Challenges in radiobiological modeling: Can we decide between LQ and LQ-L models based on reviewed clinical NSCLC treatment outcome data?

35Citations
Citations of this article
60Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Aim: To study the dose-response of stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in terms of long-term local tumor control (LC) after conventional and hypofractionated photon radiotherapy, modeled with the linear-quadratic (LQ) and linear-quadratic-linear (LQ-L) approaches and to estimate the clinical α/β ratio within the LQ frame. Material and methods: We identified studies of curative radiotherapy as single treatment through MedLine search reporting 3-year LC as primary outcome of interest. Logistic models coupled with the biologically effective dose (BED) at isocenter and PTV edge according to both the LQ and LQ-L models with α/β = 10 Gy were fitted. Additionally, α/β was estimated from direct LQ fits. Results: Thirty one studies were included reporting outcome of 2319 patients. The LQ-L fit yielded a significant value of 11.0 ± 5.2 Gy for the dose threshold (Dt) for BED10 at the isocenter. The LQ and LQ-L fits did not differ substantially. Concerning the estimation of α/β, the value obtained from the direct LQ fit for the complete fractionation range was 3.9 [68 % CI: 2.2-9.0] Gy (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Both LQ and LQ-L fits can model local tumor control after conventionally and hypofractionated irradiation and are robust methods for predicting clinical effects. The observed dose-effect for local control in NSCLC is weaker at high doses due to data dispersion. For BED10 values of 100-150 Gy in ≥3 fractions, the differences in isoeffects predicted by both models can be neglected.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Santiago, A., Barczyk, S., Jelen, U., Engenhart-Cabillic, R., & Wittig, A. (2016). Challenges in radiobiological modeling: Can we decide between LQ and LQ-L models based on reviewed clinical NSCLC treatment outcome data? Radiation Oncology, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-016-0643-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free