Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:52:43.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tumour control probability of a UK cohort of lung SABR patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2020

J. E. Marsden Open the ORCID record for J. E. Marsden [Opens in a new window]
J. E. Marsden*
Affiliation:
Radiotherapy Physics, Queen’s Centre, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, East Yorkshire, HU16 5JQ, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Jenny Marsden, Radiotherapy Physics, Queen’s Centre, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, East Yorkshire, HU16 5JQ, UK. Tel: 01482 461384. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims:

The aim of this work is to report on the tumour control probability (TCP) of a UK cohort of lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy patients (n = 198) for a range of dose and fractionations common in the UK.

Materials and methods:

TCP values for 3 (54 Gy), 5 (55 and 60 Gy) and 8 (50 Gy) fraction (#) schemes were calculated with the linear-quadratic Marsden TCP model using the Biosuite software.

Results:

TCP values of 100% were computed for the 3 # and for 5 # (α/β = 10 Gy) cohorts; reduced to 99% (range 97–100) for the 5 # cohort only when an α/β of 20 Gy was used. The average TCP value for the 50 Gy in 8 # regime was 97% (range 92–99, α/β = 10 Gy) and 64% (range 48–79, α/β = 20 Gy). Statistical significant differences were observed between the α/β of 10 Gy versus 20 Gy groups and between all data grouped by fraction.

Conclusion:

TCPs achievable with current planning techniques in the UK have been presented. The ultra-conservative 50 Gy in 8 # scheme returns a significantly lower TCP than the other regimes.

Keywords

lung SABRradiobiologytumour control probability
Type
Technical Note
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 297 - 299
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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. Version 6.1 edn. London, UK: 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nahum, A, Uzan, J, Jain, P, Malik, Z, Fenwick, J, Baker, C. SU-E-T-657: Quantitative Tumour Control Predictions for the Radiotherapy of Non-Small-Cell Lung Tumours - Nahum - 2011 - Medical Physics - Wiley Online Library. Poster at the 2011 Joint AAPM/COMP Meeting; 2011, Vancouver, Canada.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMahon, SJ. The linear quadratic model: usage, interpretation and challenges. Phys Med Biol 2018; 64: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle 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
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
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
Thibault, I, Chiang, A, Erler, D et al. Predictors of chest wall toxicity after lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2016; 28: 28–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stam, B, van Der Bijl, E, Peulen, H, Rossi, MMG, Belderbos, JSA, Sonke, J-J. Dose–effect analysis of radiation induced rib fractures after thoracic SBRT. Radiother Oncol 2017; 123: 176–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, R, Han, G, Sarangkasiri, S et al. Clinical and dosimetric predictors of radiation pneumonitis in a large series of patients treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy to the lung. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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