International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2023
Gastrointestinal Toxicity Prediction Not Influenced by Rectal Contour or Dose-Volume Histogram Definition.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Brand Douglas H, Brüningk Sarah C, Wilkins Anna, Naismith Olivia, Gao Annie, Syndikus Isabel, Dearnaley David P, Hall Emma, van As Nicholas, Tree Alison C, Gulliford Sarah
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Rectal dose delivered during prostate radiation therapy is associated with gastrointestinal toxicity. Treatment plans are commonly optimized using rectal dose-volume constraints, often whole-rectum relative-volumes (%). We investigated whether improved rectal contouring, use of absolute-volumes (cc), or rectal truncation might improve toxicity prediction.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients from the CHHiP trial (receiving 74 Gy/37 fractions [Fr] vs 60 Gy/20 Fr vs 57 Gy/19 Fr) were included if radiation therapy plans were available (2350/3216 patients), plus toxicity data for relevant analyses (2170/3216 patients). Whole solid rectum relative-volumes (%) dose-volume-histogram (DVH), as submitted by treating center (original contour), was assumed standard-of-care. Three investigational rectal DVHs were generated: (1) reviewed contour per CHHiP protocol; (2) original contour absolute volumes (cc); and (3) truncated original contour (2 versions; ±0 and ±2 cm from planning target volume [PTV]). Dose levels of interest (V30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 74 Gy) in 74 Gy arm were converted by equivalent-dose-in-2 Gy-Fr (EQD2α/β= 3 Gy) for 60 Gy/57 Gy arms. Bootstrapped logistic models predicting late toxicities (frequency G1+/G2+, bleeding G1+/G2+, proctitis G1+/G2+, sphincter control G1+, stricture/ulcer G1+) were compared by area-undercurve (AUC) between standard of care and the 3 investigational rectal definitions.
RESULTS: The alternative dose/volume parameters were compared with the original relative-volume (%) DVH of the whole rectal contour, itself fitted as a weak predictor of toxicity (AUC range, 0.57-0.65 across the 8 toxicity measures). There were no significant differences in toxicity prediction for: (1) original versus reviewed rectal contours (AUCs, 0.57-0.66; P = .21-.98); (2) relative- versus absolute-volumes (AUCs, 0.56-0.63; P = .07-.91); and (3) whole-rectum versus truncation at PTV ± 2 cm (AUCs, 0.57-0.65; P = .05-.99) or PTV ± 0 cm (AUCs, 0.57-0.66; P = .27-.98).
CONCLUSIONS: We used whole-rectum relative-volume DVH, submitted by the treating center, as the standard-of-care dosimetric predictor for rectal toxicity. There were no statistically significant differences in prediction performance when using central rectal contour review, with the use of absolute-volume dosimetry, or with rectal truncation relative to PTV. Whole-rectum relative-volumes were not improved upon for toxicity prediction and should remain standard-of-care.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients from the CHHiP trial (receiving 74 Gy/37 fractions [Fr] vs 60 Gy/20 Fr vs 57 Gy/19 Fr) were included if radiation therapy plans were available (2350/3216 patients), plus toxicity data for relevant analyses (2170/3216 patients). Whole solid rectum relative-volumes (%) dose-volume-histogram (DVH), as submitted by treating center (original contour), was assumed standard-of-care. Three investigational rectal DVHs were generated: (1) reviewed contour per CHHiP protocol; (2) original contour absolute volumes (cc); and (3) truncated original contour (2 versions; ±0 and ±2 cm from planning target volume [PTV]). Dose levels of interest (V30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 74 Gy) in 74 Gy arm were converted by equivalent-dose-in-2 Gy-Fr (EQD2α/β= 3 Gy) for 60 Gy/57 Gy arms. Bootstrapped logistic models predicting late toxicities (frequency G1+/G2+, bleeding G1+/G2+, proctitis G1+/G2+, sphincter control G1+, stricture/ulcer G1+) were compared by area-undercurve (AUC) between standard of care and the 3 investigational rectal definitions.
RESULTS: The alternative dose/volume parameters were compared with the original relative-volume (%) DVH of the whole rectal contour, itself fitted as a weak predictor of toxicity (AUC range, 0.57-0.65 across the 8 toxicity measures). There were no significant differences in toxicity prediction for: (1) original versus reviewed rectal contours (AUCs, 0.57-0.66; P = .21-.98); (2) relative- versus absolute-volumes (AUCs, 0.56-0.63; P = .07-.91); and (3) whole-rectum versus truncation at PTV ± 2 cm (AUCs, 0.57-0.65; P = .05-.99) or PTV ± 0 cm (AUCs, 0.57-0.66; P = .27-.98).
CONCLUSIONS: We used whole-rectum relative-volume DVH, submitted by the treating center, as the standard-of-care dosimetric predictor for rectal toxicity. There were no statistically significant differences in prediction performance when using central rectal contour review, with the use of absolute-volume dosimetry, or with rectal truncation relative to PTV. Whole-rectum relative-volumes were not improved upon for toxicity prediction and should remain standard-of-care.