Challenges in radiobiological modeling: can we decide between LQ and LQ-L models based on reviewed clinical NSCLC treatment outcome data?

Santiago, Alina; Barczyk, Steffen; Jelen, Urszula; Engenhart-Cabillic, Rita; Wittig, Andrea

doi:10.1186/s13014-016-0643-5

Table 2 Characteristics of included studies with hypofractionated treatment regimes. Studies published between 2003 and 2015

From: Challenges in radiobiological modeling: can we decide between LQ and LQ-L models based on reviewed clinical NSCLC treatment outcome data?

No.	Reference	No. pats.	No. of pats. with stage T1 - T2	Fractionation regime			BED₁₀@isoc [Gy]	BED₁₀@PTV edge [Gy]	Dose calculation algorithm	3y-LC [%]	Follow-up median (range) [m]
				D [Gy]	d [Gy]	T [d]
9	Onimaru 2003 [38]	25	17–8	48/60	6/7.5	14	76.8	56.8	dens inhom corr	55	18 (2–44)
10	Xia 2006 [39]	25	ns	50	5	¹⁴	200	75	GammaKnife, ns	96	27 (24–54)
11	Fritz 2008 [40]	40	22–18	30	30	1	120	81.6	modified Batho	81	20 (6–62)
12	Onimaru 2008 [41]	41	13–28	40/48	10/12	5	105.6	75.3	ns	57	27 (9–62)
13	Baumann 2009 [42]	57	40–17	45	15	5 (4–15)	211.2	112.5	PB, dens inhom corr	92	35 (4–47)
14	Brown 2009 [43]	31	20–11	60–67.5	3–5	5	347.5	180.0	ns	86	28 (24–53)
15	Fakiris 2009 [44]	70	34–36	60/66	20/22	5	309.4	211.2	no dens inhom corr	88	50 (1–65)
16	Kopek 2009 [45]	88	51–36	45/67.5	15/22.5	5–8	112.5	60.9	Helax-TMS/ Eclipse, ns	89	44 (2–97)
17	Stephans 2009 [46]	56	42–14	50	10	11 (8–14)	168	100.0	dens inhom corr	97	20 (2–48)
18	Baba 2010 [47]	124	87–37	48/52	12/13	11	105.6/119.6	75.3/84.9	PB convol with Batho	80	26 (7–66) (living pats)
19	Crabtree 2010 [48]	76	57–19	54	18	8–14	219.4	151.2	Trilogy, ns	89	19
20	Timmerman 2010 [49]	55	44–11	54	18	14	286.4	151.2	dens inhom corr	98	34 (5–50)
21	Videtic 2010 [50]	26	22–6	50	10	5	112.3	100	dens inhom corr	94	31 (10–51)
22	Andratschke 2011 [51]	92	31–61	24/45	3/5	5–12	192.2	84.4	dens inhom corr	83	21 (3–87)
23	Hamamoto 2012 [52]	128	101–27	48/60	9.2–14	4–10	105.6	89.9	PB, no dens inhom corr	85	18 (1–60)
24	Lagerwaard 2012 [53]	177	106–71	60	12 20 7.5	14	187.5	132.0	Brainlab, ns	93	32
	Shibamoto 2012 [54]							75.3	PB convo, Batho	83	36
25a	Shibamoto, d2	124	124 T1	48	12	9–21	105.6	75.3		86
25b	Shibamoto, d3	52	52 T2	52	13	9–21	119.6	84.9		73
	Shirata 2012 [55]		63–18					89.9	PB convolution Batho	89	30 (0.3–79)
26a	Shirata, d1	45		48	12		105.6	89.9		100
26b	Shirata, d2	29		60	7.5		105	91.4		82
	Takeda 2012 [56]								XiO/CMS, CS
27a	Takeda, d1	27	10–17	40	8	5	100	72.0		72	21 (6–64)
27b	Takeda, d2	138	91–47	50	10	5	140.6	100.0		87	21 (6–64)
28	Inoue 2013 [57]	109	79–30	45/48	15/12	4–7	105.6	75.3	dens inhom corr	81	25 (4–72)
29	Takeda 2013 [58]	109	67–42	40/50	8/10	5	140.6	100	convolution-superposition	84.4	24 (3–65)
30	Hamaji 2015 [59]	104	75–29	48	12	5	105.6	75.3	PB convol, Batho	76.7	43 (6–115)
31	Rwigema [60]	46	-	54	18	5	234.5	151.2	MC	95.5	16.8 (0.6–38.9)
	Median	57		56.0	12.5	7	119.8	89.9		86	27.0 (0.3–115)

BED ₁₀ biologically effective dose with α/β = 10 Gy, PTV planning target volume, D total dose, d dose per fraction, T total treatment time, LC local control, ns not specified, dens inhom corr density inhomogeneity correction, PB convol pencil beam convolution, CS convolution superposition

Back to article page

ISSN: 1748-717X

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com

Radiation Oncology

Contact us