Differences between planned and delivered dose for head and neck cancer, and their consequences for normal tissue complication probability and treatment adaptation

Background and purpose: Anatomical changes induce differences between planned and delivered dose. Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) may reduce these differences but the optimal implementation is insufficiently clear. The aims of this study were to quantify the difference between planned and delivered dose in HNC patients, assess the consequential difference in normal tissue complication probability (Delta NTCP) and to explore the value of Delta NTCP as an objective selection strategy for ART.Materials and methods: For 52 patients, daily doses were accumulated to estimate the delivered dose. The difference from planned dose was analyzed for CTVs and 9 organs-at-risk (OAR). Delta NTCP was calculated for xerostomia, dysphagia, parotid gland dysfunction and tube feeding dependency at 6 months. ART was deemed necessary if Delta NTCP was >5%. The positive predicted value (PPV) was calculated for identification of ART-patients by clinical judgement, and Delta NTCP at fraction 10 and 15.Results: Delta NTCP >5% was seen five times for dysphagia and twice for the other toxicities. Only 5/9 patients with any Delta NTCP >5% clinically received ART, although ART had been done for 13/52 patients (PPV: 0.38). PPV was 0.86 and 0.75 for accumulated dose at fraction 10 and 15, respectively, using a Delta NTCP cut-off for the allocation of ART of 5%. Using other Delta NTCP cut-offs did not substantially improve PPV. With this cutoff the negative predictive value was 0.93 for Delta NTCP method of fraction 10 and fraction 15, and 0.90 for clinical judgement.Conclusion: To identify patients accurately for ART, NTCP calculations based on the dose differences between planned and delivered dose at fraction 10 are superior to clinical judgement. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.Biological, physical and clinical aspects of cancer treatment with ionising radiatio

Differences between planned and delivered dose for head and neck cancer, and their consequences for normal tissue complication probability and treatment adaptation

Background and purpose: Anatomical changes induce differences between planned and delivered dose. Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) may reduce these differences but the optimal implementation is insufficiently clear. The aims of this study were to quantify the difference between planned and delivered dose in HNC patients, assess the consequential difference in normal tissue complication probability (ΔNTCP) and to explore the value of ΔNTCP as an objective selection strategy for ART. Materials and methods: For 52 patients, daily doses were accumulated to estimate the delivered dose. The difference from planned dose was analyzed for CTVs and 9 organs-at-risk (OAR). ΔNTCP was calculated for xerostomia, dysphagia, parotid gland dysfunction and tube feeding dependency at 6 months. ART was deemed necessary if ΔNTCP was >5%. The positive predicted value (PPV) was calculated for identification of ART-patients by clinical judgement, and ΔNTCP at fraction 10 and 15. Results: ΔNTCP >5% was seen five times for dysphagia and twice for the other toxicities. Only 5/9 patients with any ΔNTCP >5% clinically received ART, although ART had been done for 13/52 patients (PPV: 0.38). PPV was 0.86 and 0.75 for accumulated dose at fraction 10 and 15, respectively, using a ΔNTCP cut-off for the allocation of ART of 5%. Using other ΔNTCP cut-offs did not substantially improve PPV. With this cut-off the negative predictive value was 0.93 for ΔNTCP method of fraction 10 and fraction 15, and 0.90 for clinical judgement. Conclusion: To identify patients accurately for ART, NTCP calculations based on the dose differences between planned and delivered dose at fraction 10 are superior to clinical judgement

Relationship between survival and increased radiation dose to subventricular zone in glioblastoma is controversial

To test the hypothesis on prolonged survival in glioblastoma cases with increased subventricular zone (SVZ) radiation dose. Sixty glioblastoma cases were previously treated with adjuvant radiotherapy and Temozolamide. Ipsilateral, contralateral and bilateral SVZs were contoured and their doses were retrospectively evaluated. Median follow-up, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 24.5, 8.5 and 19.3 months respectively. Log-rank tests showed a statistically significant correlation between contralateral SVZ (cSVZ) dose > 59.2 Gy (75th percentile) and poor median PFS (10.37 [95% CI 8.37-13.53] vs 7.1 [95% CI 3.5-8.97] months, p = 0.009). cSVZ dose > 59.2 Gy was associated with poor OS in the subgroup with subtotal resection/biopsy (HR: 4.83 [95% CI 1.71-13.97], p = 0.004). High ipsilateral SVZ dose of > 62.25 Gy (75th percentile) was associated with poor PFS in both subgroups of high performance status (HR: 2.58 [95% CI 1.03-6.05], p = 0.044) and SVZ without tumoral contact (HR: 10.57 [95% CI 2.04-49], p = 0.008). The effect of high cSVZ dose on PFS lost its statistical significance in multivariate Cox regression analysis. We report contradictory results compared to previous publications. Changing the clinical practice based on retrospective studies which even do not indicate consistent results among each other will be dangerous. We need carefully designed prospective randomized studies to evaluate any impact of radiation to SVZ in glioblastoma