Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Estimation of the risk for radiation-induced liver disease following photon- or proton-beam radiosurgery of liver metastases
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics. Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Mozambique.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9904-7217
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Radiation Oncology, ISSN 1748-717X, E-ISSN 1748-717X, Vol. 13, article id 206Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Radiotherapy of liver metastases is commonly being performed with photon-beam based stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The high risk for radiation-induced liver disease (RILD) is a limiting factor in these treatments. The use of proton-beam based SBRT could potentially improve the sparing of the healthy part of the liver. The aim of this study was to use estimations of normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) to identify liver-metastases patients that could benefit from being treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), based on the reduction of the risk for RILD.

Methods: Ten liver metastases patients, previously treated with photon-beam based SBRT, were retrospectively planned with IMPT. A CTV-based robust optimisation (accounting for setup and range uncertainties), combined with a PTV-based conventional optimisation, was performed. A robustness criterion was defined for the CTV (V95% > 98% for at least 10 of the 12 simulated scenarios). The NTCP was estimated for different endpoints using the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model. The ΔNTCP (NTCPIMPT − NTCPSBRT) for RILD was registered for each patient. The patients for which the NTCP (RILD) < 5% were also identified. A generic relative biological effectiveness of 1.1 was assumed for the proton beams.

Results: For all patients, the objectives set for the PTV and the robustness criterion set for the CTV were fulfilled with the IMPT plans. An improved sparing of the healthy part of the liver, right kidney, lungs, spinal cord and the skin was achieved with the IMPT plans, compared to the SBRT plans. Mean liver doses larger than the threshold value of 32 Gy led to NTCP values for RILD exceeding 5% (7 patients with SBRT and 3 patients with the IMPT plans). ΔNTCP values (RILD) ranging between − 98% and − 17% (7 patients) and between 0 and 2% (3 patients), were calculated.

Conclusions: In this study, liver metastases patients that could benefit from being treated with IMPT, based on the NTCP reductions, were identified. The clinical implementation of such a model-based approach to select liver metastases patients to proton therapy needs to be made with caution while considering the uncertainties involved in the NTCP estimations.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. Vol. 13, article id 206
Keywords [en]
RILD, Liver metastases, IMPT, SBRT, patient selection
National Category
Other Physics Topics
Research subject
Medical Radiation Physics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-161356DOI: 10.1186/s13014-018-1151-6ISI: 000448078000002OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-161356DiVA, id: diva2:1257958
Available from: 2018-10-23 Created: 2018-10-23 Last updated: 2018-12-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Mondlane, Gracinda
By organisation
Department of Physics
In the same journal
Radiation Oncology
Other Physics Topics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf