Iranian Journal of Medical Physics

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics

Prediction of Pituitary Gland Complications by LKB and Log-Logistic Radiobiological Models in 3D Conformal Radiation Therapy of Head and Neck Tumors

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors
Sevda Shahbazi 1
Amir Ghasemi Jangjoo 2
Reza Eghdam Zamiri 2
Behnam Nasiri Motlagh 2
mohammad mohammadzadeh 2
murat okutan 3
Asghar Mesbahi 2
1 Molecular Medicine Research Center, Institute of Biomedicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
2 Medical Radiation Sciences Research Team, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
3 Department of Medical Physics, Radiation Oncology Institute, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
10.22038/ijmp.2020.44588.1685
Abstract
Introduction: The pituitary gland is frequently irradiated during radiation therapy of head and neck tumors which can influence the quality of life of the patients after radiation therapy. This study aimed to estimate the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the pituitary gland in head and neck cancers using two radiobiological models.
Material and Methods: 53 patients including 20 cases with nasopharyngeal cancer and 33 cases with brain tumor were studied. The dosimetric properties of each plan including minimum, mean and maximum doses were extracted from the dose-volume histogram curve. For estimation of pituitary gland response for each patient, the BIOPLAN software was used to calculate NTCP by LKB model and Matlab software was applied to calculate NTCP by equivalent uniform dose              (EUD) model. Models’ parameters including TD50, , and‘a’ were extracted from a previous study of radiobiological modeling of pituitary gland response to radiation therapy. For statistical analysis, the T-test was used to compare two models.
Results: The average mean doses of 30.42 and 51.29 (Gy) of the pituitary gland were obtained for nasopharyngeal and brain tumor patients, respectively. The average NTCPs of the pituitary gland for nasopharyngeal patients estimated by LKB and Log-logistic models were 3.84 and 3.91%, respectively. In brain tumors, the average NTCP was 16.33% for LKB and 16.41% for Log-logistic models. The results showed that the log-logistic and LKB models provided comparable results and no statistically significant difference (P-value< 0.05) was found between two models.
Conclusion: The NTCP results indicated that the average NTCP of the pituitary gland for nasopharyngeal patients was approximately four times lower than that of brain tumors. Finally, implementation of follow up studies and modeling investigations are recommended for accurate estimation of pituitary gland complications following radiation therapy.
Keywords
Radiotherapy
Pituitary Gland
Radiobiological Models NTCP
Subjects
  1. Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, Cola L, Goitein M, Munzenrider JE, et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991; 21:109-22.
  2. Niemierko A, Goitein M. Calculation of normal tissue complication probability and dose-volume histogram reduction schemes for tissues with a critical element architecture. Radiother and Oncol. 1991; 20:166-76.
  3. Mesbahi A, Rasuli N, Nasiri B. Radiobiological Model-Based Comparison of Three-Dimensional Conformal and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Plans for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma. Iranian J of Med Phys. 2017; 14:190-6.
  4. Namdar AM, Mohammadzadeh M, Okutan M, Mesbahi A. A review on the dosimetrical and radiobiological prediction of radiation-induced hypothyroidism in radiation therapy of head-and-neck cancer, breast cancer, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma survivors. Polish J of Med Phys and Eng. 2018; 24:137-48.
  5. Vokes EE, Weichselbaum RR, Lippman SM, Hong WK. Head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med Overseas Ed. 1993; 328:184-94.
  6. Shalet SM, Morris-Jones PH, Beardwell CG, Pearson D. Pituitary function after treatment of intracranial tumours in children. The Lancet. 1975; 306:104-7.
  7. Pomarede R, Czernichow P, Zucker JM, Schlienger P, Haye C, Rosenwald JC, et al. Incidence of anterior pituitary deficiency after radiotherapy at an early age: study in retinoblastoma. Acta Paediatrica. 1984; 1:115-9.
  8. Samaan NA, Schultz PN, Yang KP, Vassilopoulou-Sellin R, Maor MH, Cangir A, et al. Endocrine complications after radiotherapy for tumors of the head and neck. The J of lab and clinic med. 1987; 109:364-72.
  9. Darzy KH, Shalet SM. Hypopituitarism as a consequence of brain tumours and radiotherapy. Pituitary. 2005; 8:203-11.
  10. Agha A, Sherlock M, Brennan S, O’Connor SA, O’Sullivan E, Rogers B, et al. Hypothalamic-pituitary dysfunction after irradiation of nonpituitary brain tumors in adults. Int J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005; 90:6355-60.
  11. Pai HH, Thornton A, Katznelson L, Finkelstein DM, Adams JA, Fullerton BC, et al. Hypothalamic/pituitary function following high-dose conformal radiotherapy to the base of skull: demonstration of a dose–effect relationship using dose–volume histogram analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001; 49:1079-92.
  12. Follin C, Erfurth EM. Long-term effect of cranial radiotherapy on pituitary-hypothalamus area in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia survivors. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2016; 17:50.
  13. Darzy KH, Shalet SM. Radiation-induced growth hormone deficiency. Horm Res Paediatr. 2003; 59:1.
  14. Toogood AA, David W, Ryder J, Beardwell CG, Shalet SM. The evolution of radiation‐induced growth hormone deficiency in adults is determined by the baseline growth hormone status. Clin endocrine. 1995; 1:97-103.
  15. Mohan R, Mageras GS, Baldwin B, Brewster LJ, Kutcher GJ, Leibel S, et al. Clinically relevant optimization of 3‐D conformal treatments. Med Phys. 1992; 4:933-44.
  16. Källman P, Ågren A, Brahme A. Tumour and normal tissue responses to fractionated non-uniform dose delivery. Int J Radiat Biol. 1992; 62:249-62.
  17. Lyman JT. Complication probability as assessed from dose-volume histograms. Rad Res. 1985; 104:13-9.
  18. Niemierko A, Goitein M. Modeling of normal tissue response to radiation: the critical volume model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993; 25:135-45.
  19. Jackson A, Kutcher GJ, Yorke ED. Probability of radiation‐induced complications for normal tissues with parallel architecture subject to non‐uniform irradiation. Med Phys. 1993; 3:613-25.
  20. Sanchez-Nieto B, Nahum AE. BIOPLAN: software for the biological evaluation of radiotherapy treatment plans. Med Dos. 2000; 25:71-6.
  21. D'Avino V, Conson M, Palma G, Liuzzi R, Magliulo M, Pacelli R, et al. Normal Tissue Complication Probability Models for Radiation-Induced Hypothyroidism in Hodgkin Lymphoma Survivors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 96:638.
  22. De Marzi L, Feuvret L, Boulé T, Habrand JL, Martin F, Calugaru V, et al. Use of gEUD for predicting ear and   pituitary gland damage following proton and photon radiation therapy. Br J Radiol. 2015; 88:1-22.
  23. Wu Q, Mohan R, Niemierko A, Schmidt-Ullrich R. Optimization of intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans based on the equivalent uniform dose. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.2002; 52:224-35.
  24. Niemierko A. Reporting and analyzing dose distributions: a concept of equivalent uniform dose. Med Phys. 1997; 1:103-10.
  25. Niemierko A, Goitein M. Calculation of normal tissue complication probability and dose-volume histogram reduction schemes for tissues with a critical element architecture. Radiother and Oncol. 1991; 20:166-76.
  26. Scoccianti S, Detti B, Gadda D, Greto D, Furfaro I, Meacci F, et al. Organs at risk in the brain and their dose-constraints in adults and in children: a radiation oncologist’s guide for delineation in everyday practice. Radiother and Oncol. 2015; 114:230-8.
  27. Lambrecht M, Eekers DB, Alapetite C, Burnet NG, Calugaru V, Coremans IE, et al. Radiation dose constraints for organs at risk in neuro-oncology; the European Particle Therapy Network consensus. Radiother and Oncol. 2018; 128:26-36.
  28. Darzy KH. Radiation-induced hypopituitarism after cancer therapy: who, how and when to test. Nat Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab .2009; 5:88.

 

 

 

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 18, Issue 3
May and June 2021
Pages 203-210

  • Receive Date 25 November 2019
  • Revise Date 21 April 2020
  • Accept Date 28 April 2020