4.7 Article

Preclinical Assessment of Efficacy of Radiation Dose Painting Based on Intratumoral FDG-PET Uptake

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 21, 期 24, 页码 5511-5518

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0290

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Kankeronderzoekfonds Limburg from the Health Foundation Limburg (Star project)
  2. EU 7th framework program (Metoxia) [222741]
  3. Varian

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We tested therapeutic efficacy of two dose painting strategies of applying higher radiation dose to tumor subvolumes with high FDG uptake (biologic target volume, BTV): dose escalation and dose redistribution. We also investigated whether tumor response was determined by the highest dose in BTV or the lowest dose in gross tumor volume (GTV). Experimental Design: FDG uptake was evaluated in rat rhabdomyosarcomas prior to irradiation. BTV was defined as 30% of GTV with the highest (BTVhot) or lowest (BTVcold) uptake. To test efficacy of dose escalation, tumor response (time to reach two times starting tumor volume, TGT(V2)) to Hot Boost irradiation (40% higher dose to BTVhot) was compared with Cold Boost (40% higher dose to BTVcold), while mean dose to GTV remained 12 Gy. To test efficacy of dose redistribution, TGT(V2) after Hot Boost was compared with uniform irradiation with the same mean dose (8 or 12 Gy). Results: TGT(V2) after 12 Gy delivered heterogeneously (Hot and Cold Boost) or uniformly were not significantly different: 20.2, 19.5, and 20.6 days, respectively. Dose redistribution (Hot Boost) with 8 Gy resulted in faster tumor regrowth as compared with uniform irradiation (13.3 vs. 17.1 days; P = 0.026). Further increase in dose gradient to 60% led to a more pronounced decrease in TGT(V2) (10.9 days; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Dose escalation effect was independent of FDG uptake in target tumor volume, while dose redistribution was detrimental in this tumor model for dose levels applied here. Our data are consistent with the hypothesis that tumor response depends on the minimum intratumoral dose. (C)2015 AACR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据