International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics
Volume 50, Issue 5 , Pages 1113-1122 , 1 August 2001

Incorporating biologic measurements (SF2, CFE) into a tumor control probability model increases their prognostic significance: a study in cervical carcinoma treated with radiation therapy

  • Francesca Meteora Buffa, B.Sc.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physics, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London, England UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to: Francesca M. Buffa, Institute of Cancer Research, Joint Department of Physics, Cotswold Road, SM2 5NG, Sutton, London, UK. Tel: +44 (0) 207 8082241; Fax: +44 (0) 207 8082522
    • ,
  • Susan E. Davidson, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Oncology, Paterson Institute for Cancer Research, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester, England UK
    • ,
  • Robert D. Hunter, F.R.C.R.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Oncology, Paterson Institute for Cancer Research, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester, England UK
    • ,
  • Alan E. Nahum, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Physics, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Trust, London, England UK
    • ,
  • Catharine M.L. West, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • CRC Experimental Radiation Oncology Group, Paterson Institute for Cancer Research, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester, England UK

,Accepted 13 March 2001.

References 

  1. Levegrün S, Jackson A, Zelefsky MJ, et al.  Analysis of biopsy outcome after three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy of prostate cancer using dose-distribution variables and tumor control probability models. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;47:1245–1260
  2. Björk-Eriksson T, West C, Karlsson E, et al.  Tumor radiosensitivity (SF2) is a prognostic factor for local control in head and neck cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46:13–19
  3. West CML, Davidson SE, Roberts SA, et al.  The independence of intrinsic radiosensitivity as a prognostic factor for patient response to radiotherapy of carcinoma of the cervix. Br J Cancer. 1997;76:1184–1190
  4. Höckel M, Schlenger K, Aral B, et al.  Association between tumor hypoxia and malignant progression in advanced cancer of the uterine cervix. Cancer Res. 1996;56:4509–4515
  5. Bolger B, Symonds RP, Stanton PD, et al.  Prediction of radiotherapy response of cervical carcinoma through measurement of proliferation rate. Br J Cancer. 1996;74:1223–1226
  6. Brenner DJ. Dose, volume and tumor control predictions in radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;26:171–179
  7. Webb S. Optimum parameters in model of tumour control probability including inter-patient heterogeneity. Phys Med Biol. 1994;39:1895–1914
  8. Fenwick JD. Predicting the radiation control probability of heterogeneous tumour ensembles (Data analysis and parameter estimation using a closed-form expression). Phys Med Biol. 1998;43:2159–2178
  9. Buffa FM, Fenwick J, Nahum A. An analysis of the relationship between radiosensitivity and volume effects in tumour control probability modelling. Med Phys. 2000;27:1258–1265
  10. Tucker SL, Taylor JMG. Improved models of tumour cure. Int J Radiat Biol. 1996;70:539–553
  11. Zaider M, Minerbo GN. Tumour control probability (A formulation applicable to any temporal protocol of dose delivery). Phys Med Biol. 2000;45:279–293
  12. West CML, Davidson SE, Roberts SA, et al.  Intrinsic radiosensitivity and prediction of patient response to radiotherapy of carcinoma of the cervix. Br J Cancer. 1993;68:819–823
  13. Sachs RK, Hahnfeld P, Brenner DJ. The link between low-LET dose-response relations and the underlying kinetics of managed production/repair/misrepair. Int J Radiat Biol. 1997;72:351–374
  14. Suit H, Skates S, Taghian A, et al.  Clinical implications of heterogeneity of tumour response to radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol. 1992;25:251–260
  15. Webb S, Nahum AE. A model for calculating tumour control probability in radiotherapy including the effects of unhomogeneous distributions of dose and clonogenic cell density. Phys Med Biol. 1993;38:653–666
  16. Joiner MC. The linear quadratic approach to fractionation. In:  Steel GG editors. Basic clinical radiobiology. Edward Arnold; 1993;
  17. Brenner DJ. A convenient extension of the linear quadratic model to include redistribution and reoxygenation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;32:379–390
  18. Matthews D, Farewell V. Using and understanding medical statistics. Vol. 3. New York: Karger; 1996.
  19. Dudewicz EJ, Mishra AN. Modern mathematical statistics. Wiley; 1988;
  20. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic test. Cancer. 1950;3:32–35
  21. Whitehead J. The design and analysis of sequential clinical trials. Barnett: Wiley; 1997;
  22. Knocke TH, Weitmann HD, Feldmann HJ, et al.  Intratumoral pO2-measurements as predictive assay in the treatment of carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Radiother Oncol. 1999;53:99–104
  23. Eschwege F, Bourhis J, Girinski T, et al.  Predictive assays of radiation response in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (A review of the Institute Gustave Roussy experience). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;39:849–853

☆ The mathematical analyses were supported by the Institute of Cancer Research, UK. The experimental work on which these analyses were carried out was supported by the Cancer Research Campaign, UK.

PII: S0360-3016(01)01584-X

International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics
Volume 50, Issue 5 , Pages 1113-1122 , 1 August 2001

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution