Statistical analysis of dose-volume profiles and its implication for radiation therapy planning in prostate carcinoma
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article
PubMed
23628133
DOI
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.03.018
PII: S0360-3016(13)00329-5
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Adenocarcinoma pathology radiotherapy MeSH
- Radiotherapy Dosage MeSH
- Gastrointestinal Tract radiation effects MeSH
- Radiotherapy, Conformal adverse effects methods MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Prostatic Neoplasms pathology radiotherapy MeSH
- Follow-Up Studies MeSH
- Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted methods MeSH
- Area Under Curve MeSH
- Radiation Injuries etiology MeSH
- Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated adverse effects methods MeSH
- Rectum radiation effects MeSH
- ROC Curve MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
PURPOSE: The study aimed to analyze the dose-volume profiles of 3-dimensional radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and intensity modulated RT (IMRT) in the treatment of prostate carcinoma and to specify the profiles responsible for the development of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the period 1997 to 2007, 483 patients with prostate carcinoma in stage T1-3 N0 (pN0) M0 were treated with definitive RT. Two groups of patients were defined for the analysis: the 3D-CRT group (n=305 patients) and the IMRT group (n=178 patients). In the entire cohort of 483 patients, the median follow-up time reached 4.4 years (range, 2.0-11.7 years). The cumulative absolute and relative volumes of irradiated rectum exposed to a given dose (area under the dose-volume curve, AUC) were estimated. The receiver operating characteristic analysis was then used to search for the optimal dose and volume cutoff points with the potential to distinguish patients with enhanced or escalated toxicity. RESULTS: Despite the application of high doses (78-82 Gy) in the IMRT group, GI toxicity was lower in that group than in the group treated by 3D-CRT with prescribed doses of 70 to 74 Gy. Both RT methods showed specific rectal dose-volume distribution curves. The total AUC values for IMRT were significantly lower than those for 3D-CRT. Furthermore, IMRT significantly decreased the rectal volume receiving low to intermediate radiation doses in comparison with 3D-CRT; specific cutoff limits predictable for the level of GI toxicity are presented and defined in our work. CONCLUSIONS: Total area under the dose-volume profiles and specific cutoff points in low and intermediate dose levels have significant predictive potential toward the RT GI toxicity. In treatment planning, it seems that it is valuable to take into consideration the entire dose-volume primary distribution.
References provided by Crossref.org