Program Information
TCP and NTCP: Is That All?
B Sánchez-Nieto1*, M.R. Expósito2,J. A. Terrón3, M. Paiusco4, E. Cagni4, C. Ghetti5, S. Filice5, D. Grishchuk6, J. C. Mateos7, J. Roselló8,9,D. Planes8, L. Núñez10 F Sánchez-Doblado2,3, (1) Departamento de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.(2) Depto. Fisiología Médica y Biofísica Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain.(10) Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla,Spain (1)Departamento de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. (2)2Departamento de Fisiología Médica y Biofísica, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain. (3)Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Sevilla, Spain. (4)Arcispedale S. Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy. (5)Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Parma, Italy. (6)Russian Research Center for Radiology and Surgical Technology, Saint Petersburg, Russia. (7)Hospital Duques del Infantado, Sevilla, Spain. (8)ERESA, Valencia, Spain. (9)Departamento de Fisiología, Universidad de Valencia, Spain. (10)Servicio de Radiofísica, Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Majadahonda, Spain.
SU-E-T-466 Sunday 3:00:00 PM - 6:00:00 PM Room: Exhibit HallPurpose:
Concerns about the secondary cancer risks associated to the peripheral neutron and photon contamination in photon modern radiotherapy (RT) techniques (e.g., Intensity Modulated RT -IMRT- or Intensity Modulated Arc Therapy -IMAT) have been widely raised. Benefits in terms of better tumor coverage have to be balanced against the drawbacks of poorer organ at risk sparing and secondary cancer risk in order to make the decision on the optimum treatment technique. The aim of this study was to develop a tool which estimates treatment success taking into consideration the neutron secondary cancer probability.
Methods:
A methodology and benchmark dataset for radiotherapy real time assessment of patient neutron dose and application to a novel digital detector (DD) has been carried out (submitted to PMB, 2011). Our DD provides real time neutron equivalent dose distribution in relevant organs along the patient. This information, together with TCP and NTCP estimated from the DVH of target and organs at risks, respectively, have been built into a general biological model which allows us to evaluate the success of the treatments (Sánchez-Nieto et al., ESTRO meeting 2012). This model has been applied to make estimation of treatment success in a variety of treatment techniques (3DCRT, forward and inverse IMRT, RapidArc, Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Helical Tomotherapy ) to low and high energy.
Results:
MU-demanding techniques at high energies were able to deliver treatment plans with the highest complicated-free tumour control. Nevertheless, neutron peripheral dose must be taken into consideration as the associated risk could be of the same order of magnitude than the usually considered NTCPs.
Conclusions:
The methodology developed to provide an online organ neutron peripheral dose can be successfully combined with biological models to make predictions on treatment success taking into consideration secondary cancer risks.
Contact Email