OBJECTIVE: To determine the dosimetric differences between biological and physical functions of equivalent uniform dose (EUD) and dose volume (DV) therapy in patients with phase III non-small cell lung cancer.
METHODS: Four different radiotherapy plans (DV+DV, DV-EUD+DV, EUD+EUD and EUD-DV+EUD) were developed for 15 patients with stage III NSCLC. To study physical function (DV+DV) the target area was optimized by introducing the conditions of biological function optimization, while the organs at risk were optimized by means of physical function (DV-EUD+DV). Biological function optimization (EUD+EUD) was performed for the target area by applying conditions of physical function optimization while biological function optimization (EUD-DV+DV) was conducted for the organs at risk to compare dosimetric parameters among the four groups of treatment plans.
RESULTS: PTV: D2%, D98%, D50%, V105% and Dmax of both the DV-EUD+DV group and EDU-DV+EUD group were the minimum (P<0.05). The minimum and average dose of the EUD+EUD group showed an increasing trend and high-dose area became observable. For homogeneity index (HI), DV-EUD+DV group and EUD-DV+EUD results were compared with the other groups (P<0.05), no significant difference was observed statistically between the DV-EUD+DV group and EUD DV+EUD (P=0.659). With regard to conformability index (CI), the results of the four groups showed no significant difference (P>0.05). For the organs at risk, the mean dose of lung tissue (MLD), V5, V10, V20, V30, heart V30, V40, and Dmean also revealed no significant difference (P>0.05). For the spinal cord, the D1 % of the EUD+EUD group and EUD-DV+EUD groups were significantly different (P<0.05) than the other groups. While no significant difference (P=0.32) was found between the EUD+EUD and EUD-DV+EUD groups. When comparing the number of machine unions (MU) no significant difference was revealed (P>0.05) among the results of the 4 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The methods featuring optimization of physical and biological functions are effective in improving the uniformity of target area to have better outcome of the treatment. Biological function optimization or the combination of biological and physical function optimization is conducive to significantly reduce the required dose for the spinal cord.

UNASSIGNED: Dosimetric and radiobiological evaluations for the Jaws-only Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (JO-IMRT) technique for head and neck jaws-only intensity-modulated radiation therapy (JO-IMRT) and 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). To compare the head-and-neck therapeutic approaches utilizing JO-IMRT and 3D-CRT techniques, different radiation dose indices were calculated, including: conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and radiobiological variables like Niemierko\'s equivalent uniform dose based tumor control probability (TCP) of planning target volume (PTV), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of organs at risk (OAR) (brainstem, spinal cord, and parotid grand).
UNASSIGNED: Twenty-five nasopharynx patients were studied using the Prowess Panther Treatment Planning System (Prowess Inc). The results were compared with the dose distribution obtained using 3D-CRT.
UNASSIGNED: Regarding tumor coverage and CI, JO-IMRT showed better results than 3D-CRT. The average doses received by the PTVs were quite similar: 72.1 ± 0.8 Gy by 3D-CRT and 72.5 ± 0.6 Gy by JO-IMRT plans (p > 0.05). The mean doses received by the parotid gland were 56.7 ± 0.7 Gy by 3D-CRT and 26.8 ± 0.3 Gy by JO-IMRT (p > 0.05). The HI and CI were 0.13 ± 0.01 and 0.14 ± 0.05 and (p > 0.05) by 3D-CRT and 0.83 ± 0.05 and 0.73 ± 0.10 by JO-IMRT (p < 0.05). The average TCP of PTV was 0.82 ± 0.08 by 3D-CRT and 0.92 ± 0.02 by JO-IMRT. Moreover, the NTCP of the parotid glands, brain stem, and spinal cord were lower using the JO-IMRT than 3D-CRT plans. In comparison to the 3D-CRT approach, the JO-IMRT technique was able to boost dose coverage to the PTV, improve the target\'s CI and HI, and spare the parotid glands. This suggests the power of the JO-IMRT over 3D-CRT in head-and-neck radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of robust stereotactic body proton therapy (RSBPT) plans generated by one-clicking scripting method for patients with lung cancer.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on fifty lung cancer patients whose plan with robustly stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Thirty out of fifty patients were used for training to build a regression model, based on robust SBRT reference doses, to predict EUD values of ROIs for robust SBPT planning. Thereafter, robust SBPT plans with both automated EUD-Based mimicking (Automated Robust Proton ARP) and manual (Manual Robust Proton MRP) methods were evaluated in the remaining 20 patients. Plans were compared in terms of dosimetric parameters and planning time.
RESULTS: A statistically significantly improvement in target dose fall off was observed for ARP plans compare to MRP plans (Dose fall off: 135 for MRP and 88 for ARP, p < 0.01), while no differences in target coverage and conformity. A statistically significantly reduce in normal lung tissue were observed for ARP plans compare to MRP plans (Lung [Dmean cGy (RBE)]: MRP: 478 vs. ARP: 351, p < 0.01; Lung [V5Gy (RBE) (%)]: MRP: 16.1 vs. ARP: 12.1, p < 0.01; Lung [V20Gy (RBE) (%)]: MRP: 8.5 vs. ARP: 6.8, p < 0.01). Planning time was reduced for ARP plans compare to MRP plans (optimization time: 12 min for MRP vs. 8 min for ARP; total plan time: 23 min for MRP vs. 18 min for ARP).
CONCLUSIONS: The automated robust SBPT plans using EUD-Based mimicking of SBRT reference dose improve target dose fall off, reduced the radiation doses to the lungs, reduce planning time, which might be beneficial for patient with lung cancer in clinical.

The purpose of this study was to compare hybrid intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (Hybrid IMRT/VMAT), with non-coplanar (nc) IMRT and nc-VMAT treatment plans for unresectable olfactory neuroblastoma (ONB). Hybrid IMRT/VMAT, nc-IMRT and nc-VMAT plans were optimized for 12 patients with modified Kadish C stage ONB. Dose prescription was 65 Gy in 26 fractions. Dose-volume histogram parameters, conformation number (CN), homogeneity index (HI), integral dose and monitor units (MUs) delivered per fraction were assessed. Equivalent uniform dose (EUD) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) based on the EUD model (NTCPLogit) and the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model (NTCPLKB) were also evaluated. We found that the Hybrid IMRT/VMAT plan significantly improved the CN for clinical target volume (CTV) and planning treatment volume (PTV) compared with the nc-VMAT plan. In general, sparing of organs at risk (OARs) is similar with the three techniques, although the Hybrid IMRT/VMAT plan resulted in a significantly reduced Dmax to contralateral (C/L) optic nerve compared with the nc-IMRT plan. The Hybrid IMRT/VMAT plan significantly reduce EUD to the ipsilateral (I/L) and C/L optic nerve in comparison with the nc-IMRT plan and nc-VMAT plan, but the difference in NTCP between the three technique was <1%. We concluded that the Hybrid IMRT/VMAT technique can offer improvement in terms of target conformity and EUD for optic nerves, while achieving equal or better OAR sparing compared with nc-IMRT and nc-VMAT, and can be a viable radiation technique for treating unresectable ONB. However, the clinical benefit of these small differences in dosimetric data, EUD and NTCP of optic nerves may be minimal.

The study aimed to develop a novel dose conversion platform by improving linear-quadratic (LQ) model to more accurately describe radiation response for high fraction/acute doses. This article modified the LQ model via piecewise fitting the biological dose curve using different fractionated dose and optimizing the consistency between mathematical model and experimental data to gain a more reasonable transform. That mathematical development of the LQ model further amended certain deviations of various cell curves with high doses and implied the rationality of the present model at low dose range. The modified biologically effective dose model that solved the dilemma of inaccurate LQ model had been used in comparing between hypofractionated and conventional fractioned dose. It has been verified that the calculated values are similar in the treatment of same efficacy, no matter what α/β is, and provided a more rational explanation for significant differences among various hypofractionations. The equivalent uniform dose based on the subsection function could represent arbitrary inhomogeneous dose distributions including high-dose fractions, providing a foundation for the implementation of detailed evaluation of different cell dose effects.

As recent studies have suggested relatively low α/β for prostate cancer, the interest in hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer is rising. The aim of this study is to compare dosimetric results of Cyberknife (CK) with Tomotherapy (HT) in SBRT for localized prostate cancer. Furthermore, the radiobiologic consequences of heterogeneous dose distribution are also analyzed.
A total of 12 cases of localized prostate cancer previously treated with SBRT were collected. Treatments had been planned and delivered using CK. Then HT plans were generated for comparison afterwards. The prescribed dose was 37.5Gy in 5 fractions. Dosimetric indices for target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) were compared. For radiobiological evaluation, generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were calculated and compared.
Both CK and HT achieved target coverage while meeting OAR constraints adequately. HT plans resulted in better dose homogeneity (Homogeneity index: 1.04±0.01 vs. 1.21±0.01; p = 0.0022), target coverage (97.74±0.86% vs. 96.56±1.17%; p = 0.0076) and conformity (new vonformity index: 1.16±0.05 vs. 1.21±0.04; p = 0.0096). HT was shown to predict lower late rectal toxicity as compared to CK. Integral dose to body was also significantly lower in HT plans (46.59±6.44 Gy\'L vs 57.05±11.68 Gy\'L; p = 0.0029).
Based on physical dosimetry and radiobiologic considerations, HT may have advantages over CK, specifically in rectal sparing which could translate into clinical benefit of decreased late toxicities.

OBJECTIVE: In light of in vitro evidence suggesting that radiation-induced bystander effects may enhance non-local cell killing, there is potential for impact on radiotherapy treatment planning paradigms such as the goal of delivering a uniform dose throughout the clinical target volume (CTV). This work applies a bystander effect model to calculate equivalent uniform dose (EUD) and tumor control probability (TCP) for external beam prostate treatment and compares the results with a more common model where local response is dictated exclusively by local absorbed dose. The broad assumptions applied in the bystander effect model are intended to place an upper limit on the extent of the results in a clinical context.
METHODS: EUD and TCP of a prostate cancer target volume under conditions of increasing dose heterogeneity were calculated using two models: One incorporating bystander effects derived from previously published in vitro bystander data ( McMahon et al. 2012 , 2013a); and one using a common linear-quadratic (LQ) response that relies exclusively on local absorbed dose. Dose through the CTV was modelled as a normal distribution, where the degree of heterogeneity was then dictated by changing the standard deviation (SD). Also, a representative clinical dose distribution was examined as cold (low dose) sub-volumes were systematically introduced.
RESULTS: The bystander model suggests a moderate degree of dose heterogeneity throughout a target volume will yield as good or better outcome compared to a uniform dose in terms of EUD and TCP. For a typical intermediate risk prostate prescription of 78 Gy over 39 fractions maxima in EUD and TCP as a function of increasing SD occurred at SD ∼ 5 Gy. The plots only dropped below the uniform dose values for SD ∼ 10 Gy, almost 13% of the prescribed dose. Small, but potentially significant differences in the outcome metrics between the models were identified in the clinically-derived dose distribution as cold sub-volumes were introduced.
CONCLUSIONS: In terms of EUD and TCP, the bystander model demonstrates the potential to deviate from the common local LQ model predictions as dose heterogeneity through a prostate CTV varies. The results suggest, at least in a limiting sense, the potential for allowing some degree of dose heterogeneity within a CTV, although further investigation of the assumptions of the bystander model are warranted.