Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: To design pulsed-brachytherapy (PDR) protocols that are expected to be at least as clinically efficacious (in terms of both tumor control and late sequelae) as continuous low-dose-rate (CLDR) regimens, but that involve irradiation only during extended office hours. Both interstitial and intracavitary brachytherapy protocols are considered. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The linear quadratic formalism was used in which the late normal tissue damage and tumor control for one protocol relative to another are assumed to be determined primarily by the level of cellular survival. PDR schedules were designed in which pulses are delivered during 'extended office hours' (8 A.M. to 8 P.M.) with no irradiation overnight. Generally, the proposed PDR regimes last the same number of treatment days as the corresponding CLDR regimen, but the PDR treatment lasts longer on the final day (i.e., until 8 P.M.). PDR doses were calculated such as to produce a tumor control which is equivalent to standard CLDR protocols, and the corresponding predicted late complication rate was compared with that for CLDR. Ranges of plausible values for the half-times of sublethal damage repair for tumors and for late-responding normal tissues were considered. RESULTS: As has been previously shown, the efficacy of PDR relative to CLDR depends considerably on the repair rates for sublethal damage repair. Clinical and experimental evidence suggests that average repair half-times for early effects (e.g., tumor control) are less than about a half hour, and for late sequelae are more than about an hour. If these estimates are correct, daytime PDR regimes can usually be designed which take the same number of days as the corresponding CLDR regimen, but have comparable or better therapeutic ratios than CLDR. CONCLUSION: Protocols for PDR can be designed to involve irradiation only during extended office hours, that are likely to result in clinical results comparable or better than CLDR, for any expected combination of the repair half-times of early- and late-responding tissues. The suggested protocols allow all of the advantages of a computerized remote-controlled afterloader while preserving the benefits of low dose rate. In addition, the protocols could allow the patient to go home overnight, or to stay overnight in an adjacent medical inn or hospital-associated hotel, rather than in a hospital bed-which could have major economic benefits. In such an economic situation, an extra treatment day for the daytime PDR could well be considered, which would virtually guarantee an improved clinical advantage relative to CLDR

PURPOSE: Treatment plan optimization in radiation oncology entails designing multiple x-ray beams to irradiate a tumor to a dose that will achieve locoregional control while minimizing normal tissue complications. For some anatomical sites, it is possible to estimate tumor control probabilities (TCP) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) as a function of radiation dose. Thus, treatment plan optimization can be based on biologic end points rather than on dose calculations alone. Given multiple plans with different NTCPs and TCPs, a tradeoff must be made between maximizing TCP and maintaining an acceptable NTCP. How do physicians reach these decisions? Can the process be quantified? Should patients participate in the process? METHODS AND MATERIALS: Physicians and patients were asked to rank a series of treatment plans having different combinations of TCP and NTCP. Responses were parametrized into a figure of merit (FM) equation which quantifies predilections of TCP and NTCP. RESULTS: Physician-based FM equations are site- and patient-specific. Variations exist among physicians, but treatment plan selection is often conservative in accordance with the primum non nocere dictum. FM equations generated from the responses of patients suggest that some patients may be willing to accept higher treatment toxicity in exchange for increased TCP. CONCLUSION: The term 'optimized treatment plan' contains inherently subjective criteria which reflect one's willingness to accept treatment morbidity in exchange for probability of cure. These criteria may differ among patients and/or physicians. A quantifiable FM may permit the design of custom-made treatment plans that include physician and patient input

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prognostic significance of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) in clinically localized prostate cancer and determine whether this index is independent of or superior to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in predicting outcome of patients treated with external beam radiotherapy. METHODS: Between January 1989 and December 1993, 175 evaluable patients with clinically localized prostate cancer received definitive radiotherapy using computed tomography (CT)-guided conformal techniques. PSAD was defined as the ratio of the pretreatment serum PSA to the prostate volume measured from CT treatment planning scans by one investigator. All PSA values were determined using the Hybritech assay. Biochemical failure was defined as two consecutive elevations in PSA separated by at least 3 months and a final PSA value greater than 1 ng/mL. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis including PSA and Gleason score revealed both to be statistically significant predictors of biochemical disease-free survival (P = 0.048 and P < 0.001, respectively). PSAD did not achieve significance on regression analysis. A direct multivariate analysis including PSA and PSAD required dichotomization in order to reduce high correlation. This analysis demonstrated a relative risk (RR) for failure of 1.27 (NS) for high PSA versus low PSA compared with a RR of 1.20 (NS) for high PSAD versus low PSAD. A regression model containing all three variables indicated only the Gleason score as significant in predicting biochemical failure. CONCLUSIONS: These data do not suggest that PSAD is either an independent prognostic factor or a stronger discriminant of outcome than PSA in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy. Larger patient numbers with longer follow-up data, use of a clinical end point, or an analysis restricted to the appropriate subgroup may demonstrate the utility of PSAD in the future