IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0229053.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conventional dose rate spatially-fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT) treatment response and its association with dosimetric parameters—A preclinical study in a Fischer 344 rat model

Author

Listed:
  • Judith N Rivera
  • Thomas M Kierski
  • Sandeep K Kasoji
  • Anthony S Abrantes
  • Paul A Dayton
  • Sha X Chang

Abstract

Purpose: To identify key dosimetric parameters that have close associations with tumor treatment response and body weight change in SFRT treatments with a large range of spatial-fractionation scale at dose rates of several Gy/min. Methods: Six study arms using uniform tumor radiation, half-tumor radiation, 2mm beam array radiation, 0.3mm minibeam radiation, and an untreated arm were used. All treatments were delivered on a 320kV x-ray irradiator. Forty-two female Fischer 344 rats with fibrosarcoma tumor allografts were used. Dosimetric parameters studied are peak dose and width, valley dose and width, peak-to-valley-dose-ratio (PVDR), volumetric average dose, percentage volume directly irradiated, and tumor- and normal-tissue EUD. Animal survival, tumor volume change, and body weight change (indicative of treatment toxicity) are tested for association with the dosimetric parameters using linear regression and Cox Proportional Hazards models. Results: The dosimetric parameters most closely associated with tumor response are tumor EUD (R2 = 0.7923, F-stat = 15.26*; z-test = -4.07***), valley (minimum) dose (R2 = 0.7636, F-stat = 12.92*; z-test = -4.338***), and percentage tumor directly irradiated (R2 = 0.7153, F-stat = 10.05*; z-test = -3.837***) per the linear regression and Cox Proportional Hazards models, respectively. Tumor response is linearly proportional to valley (minimum) doses and tumor EUD. Average dose (R2 = 0.2745, F-stat = 1.514 (no sig.); z-test = -2.811**) and peak dose (R2 = 0.04472, F-stat = 0.6874 (not sig.); z-test = -0.786 (not sig.)) show the weakest associations to tumor response. Only the uniform radiation arm did not gain body weight post-radiation, indicative of treatment toxicity; however, body weight change in general shows weak association with all dosimetric parameters except for valley (minimum) dose (R2 = 0.3814, F-stat = 13.56**), valley width (R2 = 0.2853, F-stat = 8.783**), and peak width (R2 = 0.2759, F-stat = 8.382**). Conclusions: For a single-fraction SFRT at conventional dose rates, valley, not peak, dose is closely associated with tumor treatment response and thus should be used for treatment prescription. Tumor EUD, valley (minimum) dose, and percentage tumor directly irradiated are the top three dosimetric parameters that exhibited close associations with tumor response.

Suggested Citation

  • Judith N Rivera & Thomas M Kierski & Sandeep K Kasoji & Anthony S Abrantes & Paul A Dayton & Sha X Chang, 2020. "Conventional dose rate spatially-fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT) treatment response and its association with dosimetric parameters—A preclinical study in a Fischer 344 rat model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-22, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0229053
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0229053
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0229053&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0229053?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0229053. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.