3D calculation of radiation-induced second cancer risk including dose and tissue response heterogeneities

C. Timlin, D. R. Warren, B. Rowland, A. Madkhali, J. Loken, M. Partridge, B. Jones, J. Kruse, R. Miller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Tools for comparing relative induced second cancer risk, to inform choice of radiotherapy treatment plan, are becoming increasingly necessary as the availability of new treatment modalities expands. Uncertainties, in both radiobiological models and model parameters, limit the confidence of such calculations. The aim of this study was to develop and demonstrate a software tool to produce a malignant induction probability (MIP) calculation which incorporates patient-specific dose and allows for the varying responses of different tissue types to radiation. Methods: The tool has been used to calculate relative MIPs for four different treatment plans targeting a subtotally resected meningioma: 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCFRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), intensity-modulated x-ray therapy (IMRT), and scanned protons. Results: Two plausible MIP models, with considerably different doseresponse relationships, were considered. A fractionated linearquadratic induction and cell-kill model gave a mean relative cancer risk (normalized to 3DCFRT) of 113% for VMAT, 16% for protons, and 52% for IMRT. For a linear no-threshold model, these figures were 105%, 42%, and 78%, respectively. The relative MIP between plans was shown to be significantly more robust to radiobiological parameter uncertainties compared to absolute MIP. Both models resulted in the same ranking of modalities, in terms of MIP, for this clinical case. Conclusions: The results demonstrate that relative MIP is a useful metric with which treatment plans can be ranked, regardless of parameter- and model-based uncertainties. With further validation, this metric could be used to discriminate between plans that are equivalent with respect to other planning priorities.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)866-876
Number of pages11
JournalMedical Physics
Volume42
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2015

Fingerprint

Radiation-Induced Neoplasms
Second Primary Neoplasms
Uncertainty
Conformal Radiotherapy
Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
X-Rays
Proton Therapy
Therapeutics
Meningioma
Protons
Radiotherapy
Software
Radiation

Keywords

  • proton therapy
  • radiation-induced cancer
  • radiotherapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Timlin, C., Warren, D. R., Rowland, B., Madkhali, A., Loken, J., Partridge, M., ... Miller, R. (2015). 3D calculation of radiation-induced second cancer risk including dose and tissue response heterogeneities. Medical Physics, 42(2), 866-876. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4905158

3D calculation of radiation-induced second cancer risk including dose and tissue response heterogeneities. / Timlin, C.; Warren, D. R.; Rowland, B.; Madkhali, A.; Loken, J.; Partridge, M.; Jones, B.; Kruse, J.; Miller, R.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 42, No. 2, 01.02.2015, p. 866-876.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Timlin, C, Warren, DR, Rowland, B, Madkhali, A, Loken, J, Partridge, M, Jones, B, Kruse, J & Miller, R 2015, '3D calculation of radiation-induced second cancer risk including dose and tissue response heterogeneities', Medical Physics, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 866-876. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4905158
Timlin C, Warren DR, Rowland B, Madkhali A, Loken J, Partridge M et al. 3D calculation of radiation-induced second cancer risk including dose and tissue response heterogeneities. Medical Physics. 2015 Feb 1;42(2):866-876. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4905158
Timlin, C. ; Warren, D. R. ; Rowland, B. ; Madkhali, A. ; Loken, J. ; Partridge, M. ; Jones, B. ; Kruse, J. ; Miller, R. / 3D calculation of radiation-induced second cancer risk including dose and tissue response heterogeneities. In: Medical Physics. 2015 ; Vol. 42, No. 2. pp. 866-876.
@article{d5650769059e4ff4977329410400a3ff,
title = "3D calculation of radiation-induced second cancer risk including dose and tissue response heterogeneities",
abstract = "Purpose: Tools for comparing relative induced second cancer risk, to inform choice of radiotherapy treatment plan, are becoming increasingly necessary as the availability of new treatment modalities expands. Uncertainties, in both radiobiological models and model parameters, limit the confidence of such calculations. The aim of this study was to develop and demonstrate a software tool to produce a malignant induction probability (MIP) calculation which incorporates patient-specific dose and allows for the varying responses of different tissue types to radiation. Methods: The tool has been used to calculate relative MIPs for four different treatment plans targeting a subtotally resected meningioma: 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCFRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), intensity-modulated x-ray therapy (IMRT), and scanned protons. Results: Two plausible MIP models, with considerably different doseresponse relationships, were considered. A fractionated linearquadratic induction and cell-kill model gave a mean relative cancer risk (normalized to 3DCFRT) of 113{\%} for VMAT, 16{\%} for protons, and 52{\%} for IMRT. For a linear no-threshold model, these figures were 105{\%}, 42{\%}, and 78{\%}, respectively. The relative MIP between plans was shown to be significantly more robust to radiobiological parameter uncertainties compared to absolute MIP. Both models resulted in the same ranking of modalities, in terms of MIP, for this clinical case. Conclusions: The results demonstrate that relative MIP is a useful metric with which treatment plans can be ranked, regardless of parameter- and model-based uncertainties. With further validation, this metric could be used to discriminate between plans that are equivalent with respect to other planning priorities.",
keywords = "proton therapy, radiation-induced cancer, radiotherapy",
author = "C. Timlin and Warren, {D. R.} and B. Rowland and A. Madkhali and J. Loken and M. Partridge and B. Jones and J. Kruse and R. Miller",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1118/1.4905158",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "866--876",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - 3D calculation of radiation-induced second cancer risk including dose and tissue response heterogeneities

AU - Timlin, C.

AU - Warren, D. R.

AU - Rowland, B.

AU - Madkhali, A.

AU - Loken, J.

AU - Partridge, M.

AU - Jones, B.

AU - Kruse, J.

AU - Miller, R.

PY - 2015/2/1

Y1 - 2015/2/1

N2 - Purpose: Tools for comparing relative induced second cancer risk, to inform choice of radiotherapy treatment plan, are becoming increasingly necessary as the availability of new treatment modalities expands. Uncertainties, in both radiobiological models and model parameters, limit the confidence of such calculations. The aim of this study was to develop and demonstrate a software tool to produce a malignant induction probability (MIP) calculation which incorporates patient-specific dose and allows for the varying responses of different tissue types to radiation. Methods: The tool has been used to calculate relative MIPs for four different treatment plans targeting a subtotally resected meningioma: 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCFRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), intensity-modulated x-ray therapy (IMRT), and scanned protons. Results: Two plausible MIP models, with considerably different doseresponse relationships, were considered. A fractionated linearquadratic induction and cell-kill model gave a mean relative cancer risk (normalized to 3DCFRT) of 113% for VMAT, 16% for protons, and 52% for IMRT. For a linear no-threshold model, these figures were 105%, 42%, and 78%, respectively. The relative MIP between plans was shown to be significantly more robust to radiobiological parameter uncertainties compared to absolute MIP. Both models resulted in the same ranking of modalities, in terms of MIP, for this clinical case. Conclusions: The results demonstrate that relative MIP is a useful metric with which treatment plans can be ranked, regardless of parameter- and model-based uncertainties. With further validation, this metric could be used to discriminate between plans that are equivalent with respect to other planning priorities.

AB - Purpose: Tools for comparing relative induced second cancer risk, to inform choice of radiotherapy treatment plan, are becoming increasingly necessary as the availability of new treatment modalities expands. Uncertainties, in both radiobiological models and model parameters, limit the confidence of such calculations. The aim of this study was to develop and demonstrate a software tool to produce a malignant induction probability (MIP) calculation which incorporates patient-specific dose and allows for the varying responses of different tissue types to radiation. Methods: The tool has been used to calculate relative MIPs for four different treatment plans targeting a subtotally resected meningioma: 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCFRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), intensity-modulated x-ray therapy (IMRT), and scanned protons. Results: Two plausible MIP models, with considerably different doseresponse relationships, were considered. A fractionated linearquadratic induction and cell-kill model gave a mean relative cancer risk (normalized to 3DCFRT) of 113% for VMAT, 16% for protons, and 52% for IMRT. For a linear no-threshold model, these figures were 105%, 42%, and 78%, respectively. The relative MIP between plans was shown to be significantly more robust to radiobiological parameter uncertainties compared to absolute MIP. Both models resulted in the same ranking of modalities, in terms of MIP, for this clinical case. Conclusions: The results demonstrate that relative MIP is a useful metric with which treatment plans can be ranked, regardless of parameter- and model-based uncertainties. With further validation, this metric could be used to discriminate between plans that are equivalent with respect to other planning priorities.

KW - proton therapy

KW - radiation-induced cancer

KW - radiotherapy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84923348086&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84923348086&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4905158

DO - 10.1118/1.4905158

M3 - Article

C2 - 25652499

AN - SCOPUS:84923348086

VL - 42

SP - 866

EP - 876

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 2

ER -