We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
A Multi-institution, Retrospective Analysis of Cervix Intracavitary Brachytherapy Treatments. Part 1: Is EQD2 Good Enough for Reporting Radiobiological Effects?
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 2017 September 2
PURPOSE: When brachytherapy doses are reported or added, biologically effective dose (BED) minimum dose covering 90% of the volume (D90) is used as if dose is delivered uniformly to the target. Unlike BED(D90), equivalent uniform BED (EUBED) and generalized biologically equivalent uniform dose (gBEUD) are quantities that integrate dose inhomogeneity. Here we compared BED(D90) and equivalent uniform BED (EUBED)/gBEUD in 3 settings: (1) 2 sites using tandem and ovoid (T&O) but different styles of implants; (2) 2 sites using different devices-T&O and tandem and ring (T&R)-and different styles; and (3) the same site using T&O and T&R with the same style.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: EUBED and gBEUD were calculated for 260 fractions from 3 institutions using BED(α/β = 10 Gy). EUBED uses an extra parameter α with smaller values associated with radioresistant tumors. Similarly, gBEUD uses a, which places variable emphasis on hot/cold spots. Distributions were compared using the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test at 5% significance.
RESULTS: For the 2 sites using T&O, the distribution of EUBED-BED(D90) was not different for values of α = 0.5 to 0.3 Gy-1 but was statistically different for values of α = 0.15 to 0.05 Gy-1 (P=.01, .002). The mean percentage differences between EUBED and BED(D90) ranged from 20% to 100% for α = 0.5 Gy-1 to 0.05 Gy-1 . Using gBEUD-BED(D90), the P values indicate the distributions to be similar for a = -10 but to be significantly different for other values of a (-5, -1, 1). Between sites and at the same site using T&O versus T&R, the distributions were statistically different with EUBED/gBEUD irrespective of parameter values at which these quantities were computed. These differences indicate that EUBED/gBEUD capture differences between the techniques and applicators that are not detected by the BED(D90).
CONCLUSIONS: BED(D90) is unable to distinguish between plans created by different devices or optimized differently. EUBED/gBEUD distinguish between dose distributions created by different devices and styles of implant and planning. This discrepancy is particularly important with the increased use of magnetic resonance imaging and hybrid devices, whereby one has the ability to create dose distributions that are significant departures from the classic pear.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: EUBED and gBEUD were calculated for 260 fractions from 3 institutions using BED(α/β = 10 Gy). EUBED uses an extra parameter α with smaller values associated with radioresistant tumors. Similarly, gBEUD uses a, which places variable emphasis on hot/cold spots. Distributions were compared using the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test at 5% significance.
RESULTS: For the 2 sites using T&O, the distribution of EUBED-BED(D90) was not different for values of α = 0.5 to 0.3 Gy-1 but was statistically different for values of α = 0.15 to 0.05 Gy-1 (P=.01, .002). The mean percentage differences between EUBED and BED(D90) ranged from 20% to 100% for α = 0.5 Gy-1 to 0.05 Gy-1 . Using gBEUD-BED(D90), the P values indicate the distributions to be similar for a = -10 but to be significantly different for other values of a (-5, -1, 1). Between sites and at the same site using T&O versus T&R, the distributions were statistically different with EUBED/gBEUD irrespective of parameter values at which these quantities were computed. These differences indicate that EUBED/gBEUD capture differences between the techniques and applicators that are not detected by the BED(D90).
CONCLUSIONS: BED(D90) is unable to distinguish between plans created by different devices or optimized differently. EUBED/gBEUD distinguish between dose distributions created by different devices and styles of implant and planning. This discrepancy is particularly important with the increased use of magnetic resonance imaging and hybrid devices, whereby one has the ability to create dose distributions that are significant departures from the classic pear.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app