PURPOSE: This study compared normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) modeling of chronic gastrointestinal toxicities following prostate cancer treatment for 2 treatment modalities.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
Possible factors causing discrepancies in optimal NTCP model parameters between 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and intensity modulated RT (IMRT) were analyzed and discussed, including the impact of patient characteristics, image guidance, toxicity scoring bias, and NTCP model limitations.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Rectal wall dose-volume histograms of 1115 patients treated for prostate cancer under an adaptive radiation therapy protocol were used to model gastrointestinal toxicity grade ≥2 (according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). A total of 457 patients were treated with 3D-CRT and 658 with IMRT. 3D-CRT patients were matched to IMRT patients based on various patient characteristics, using a propensity score-based algorithm. Parameters of the Lyman equivalent uniform dose and cut-off dose logistic regression NTCP models were estimated for the 2 matched treatment modalities and the combined group.
RESULTS: After they were matched, the 3D-CRT and IMRT groups contained 275 and 550 patients with a large discrepancy of 28.7% versus 7.8% toxicities, respectively (P< .001). For both NTCP models, optimal parameters found for the 3D-CRT groups did not fit the IMRT patients well and vice versa. Models developed for the combined data overestimated NTCP for the IMRT patients and underestimated NTCP for the 3D-CRT group.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis did not reveal a single definitive cause for discrepancies of model parameters between 3D-CRT and IMRT. Patient characteristics and bias in toxicity scoring, as well as image guidance alone, are unlikely causes of the large discrepancy of toxicities. Whether the cause was inherent to the specific NTCP models used in this study needs to be verified by future investigations. Because IMRT is increasingly used clinically, it is important that appropriate NTCP model parameters are determined for this treatment modality.
Troeller A, Yan D, Marina O, Schulze D, Alber M, Parodi K, Belka C, Söhn M. Are you the author?
Department of Radiation Oncology, William Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany; Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Medical Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany.
Reference: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Feb 1;91(2):435-43.