Je. Mignano et al., Comparison of radiobiologic modeling for one- and two-isocenter dose distributions applied to ellipsoidal radiosurgery targets, INT J RAD O, 49(3), 2001, pp. 833-837
Citations number
8
Categorie Soggetti
Radiology ,Nuclear Medicine & Imaging","Onconogenesis & Cancer Research
Journal title
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS
Purpose: RTOG protocol 90-05 determined the maximum acutely tolerated dose
of single-fraction radiosurgery in patients receiving prior fractionated la
rge volume cranial irradiation. Data from 90-05 have suggested that patient
s treated with a gamma unit, compared to linac-based therapy, have a tumor
control advantage and lower rates of severe complications. This study was p
erformed to investigate the radiobiologic effect of using one vs. two isoce
nters in single-fraction radiosurgery of ellipsoidal targets.
Methods and Materials: For a series of ellipsoidal targets that varied by v
olume and radiosensitivity, single and two-isocenter treatment plans were g
enerated to approximate those typically employed for gamma unit and linac r
adiosurgery. Tumor control probabilities (TCP) and normal tissue complicati
on probabilities (NTCP) were generated automatically by the treatment plann
ing system based on established parameter values.
Results: The modeling data showed that multiple-isocenter plans resulted in
improved TCP with equivalent or lesser NTCP, particularly for larger, radi
oresistant targets. Multiple-isocenter plans reduce the amount of normal ti
ssue that receives high dose, Also, areas within the tumor receive signific
antly higher doses than the prescription dose, which contributes to increas
ed tumor cell inactivation.
Conclusion: For ellipsoidal targets, radiobiologic modeling data are consis
tent with the clinical findings of the RTOG 90-05 trial, as they predict im
proved outcome with a multiple-isocenter plan relative to a single-isocente
r plan. The benefit is most apparent with increasing target volume and decr
easing tumor radiosensitivity. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc.