Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
medicine
Differences between planned and delivered dose for head and neck cancer, and their consequences for normal tissue complication probability and treatment adaptation
Radiotherapy and Oncology, Volume 142, Year 2020
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
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. © 2019
Authors & Co-Authors
Heukelom, Jolien
Netherlands, Amsterdam
The Netherlands Cancer Institute
Kantor, Michael E.
United States, Houston
The University of Texas Md Anderson Cancer Center
Mohamed, Abdallah Sherif Radwan
United States, Houston
The University of Texas Md Anderson Cancer Center
Elhalawani, Hesham M.
United States, Houston
The University of Texas Md Anderson Cancer Center
Kocak-Uzel, Esengül
United States, Houston
The University of Texas Md Anderson Cancer Center
Turkey, Istanbul
Sisli Etfal Hospital
Lin, Timothy A.
United States, Houston
The University of Texas Md Anderson Cancer Center
Yang, Jinzhong
United States, Houston
The University of Texas Md Anderson Cancer Center
Aristophanous, Michalis
United States, Houston
The University of Texas Md Anderson Cancer Center
United States, Chicago
The University of Chicago
Fuller, Clifton David
United States, Houston
The University of Texas Md Anderson Cancer Center
Statistics
Citations: 15
Authors: 9
Affiliations: 5
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1016/j.radonc.2019.07.034
ISSN:
01678140
Research Areas
Cancer