionally, V30 (27.72 ± 8.67%), mean dose (1801.47 ± 989.58cGy), and NTCP (Niemierko model: 0.44 ± 0.55%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 0.61 ± 0.59%) of heart in IMRT were sharply reduced than VMAT and HT in middle thoracic EC. For lower thoracic EC, the three techniques offered similar CI and HI (all p > 0.05). But VMAT dramatically lowered liver V30 (9.97 ± 2.84%), and reduced NTCP of lungs (Niemierko model: 0.47 ± 0.48%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 1.41 ± 1.07%) and liver (Niemierko model: 0.10 ± 0.08%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 0.17 ± 0.17%). Conclusions: HT was a good option for cervical EC with complex target coverage but little lungs and heart involvement as it achieved superior dose conformity and uniformity. Due to potentially improving tumor control and reducing heart dose with acceptable lungs sparing, IMRT was a preferred choice for upper and middle thoracic EC with large lungs involvement. VMAT could ameliorate therapeutic ratio and lower lungs and liver toxicity, which was beneficial for lower thoracic EC with little thoracic involvement but being closer to heart and liver. Individually choosing optimal technique for EC in different location will be warranted.

Project description:Background and purposeApparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) reflects micro-enviromental changes and therefore might be useful in predicting recurrence prior to brachytherapy. The purpose of this study is to evaluate change in ADC of the primary tumour and pathologic lymph nodes during treatment and to correlate this with clinical outcome.Material and methodsTwenty patients were included who received chemoradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer between July 2016 and November 2017. All patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prior to treatment, and three MRIs in weeks 1/2, 3 and 4 of treatment, including T2 and diffusion weighted imaging (b-values 0, 200, 800 s/mm2) for determining an ADC-map. Primary tumour was delineated on T2 and ADC-map and pathologic lymph nodes were delineated only on ADC-map.ResultsAt time of analysis median follow-up was 15 (range 7-22) months. From MRI one to four, primary tumour on ADC-map showed a significant signal increase of 0.94 (range 0.74-1.46) × 10-3 mm2/s to 1.13 (0.98-1.49) × 10-3 mm2/s (p < 0.001). When tumour was delineated on T2, ADC-value signal increase (in tumour according to T2) was similar. All 46 delineated pathologic lymph nodes showed an ADC-value increase on average from 0.79 (range 0.33-1.12) × 10-3 mm2/s to 1.14 (0.59-1.75) × 10-3 mm2/s (p < 0.001). The mean tumour/suspected lymph node volumes decreased respectively 51/40%. Four patients developed relapse (one local and three nodal), without clear relation with ΔADC. However, the median volume decrease of the primary tumour was substantially lower in the failing patients compared to the group without relapse (19 vs. 57%).ConclusionsADC values can be acquired using T2-based tumour delineations unless there are substantial shifts between ADC-mapping and T2 acquisition. It remains plausible that ΔADC is a predictor for response to EBRT. However, the correlation in this study was not statistically significant.

Dataset Information

Towards a Clinical Decision Support System for External Beam Radiation Oncology Prostate Cancer Patients: Proton vs. Photon Radiotherapy? A Radiobiological Study of Robustness and Stability.

Publications

Towards a Clinical Decision Support System for External Beam Radiation Oncology Prostate Cancer Patients: Proton vs. Photon Radiotherapy? A Radiobiological Study of Robustness and Stability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure