Evaluation of the generalized gamma as a tool for treatment planning optimization

Emmanouil I Petrou, Ganesh Narayanasamy, Eleftherios Lavdas, Sotirios Stathakis, Nikos Papanikolaou, Bengt K Lind, Panayiotis Mavroidis

Abstract


Purpose: The aim of that work is to study the theoretical behavior and merits of the Generalized Gamma (generalized dose response gradient) as well as to investigate the usefulness of this concept in practical radiobiological treatment planning.

Methods: In this study, the treatment planning system RayStation 1.9 (Raysearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden) was used. Furthermore, radiobiological models that provide the tumor control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), complication-free tumor control probability (P+) and the Generalized Gamma were employed. The Generalized Gammas of TCP and NTCP, respectively were calculated for given heterogeneous dose distributions to different organs in order to verify the TCP and NTCP computations of the treatment planning system. In this process, a treatment plan was created, where the target and the organs at risk were included in the same ROI in order to check the validity of the system regarding the objective function P+ and the Generalized Gamma. Subsequently, six additional treatment plans were created with the target organ and the organs at risk placed in the same or different ROIs. In these plans, the mean dose was increased in order to investigate the behavior of dose change on tissue response and on Generalized Gamma before and after the change in dose. By theoretically calculating these quantities, the agreement of different theoretical expressions compared to the values that the treatment planning system provides could be evaluated. Finally, the relative error between the real and approximate response values using the Poisson and the Probit models, for the case of having a target organ consisting of two compartments in a parallel architecture and with the same number of clonogens could be investigated and quantified.

Results: The computations of the RayStation regarding the values of the Generalized Gamma and the objective function (P+) were verified by using an independent software. Furthermore, it was proved that after a small change in dose, the organ that is being affected most is the organ with the highest Generalized Gamma. Apart from that, the validity of the theoretical expressions that describe the change in response and the associated Generalized Gamma was verified but only for the case of small change in dose. Especially for the case of 50% TCP and NTCP, the theoretical values (ΔPapprox.) and those calculated by the RayStation show close agreement, which proves the high importance of the D50 parameter in specifying clinical response levels. Finally, the presented findings show that the behavior of ΔPapprox. looks sensible because, for both of the models that were used (Poisson and Probit), it significantly approaches the real ΔP around the region of 37% and 50% response. The present study managed to evaluate the mathematical expression of Generalized Gamma for the case of non-uniform dose delivery and the accuracy of the RayStation to calculate its values for different organs.

Conclusion: A very important finding of this work is the establishment of the usefulness and clinical relevance of Generalized Gamma. That is because it gives the planner the opportunity to precisely determine which organ will be affected most after a small increase in dose and as a result an optimal treatment plan regarding tumor control and normal tissue complications can be found.


Keywords


Prostate Cancer; Radiobiological Treatment Planning; Generalized Gamma; TCP; NTCP

Full Text:

PDF HTML

References


ICRU report 62: Prescribing, recording and reporting photon beam therapy. ICRU: 1999.

Mijnheer D. Current clinical practice versus new developments in target volume and dose specification procedures: A contradiction? Acta Oncol 1997; 36: 785-8.

Nilsson J, Lind B, Brahme A. Radiation response of hypoxic and generally heterogeneous tissues. Int J Radiat Biol 2002; 78: 389-405.

Källman P, Agren A, Brahme A. Tumor and normal tissue responses to fractionated non uniform dose delivery. Int J Radiat Biol 1992; 62: 244-62.

Withers HR, Taylor JM, Maciejewski B. Treatment volume and tissue tolerance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1988; 14: 751-9.

Moiseenko V, Battista J, Van Dyk J. Normal tissue complication probabilities, dependence on choice of biological model and dose-response histogram reduction scheme. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 46: 983-93.

Yaes RJ. The biological effect of inhomogeneous dose distributions in fractionated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1990; 19: 203-7.

Källman, Lind B, Brahme A: An algorithm for maximizing the probability of complication free tumor control in radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 1992; 37: 871-90.

Agren AK, Brahme A, Turesson I. Optimization of uncomplicated control for head and neck tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1990; 19: 1077-85.

Mavroidis P, Ferreira BC, Lopes MC. Response-probability volume histograms (RVH) and iso-probability of response charts in treatment plan evaluation. Med Phys 2011; 38: 2382-97.

Roland T, Tryggestad E, Mavroidis P, et al. The radiobiological P+ index for pretreatment assessment of radiotherapy plans. Med Phys 2012; 39: 6420-30.

Porter EH. The statistics of dose/cure relationships for irradiated tumors Part I. Br J Radiol 1980; 53: 210-27.

Tacker SL, Thames HD, Taylor JMG. How well is the probability of tumor cure after fractionated irradiation described by Poisson statistics. J Rad Res 1990; 124: 273-82.

Brahme A, Agren AK. Optimal dose distribution for eradication of heterogeneous tumors. Acta Oncol 1987; 26: 377-85.

Lind BK, Mavroidis P, Hyodynmaa S, et al. Optimization of the dose level for a given treatment plan to maximize the complication free-tumor cure. Acta Oncol 1999; 38: 787-98.

Mavroidis P, Ferreira BC, Shi C, et al. Treatment plan comparison between Helical Tomotherapy and MLC-based IMRT using radiobiological measures. Phys Med Biol 2007; 52: 3817-36.

Lind BK, Nilsson J, Löf J, Brahme A. Generalization of the normalized dose-response gradient to non-uniform dose delivery. Acta Oncol 2001; 40: 718-24.

Brahme A. Dosimetric precision requirements in radiation therapy. Acta Radiol Oncol 1984; 23: 379-91.

Agren Cronqvist AK, Källman P, Turesson I, Brahme A. Volume and heterogeneity dependence of the dose-response relationship for head and neck tumours. Acta Oncol 1995; 34: 851-60.

Agren AK, Källman P, Brahme A. Determination of the relative seriality of a tissue from its response to non-uniform dose delivery. In: Modelling in clinical radiobiology ed Baltas D (Germany: Albert Ludwigs University Freiburg) 1997; 127-141.

Gagliardi G, Lax I and Rutqvist LE. Radiation therapy of stage I breast cancer analysis of treatment technique accuracy using three dimensional treatment planning tools. Radiother Oncol 1992; 24: 94-101.

Barendsen GW. Dose fractionation dose rate and iso-effect relationships for tissue responses. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1982; 11: 1751-7.

Thames HD, Hendry JH. Radiation induced injury to tissues fractionation in radiotherapy. 1987.

Brahme A. Dosimetric precision requirements and quantities for characterizing the response of tumors and normal tissues. In: Radiation dose in radiotherapy from prescription to delivery. IAEA-TECDOC-896 1996; 6: 49-65.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14319/ijcto.0204.18

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

------------------------------------------------------------

International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (ISSN 2330-4049)

© International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (IJCTO)

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the 'ijcto.org' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.

------------------------------------------------------------

Number of visits since October, 2013
AmazingCounters.com