Abstract

Background and purposeTo compare the relative biological effectiveness (RBE)-weighted dose distributions in the target volume of chordoma and chondrosarcoma patients when using two different versions of the local effect model (LEM I vs. IV) under identical conditions. Materials and methodsThe patient collective included 59 patients treated with 20 fractions of carbon ion radiotherapy for chordoma and low-grade chondrosarcoma of the skull base at the Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung (GSI) in 2002 and 2003. Prescribed doses to the planning target volume (PTV) were 60 (n = 49), 66 (n = 2) and 70 (n = 8) Gy (RBE). The original treatment plans that were initially biologically optimized with LEM I, were now recalculated using LEM IV based on the absorbed dose distributions. The resulting RBE-weighted dose distributions were quantitatively compared to assess the clinical impact of LEM IV relative to LEM I in the target volume. ResultsLEM IV predicts 20–30 Gy (RBE) increased maximum doses as compared to LEM I, while minimum doses are decreased by 2–5 Gy (RBE). Population-based mean and median doses deviated by less than 2 Gy (RBE) between both models. ConclusionsLEM I and LEM IV-based RBE-weighted doses in the target volume may be significantly different. Replacing the applied model in patient treatments may therefore lead to local over- or underdosages in the tumor. If LEM IV is to be tested clinically, comparisons of the RBE-weighted dose distributions of both models are required for the individual patients to assess whether the LEM IV-plan would also be acceptable and prescribed dose as well as clinical outcome data have to be carefully reassessed.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.