The consequence of day-to-day stochastic dose deviation from the planned dose in fractionated radiation therapy
-
Received:
01 March 2015
Accepted:
29 June 2018
Published:
01 October 2015
-
-
MSC :
Primary: 92B05.
-
-
Radiation therapy is one of the important treatment procedures of cancer. The day-to-day delivered dose to the tissue in radiation therapy often deviates from the planned fixed dose per fraction. This day-to-day variation of radiation dose is stochastic. Here, we have developed the mathematical formulation to represent the day-to-day stochastic dose variation effect in radiation therapy. Our analysis shows that that the fixed dose delivery approximation under-estimates the biological effective dose, even if the average delivered dose per fraction is equal to the planned dose per fraction. The magnitude of the under-estimation effect relies upon the day-to-day stochastic dose variation level, the dose fraction size and the values of the radiobiological parameters of the tissue. We have further explored the application of our mathematical formulation for adaptive dose calculation. Our analysis implies that, compared to the premise of the Linear Quadratic Linear (LQL) framework, the Linear Quadratic framework based analytical formulation under-estimates the required dose per fraction necessary to produce the same biological effective dose as originally planned. Our study provides analytical formulation to calculate iso-effect in adaptive radiation therapy considering day-to-day stochastic dose deviation from planned dose and also indicates the potential utility of LQL framework in this context.
Citation: Subhadip Paul, Prasun Kumar Roy. The consequence of day-to-day stochastic dose deviation from the planned dose in fractionated radiation therapy[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2016, 13(1): 159-170. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2016.13.159
Related Papers:
[1] |
Yixun Xing, Casey Moore, Debabrata Saha, Dan Nguyen, MaryLena Bleile, Xun Jia, Robert Timmerman, Hao Peng, Steve Jiang .
Mathematical modeling of the synergetic effect between radiotherapy and immunotherapy. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2025, 22(5): 1206-1225.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025044
|
[2] |
Farinaz Forouzannia, Sivabal Sivaloganathan, Mohammad Kohandel .
A mathematical study of the impact of cell plasticity on tumour control probability. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(5): 5250-5266.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020284
|
[3] |
Erin N. Bodine, K. Lars Monia .
A proton therapy model using discrete difference equations with an example of treating hepatocellular carcinoma. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2017, 14(4): 881-899.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017047
|
[4] |
Krzysztof Fujarewicz, Krzysztof Łakomiec .
Adjoint sensitivity analysis of a tumor growth model and its application to spatiotemporal radiotherapy optimization. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2016, 13(6): 1131-1142.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2016034
|
[5] |
Khaphetsi Joseph Mahasa, Rachid Ouifki, Amina Eladdadi, Lisette de Pillis .
A combination therapy of oncolytic viruses and chimeric antigen receptor T cells: a mathematical model proof-of-concept. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(5): 4429-4457.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022205
|
[6] |
Amar Nath Chatterjee, Fahad Al Basir, Yasuhiro Takeuchi .
Effect of DAA therapy in hepatitis C treatment — an impulsive control approach. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(2): 1450-1464.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021075
|
[7] |
Shuo Wang, Heinz Schättler .
Optimal control of a mathematical model for cancer chemotherapy under tumor heterogeneity. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2016, 13(6): 1223-1240.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2016040
|
[8] |
Urszula Ledzewicz, Heinz Schättler, Mostafa Reisi Gahrooi, Siamak Mahmoudian Dehkordi .
On the MTD paradigm and optimal control for multi-drug cancer chemotherapy. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(3): 803-819.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.803
|
[9] |
Ami B. Shah, Katarzyna A. Rejniak, Jana L. Gevertz .
Limiting the development of anti-cancer drug resistance in a spatial model of micrometastases. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2016, 13(6): 1185-1206.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2016038
|
[10] |
Urszula Ledzewicz, Shuo Wang, Heinz Schättler, Nicolas André, Marie Amélie Heng, Eddy Pasquier .
On drug resistance and metronomic chemotherapy: A mathematical modeling and optimal control approach. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2017, 14(1): 217-235.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017014
|
-
Abstract
Radiation therapy is one of the important treatment procedures of cancer. The day-to-day delivered dose to the tissue in radiation therapy often deviates from the planned fixed dose per fraction. This day-to-day variation of radiation dose is stochastic. Here, we have developed the mathematical formulation to represent the day-to-day stochastic dose variation effect in radiation therapy. Our analysis shows that that the fixed dose delivery approximation under-estimates the biological effective dose, even if the average delivered dose per fraction is equal to the planned dose per fraction. The magnitude of the under-estimation effect relies upon the day-to-day stochastic dose variation level, the dose fraction size and the values of the radiobiological parameters of the tissue. We have further explored the application of our mathematical formulation for adaptive dose calculation. Our analysis implies that, compared to the premise of the Linear Quadratic Linear (LQL) framework, the Linear Quadratic framework based analytical formulation under-estimates the required dose per fraction necessary to produce the same biological effective dose as originally planned. Our study provides analytical formulation to calculate iso-effect in adaptive radiation therapy considering day-to-day stochastic dose deviation from planned dose and also indicates the potential utility of LQL framework in this context.
References
[1]
|
Phys. Med. Biol., 59 (2014), 289-310.
|
[2]
|
Br. J. Radiol., 62 (1989), 679-694.
|
[3]
|
Eur. Phys. J. B, 69 (2009), 1-3.
|
[4]
|
J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys., 13 (2012), 1-3.
|
[5]
|
Med. Phys., 37 (2010), 4173-4181.
|
[6]
|
2nd edition, Springer, Berlin, 2006.
|
[7]
|
Science, 319 (2008), 810-813.
|
[8]
|
Acta Math., 30 (1906), 175-193.
|
[9]
|
4th edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2009.
|
[10]
|
1st edition, Springer, London, 1992.
|
[11]
|
2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1962.
|
[12]
|
2nd edition, The American Cancer Society, Inc., Atlanta, 1995.
|
[13]
|
Amer. Math. Monthly, 100 (1993), 768-771.
|
[14]
|
Trends Ecol. Evol., 14 (1999), 361-366.
|
[15]
|
J. Radiother. Pract., 8 (2009), 185-194.
|
[16]
|
Biophys. J., 96 (2009), 3573-3581.
|
[17]
|
Phys. Med. Biol., 42 (1997), 123-132.
|
[18]
|
J. Chem. Phys., 80 (1984), 720-729.
|
-
-
-
-