Pulsed brachytherapy: a modelled consideration of repair parameter uncertainties and their influence on treatment duration extension and daytime-only "block-schemes".
OBJECTIVE
The radiobiological modelling of all types of protracted brachytherapy is susceptible to uncertainties in the values of tissue repair parameters. Although this effect has been explored for many aspects of pulsed brachytherapy (PB), it is usually considered within the constraint of a fixed brachytherapy treatment time. Here the impact of repair parameter uncertainty is assessed for PB treatments of variable duration. The potential use of "block-schemes" (blocks of PB pulses separated by night-time gaps) is also investigated.


METHODS
PB schedule constraints are based on the cervical cancer protocols of the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH), but the methodology is applicable to any combination of starting schedule and treatment constraint. Calculations are performed using the biologically effective dose (BED) as a tissue-specific comparison metric. The ratio of normal tissue BED to tumour BED is considered for PB regimens with varying total pulse numbers and/or "block-schemes".


RESULTS
For matched brachytherapy duration, PB has a good "window of opportunity" relative to the existing RMH continuous low dose rate (CLDR) practice for all modelled repair half-times. The most clear-cut route to radiobiological optimisation of PB is via modest temporal extension of the PB regimen relative to the CLDR reference. This option may be practicable for those centres with scope to extend their relatively short CLDR treatment durations.


CONCLUSIONS
Although daytime-only "block-scheme" PB for cervical cancer has not yet been employed clinically, the possibilities appear to be theoretically promising, providing the overall (external beam plus brachytherapy) treatment duration is not extended relative to current practice, such that additional tumour repopulation becomes a concern.
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Fulham Road, London, UK. tracy.underwood@rob.ox.ac.uk
T S A
TS
Underwood
R G
RG
Dale
A M
AM
Bidmead
C A
CA
Nalder
P R
PR
Blake
D001918:Brachytherapy / Q000379:methods*; D019583:Dose Fractionation, Radiation; D006801:Humans; D008954:Models, Biological; D058958:Organs at Risk / Q000528:radiation effects; D012062:Relative Biological Effectiveness; D013997:Time Factors; D035501:Uncertainty; D014945:Wound Healing / Q000528:radiation effects*
Radiother Oncol. 2006 Jan;78(1):67-77
16403584
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998 Apr 1;41(1):139-50
9588929
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993 Dec 1;27(5):1051-6
8262826
Br J Radiol. 1985 Jun;58(690):515-28
4063711
Phys Med Biol. 2006 Aug 21;51(16):4063-71
16885624
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Mar 1;37(4):877-83
9128965
Br J Radiol. 1988 Feb;61(722):153-7
3280069
Br J Radiol. 2010 Jul;83(991):554-68
20603408
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Nov 1;39(4):809-15
9369127
Acta Oncol. 2004;43(7):657-66
15545186
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993 Feb 15;25(3):391-7
8436516
Radiother Oncol. 1992 Dec;25(4):273-9
1480773
Radiother Oncol. 2001 Jun;59(3):273-80
11369068
Br J Radiol. 2005 Mar;78(927):236-41
15730988
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996 Jan 15;34(2):497-505
8567354
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Jul 30;32(5):1301-7
7635769
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991 Jan;20(1):181-90
1993627
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Jul 1;59(3):696-705
15183473
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Jan 1;49(1):183-9
11163513
Radiother Oncol. 1997 Oct;45(1):49-54
9364631
Radiother Oncol. 1999 Jan;50(1):93-101
10225562
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2002 Oct;14(5):382-93
12555877
Radiother Oncol. 1996 May;39(2):97-103
8735476
Radiother Oncol. 1990 Jun;18(2):165-81
2367691
Radiother Oncol. 2004 Jan;70(1):63-74
15036854
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994 Jul 1;29(4):893-901
8040040
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;23(3):661-9
1612968
Radiother Oncol. 1996 Feb;38(2):153-62
8966228