4.7 Article

USE OF THE CONCEPT OF EQUIVALENT BIOLOGICALLY EFFECTIVE DOSE (BED) TO QUANTIFY THE CONTRIBUTION OF HYPERTHERMIA TO LOCAL TUMOR CONTROL IN RADIOHYPERTHERMIA CERVICAL CANCER TRIALS, AND COMPARISON WITH RADIOCHEMOTHERAPY RESULTS

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.11.034

Keywords

Radiotherapy; Hyperthermia; Radiation-equivalent; Cervical cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To express the magnitude of contribution of hyperthermia to local tumor control in radiohyperthermia (RT/HT) cervical cancer trials, in terms of the radiation-equivalent biologically effective dose (BED) and to explore the potential of the combined modalities in the treatment of this neoplasm. Materials and Methods: Local control rates of both arms of each study (RT vs. RT+HT) reported from randomized controlled trials (RCT) on concurrent RT/HT for cervical cancer were reviewed. By comparing the two tumor control probabilities (TCPs) from each study, we calculated the HT-related log cell-kill and then expressed it in terms of the number of 2 Gy fraction equivalents, for a range of tumor volumes and radiosensitivities. We have compared the contribution of each modality and made some exploratory calculations on the TCPs that might be expected from a combined trimodality treatment (RT+CT+HT). Results: The HT-equivalent number of 2-Gy fractions ranges from 0.6 to 4.8 depending on radiosensitivity. Opportunities for clinically detectable improvement by the addition of HT are only available in tumors with an alpha value in the approximate range of 0.22-0.28 Gy(-1). A combined treatment (RT+CT+HT) is not expected to improve prognosis in radioresistant tumors. Conclusion: The most significant improvements in TCP, which may result from the combination of RT/CT/HT for locally advanced cervical carcinomas, are likely to be limited only to those patients with tumors of relatively low-intermediate radiosensitivity. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available