International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2014
Comparison of radiation-induced normal lung tissue density changes for patients from multiple institutions receiving conventional or hypofractionated treatments.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Diot Quentin, Marks Lawrence B, Bentzen Soren M, Senan Suresh, Kavanagh Brian D, Lawrence Michael V, Miften Moyed, Palma David A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To quantitatively assess changes in computed tomography (CT)-defined normal lung tissue density after conventional and hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT).
METHODS AND MATERIALS: The pre-RT and post-RT CT scans from 118 and 111 patients receiving conventional and hypofractionated RT, respectively, at 3 institutions were registered to each other and to the 3-dimensional dose distribution to quantify dose-dependent changes in normal lung tissue density. Dose-response curves (DRC) for groups of patients receiving conventional and hypofractionated RT were generated for each institution, and the frequency of density changes >80 Hounsfield Units (HU) was modeled depending on the fractionation type using a Probit model for different follow-up times.
RESULTS: For the pooled data from all institutions, there were significant differences in the DRC between the conventional and hypofractionated groups; the respective doses resulting in 50% complication risk (TD50) were 62 Gy (95% confidence interval [CI] 57-67) versus 36 Gy (CI 33-39) at <6 months, 48 Gy (CI 46-51) versus 31 Gy (CI 28-33) at 6-12 months, and 47 Gy (CI 45-49) versus 35 Gy (32-37) at >12 months. The corresponding m values (slope of the DRC) were 0.52 (CI 0.46-0.59) versus 0.31 (CI 0.28-0.34) at <6 months, 0.46 (CI 0.42-0.51) versus 0.30 (CI 0.26-0.34) at 6-12 months, and 0.45 (CI 0.42-0.50) versus 0.31 (CI 0.27-0.35) at >12 months (P<.05 for all comparisons).
CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional fractionation, hypofractionation has a lower TD50 and m value, both suggesting an increased degree of normal tissue density sensitivity with hypofractionation.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: The pre-RT and post-RT CT scans from 118 and 111 patients receiving conventional and hypofractionated RT, respectively, at 3 institutions were registered to each other and to the 3-dimensional dose distribution to quantify dose-dependent changes in normal lung tissue density. Dose-response curves (DRC) for groups of patients receiving conventional and hypofractionated RT were generated for each institution, and the frequency of density changes >80 Hounsfield Units (HU) was modeled depending on the fractionation type using a Probit model for different follow-up times.
RESULTS: For the pooled data from all institutions, there were significant differences in the DRC between the conventional and hypofractionated groups; the respective doses resulting in 50% complication risk (TD50) were 62 Gy (95% confidence interval [CI] 57-67) versus 36 Gy (CI 33-39) at <6 months, 48 Gy (CI 46-51) versus 31 Gy (CI 28-33) at 6-12 months, and 47 Gy (CI 45-49) versus 35 Gy (32-37) at >12 months. The corresponding m values (slope of the DRC) were 0.52 (CI 0.46-0.59) versus 0.31 (CI 0.28-0.34) at <6 months, 0.46 (CI 0.42-0.51) versus 0.30 (CI 0.26-0.34) at 6-12 months, and 0.45 (CI 0.42-0.50) versus 0.31 (CI 0.27-0.35) at >12 months (P<.05 for all comparisons).
CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional fractionation, hypofractionation has a lower TD50 and m value, both suggesting an increased degree of normal tissue density sensitivity with hypofractionation.