Effects of Treatment Strategies and Demographic Characteristics on Normal Tissue Complication Probability in Head and Neck Radiotherapy Using the Lyman Model

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Medical Physics and Imaging, Solid Tumor Research Center, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran

2 MSc Student, Department of Medical Physics and Imaging, School of Medicine, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran

3 Radiation Oncologist, Radiotherapy Research Center, Omid Hospital, Urmia, Iran

4 Radiotherapy Research Center, Omid Hospital, Urmia, Iran

5 Associate Professor, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of treatment strategies and patients' demographics characteristics on normal tissue complication probability in head and neck radiotherapy using the Lyman model.Methods: 78 patients with head and neck cancers who had finished their period of treatment in the last three years were investigated. The available information in the CorePlan treatment Planning system for each patient was gathered. Finally, the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) was determined from the dose received to the target volume and the irradiated volume using statistical model used in the CorePlan treatment planning system (Lyman model). In this work, descriptive statistics such as mean and proportion was applied to describe the data and Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearman correlation-coefficient test also were employed.Findings: The normal tissue complication probability was found to be strongly influenced by the position of normal tissues to radiation. In addition, a significant relationship was observed between the tumor and its adjacent normal tissues (P < 0.050). Complication risk of thyroid and dose increasement was significantly correlated (P = 0.004). There was no significant relationship between the age group, sex, stage of tumor, treatment type and normal tissue complication probability (P > 0.050).Conclusion: According to our findings, there was a significant relationship between the tumor location and the normal tissue complication probability. Thus, optimization of treatment planning system and use of appropriate equipment are useful in improving the symptoms of head and neck cancer after radiotherapy. Using high-dose radiation for head and neck cancers should be evaluated to protect thyroid, especially when the tumor is in the neck.

Keywords

References

  1. Howren MB, Christensen AJ, Karnell LH, Funk GF. Psychological factors associated with head and neck cancer treatment and survivorship: evidence and opportunities for behavioral medicine. J Consult Clin Psychol 2013; 81(2): 299-317.
  2. Mork J, Lie AK, Glattre E, Hallmans G, Jellum E, Koskela P, et al. Human papillomavirus infection as a risk factor for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med 2001; 344(15): 1125-31.
  3. Marks LB, Yorke ED, Jackson A, Ten Haken RK, Constine LS, Eisbruch A, et al. Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76(3 Suppl): S10-S19.
  4. Keinj R, Bastogne T, Vallois P. Multinomial model-based formulations of TCP and NTCP for radiotherapy treatment planning. J Theor Biol 2011; 279(1): 55-62.
  5. Holloway L, Hoban P, Metcalfe P. Radiobiological indices that consider volume: a review. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2002; 25(2): 47-57.
  6. Rawlings KM. Key performance indicators for goal attainment in dairy farming: essential elements for monitoring farm business performance [MSc Thesis]. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University; 1999.
  7. Hussein M, Aldridge S, Guerrero UT, Nisbet A. The effect of 6 and 15 MV on intensity-modulated radiation therapy prostate cancer treatment: plan evaluation, tumour control probability and normal tissue complication probability analysis, and the theoretical risk of secondary induced malignancies. Br J Radiol 2012; 85(1012): 423-32.
  8. Cheng L, Hobbs RF, Segars PW, Sgouros G, Frey EC. Improved dose-volume histogram estimates for radiopharmaceutical therapy by optimizing quantitative SPECT reconstruction parameters. Phys Med Biol 2013; 58(11): 3631-47.
  9. Jones L, Hoban P, Metcalfe P. The use of the linear quadratic model in radiotherapy: a review. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2001; 24(3): 132-46.
  10. Harvey EB, Brinton LA. Second cancer following cancer of the breast in Connecticut, 1935-82. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1985; 68: 99-112.
  11. Trott KR, Doerr W, Facoetti A, Hopewell J, Langendijk J, van Luijk P, et al. Biological mechanisms of normal tissue damage: importance for the design of NTCP models. Radiother Oncol 2012; 105(1): 79-85.
  12. Neglia JP, Friedman DL, Yasui Y, Mertens AC, Hammond S, Stovall M, et al. Second malignant neoplasms in five-year survivors of childhood cancer: childhood cancer survivor study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93(8): 618-29.
  13. Sherman AC, Simonton S, Adams DC, Vural E, Owens B, Hanna E. Assessing quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer: cross-validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Head and Neck module (QLQ-H&N35). Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 126(4): 459-67.
  14. Borggreven PA, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Muller MJ, Heiligers ML, de Bree R, Aaronson NK, et al. Quality of life and functional status in patients with cancer of the oral cavity and oropharynx: pretreatment values of a prospective study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 264(6): 651-7.
  15. McGinn CJ, Ten Haken RK, Ensminger WD, Walker S, Wang S, Lawrence TS. Treatment of intrahepatic cancers with radiation doses based on a normal tissue complication probability model. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16(6): 2246-52.
  16. Kukolowicz P. Clinical aspects of normal tissue complication probability. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2004; 9(6): 261-7.
  17. Vernat SS, Ali D, Messina C, Pommier P, Dussart S, Puyraveau M, et al. Intensity modulated arc therapy in bilaterally irradiated head and neck cancer: a comparative and prospective multicenter planning study. Cancer Invest 2014; 32(5): 159-67.
  18. Sheng K, Dong P, Gautam A, Cheng CW, Ruan D, Low D, et al. Evolution of ipsilateral head and neck radiotherapy. Current Cancer Therapy Reviews 2014; 10(4): 343-52.
  19. van de Water TA, Bijl HP, Schilstra C, Pijls-Johannesma M, Langendijk JA. The potential benefit of radiotherapy with protons in head and neck cancer with respect to normal tissue sparing: a systematic review of literature. Oncologist 2011; 16(3): 366-77.
  20. Zeng C, Giantsoudi D, Grassberger C, Goldberg S, Niemierko A, Paganetti H, et al. Maximizing the biological effect of proton dose delivered with scanned beams via inhomogeneous daily dose distributions. Med Phys 2013; 40(5): 051708.
  21. El N, I, Pater P, Seuntjens J. Monte Carlo role in radiobiological modelling of radiotherapy outcomes. Phys Med Biol 2012; 57(11): R75-R97.
  22. Wang W, Lang J. Strategies to optimize radiotherapy based on biological responses of tumor and normal tissue. Exp Ther Med 2012; 4(2): 175-80.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 33, Issue 339 - Serial Number 339
May and June 2015
Pages 945-954

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 18 February 2015
  • Revise Date: 20 May 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics