Ag. Visser et al., PULSED DOSE-RATE AND FRACTIONATED HIGH-DOSE-RATE BRACHYTHERAPY - CHOICE OF BRACHYTHERAPY SCHEDULES TO REPLACE LOW-DOSE RATE TREATMENTS, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 34(2), 1996, pp. 497-505
Citations number
23
Categorie Soggetti
Oncology,"Radiology,Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
Purpose: Pulsed dose rate (PDR) brachytherapy is a new type of afterlo
ading brachytherapy (BT) in which a continuous low dose rate (LDR) tre
atment is simulated by a series of ''pulses,'' i.e., fractions of shor
t duration (less than 0.5 h) with intervals between fractions of 1 to
a few hours. At the Dr. Daniel den Heed Cancer Center, the term ''PDR
brachytherapy'' is used for treatment schedules with a large number of
fractions (at least four per day), while the term ''fractionated high
dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy'' is used for treatment schedules with
just one or two brachytherapy fractions per day. Both treatments can b
e applied as alternatives for LDR BT. This article deals with the choi
ce between PDR and fractionated HDR schedules and proposes possible fr
actionation schedules. Methods and Materials: To calculate HDR and PDR
fractionation schedules with the intention of being equivalent to LDR
BT, the linear-quadratic (LQ) model has been used in an incomplete re
pair formulation as given by Brenner and Hall, and by Thames. In contr
ast to earlier applications of this model, both the total physical dos
e and the overall time were not kept identical for LDR and HDR/PDR sch
edules. A range of possible PDR treatment schedules is presented, both
for booster applications (in combination with external radiotherapy (
ERT) and for BT applications as a single treatment. Because the knowle
dge of both alpha/beta values and the half time for repair of subletha
l damage (T-1/2), which are required for these calculations, is quite
limited, calculations regarding the equivalence of LDR and PDR treatme
nts have been performed for a wide range of values of alpha/beta and T
-1/2. The results are presented graphically as PDR/LDR dose ratios and
as ratios of the PDR/LDR tumor control probabilities. Results: If the
condition that total physical dose and overall time of a PDR treatmen
t must be exactly identical to the values for the corresponding LDR tr
eatment regimen is not applied, there appears to be less need for stro
ng fractionation in PDR schedules. If the overall time is at least as
long as that of the LDR schedule and if the total physical dose is (sl
ightly) adapted, PDR schedules can be designed using longer pulse inte
rvals of up to 3 h. Schedules with sufficiently long intervals have si
gnificant logistic advantages in terms of patient care and treatment t
olerance. However, in general, PDR schedules that apply more fractiona
tion have a lower risk of overdosing normal tissues in comparison to f
ractionated HDR schedules. Applying probable ranges for the values of
alpha/beta and T-1/2, the model calculations indicate that the differe
nces in effects between the proposed fractionated HDR and PDR schedule
s could be rather small. To detect the magnitude of these differences,
(randomized) clinical studies with rather large patient groups might
be needed. Conclusions: Pulsed dose rate treatment schedules with long
er intervals of up to 3 h appear adequate to replace LDR treatment sch
edules. Whether PDR schedules can, indeed, replace LDR treatment sched
ules and whether they offer detectable advantages over schedules with
less fractionation (fractionated HDR) should be tested in clinical stu
dies.