A Multi-institution, Retrospective Analysis of Cervix Intracavitary Brachytherapy Treatments. Part 1: Is EQD2 Good Enough for Reporting Radiobiological Effects?

Publication date: 1 September 2017
Source:International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, Volume 99, Issue 1
Author(s): Emma C. Fields, Rakhi Melvani, George Hajdok, David D'Souza, Bernard Jones, Kelly Stuhr, Quentin Diot, Christine M. Fisher, Nitai Mukhopadhyay, Dorin Todor
PurposeWhen brachytherapy doses are reported or added, biologically effective dose (BED) minimum dose covering 90% of the volume (D90) is used as if dose is delivered uniformly to the target. Unlike BED(D90), equivalent uniform BED (EUBED) and generalized biologically equivalent uniform dose (gBEUD) are quantities that integrate dose inhomogeneity. Here we compared BED(D90) and equivalent uniform BED (EUBED)/gBEUD in 3 settings: (1) 2 sites using tandem and ovoid (T&O) but different styles of implants; (2) 2 sites using different devices—T&O and tandem and ring (T&R)—and different styles; and (3) the same site using T&O and T&R with the same style.Methods and MaterialsEUBED and gBEUD were calculated for 260 fractions from 3 institutions using BED(α/β = 10 Gy). EUBED uses an extra parameter α with smaller values associated with radioresistant tumors. Similarly, gBEUD uses a, which places variable emphasis on hot/cold spots. Distributions were compared using the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test at 5% significance.ResultsFor the 2 sites using T&O, the distribution of EUBED-BED(D90) was not different for values of α = 0.5 to 0.3 Gy⁻¹ but was statistically different for values of α = 0.15 to 0.05 Gy⁻¹ (P=.01, .002). The mean percentage differences between EUBED and BED(D90) ranged from 20% to 100% for α = 0.5 Gy⁻¹ to 0.05 Gy⁻¹. Using gBEUD-BED(D90), the P values indicate the distributions to be similar for a = −10 but to be significantly different for other values of a (−5, −1, 1). Between sites and at the same site using T&O versus T&R, the distributions were statistically different with EUBED/gBEUD irrespective of parameter values at which these quantities were computed. These differences indicate that EUBED/gBEUD capture differences between the techniques and applicators that are not detected by the BED(D90).ConclusionsBED(D90) is unable to distinguish between plans created by different devices or optimized differently. EUBED/gBEUD distinguish between dose distributions created by different devices and styles of implant and planning. This discrepancy is particularly important with the increased use of magnetic resonance imaging and hybrid devices, whereby one has the ability to create dose distributions that are significant departures from the classic pear.



http://ift.tt/2wm58nt