Is it beneficial to selectively boost high-risk tumor subvolumes? A comparison of selectively boosting high-risk tumor subvolumes versus homogeneous dose escalation of the entire tumor based on equivalent EUD plans.
OBJECTIVE
To quantify and compare expected local tumor control and expected normal tissue toxicities between selective boosting IMRT and homogeneous dose escalation IMRT for the case of prostate cancer.


METHODS
Four different selective boosting scenarios and three different high-risk tumor subvolume geometries were designed to compare selective boosting and homogeneous dose escalation IMRT plans delivering the same equivalent uniform dose (EUD) to the entire PTV. For each scenario, differences in tumor control probability between both boosting strategies were calculated for the high-risk tumor subvolume and remaining low-risk PTV, and were visualized using voxel based iso-TCP maps. Differences in expected rectal and bladder complications were quantified using radiobiological indices (generalized EUD (gEUD) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP)) as well as %-volumes.


RESULTS
For all investigated scenarios and high-risk tumor subvolume geometries, selective boosting IMRT improves expected TCP compared to homogeneous dose escalation IMRT, especially when lack of control of the high-risk tumor subvolume could be the cause for tumor recurrence. Employing, selective boosting IMRT significant increases in expected TCP can be achieved for the high-risk tumor subvolumes. The three conventional selective boosting IMRT strategies, employing physical dose objectives, did not show significant improvement in rectal and bladder sparing as compared to their counterpart homogeneous dose escalation plans. However, risk-adaptive optimization, utilizing radiobiological objective functions, resulted in reduction in NTCP for the rectum when compared to its corresponding homogeneous dose escalation plan.


CONCLUSIONS
Selective boosting is a more effective method than homogeneous dose escalation for achieving optimal treatment outcomes. Furthermore, risk-adaptive optimization increases the therapeutic ratio as compared to conventional selective boosting IMRT.
Kim
Yusung
Y
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA.
Tome
Wolfgang A
WA
D004307:Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D012062:Relative Biological Effectiveness; D012307:Risk Factors