www.uhasselt.be
DSpace

Document Server@UHasselt >
Research >
Research publications >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/20610

Title: Preclinical Assessment of Efficacy of Radiation Dose Painting Based on Intratumoral FDG-PET Uptake
Authors: Trani, Daniela
Yaromina, Ala
Dubois, Ludwig
Granzier, Marlies
Peeters, Sarah G. J. A.
Biemans, Rianne
Nalbantov, Georgi
Lieuwes, Natasja
Reniers, Brigitte
Troost, Esther E. G. C.
Verhaegen, Frank
Lambin, Philippe
Issue Date: 2015
Publisher: AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
Citation: CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH, 21 (24), p. 5511-5518
Abstract: Purpose: We tested therapeutic efficacy of two dose painting strategies of applying higher radiation dose to tumor subvolumes with high FDG uptake (biologic target volume, BTV): dose escalation and dose redistribution. We also investigated whether tumor response was determined by the highest dose in BTV or the lowest dose in gross tumor volume (GTV). Experimental Design: FDG uptake was evaluated in rat rhabdomyosarcomas prior to irradiation. BTV was defined as 30% of GTV with the highest (BTVhot) or lowest (BTVcold) uptake. To test efficacy of dose escalation, tumor response (time to reach two times starting tumor volume, TGT(V2)) to Hot Boost irradiation (40% higher dose to BTVhot) was compared with Cold Boost (40% higher dose to BTVcold), while mean dose to GTV remained 12 Gy. To test efficacy of dose redistribution, TGT(V2) after Hot Boost was compared with uniform irradiation with the same mean dose (8 or 12 Gy). Results: TGT(V2) after 12 Gy delivered heterogeneously (Hot and Cold Boost) or uniformly were not significantly different: 20.2, 19.5, and 20.6 days, respectively. Dose redistribution (Hot Boost) with 8 Gy resulted in faster tumor regrowth as compared with uniform irradiation (13.3 vs. 17.1 days; P = 0.026). Further increase in dose gradient to 60% led to a more pronounced decrease in TGT(V2) (10.9 days; P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Dose escalation effect was independent of FDG uptake in target tumor volume, while dose redistribution was detrimental in this tumor model for dose levels applied here. Our data are consistent with the hypothesis that tumor response depends on the minimum intratumoral dose. (C)2015 AACR.
Notes: [Trani, Daniela; Yaromina, Ala; Dubois, Ludwig; Granzier, Marlies; Peeters, Sarah G. J. A.; Biemans, Rianne; Nalbantov, Georgi; Lieuwes, Natasja; Reniers, Brigitte; Troost, Esther E. G. C.; Verhaegen, Frank; Lambin, Philippe] Maastricht Univ, Med Ctr, GROW Sch Oncol & Dev Biol, Dept Radiat Oncol MAASTRO, NL-6200 MD Maastricht, Netherlands. [Reniers, Brigitte] Hasselt Univ, Res Grp NuTeC, CMK, Diepenbeek, Belgium. [Troost, Esther E. G. C.] Helmholtz Zentrum Dresden Rossendorf, Inst Radiooncol, Dresden, Germany.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/20610
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0290
ISI #: 000367546700016
ISSN: 1078-0432
Category: A1
Type: Journal Contribution
Validation: ecoom, 2017
Appears in Collections: Research publications

Files in This Item:

Description SizeFormat
published version911.69 kBAdobe PDF

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.