Unscheduled interruption of a radiotherapy treatment can lead to significant loss in local tumour control, particularly in tumours that repopulate rapidly. This article further elaborates on the practical application of these methods. Simple calculations are used to illustrate the approaches which may be adapted for particular situations.
Descrição original:
Título original
13_05_2014_Practical Methods for Compensating for Missed Treatment.pdf
Unscheduled interruption of a radiotherapy treatment can lead to significant loss in local tumour control, particularly in tumours that repopulate rapidly. This article further elaborates on the practical application of these methods. Simple calculations are used to illustrate the approaches which may be adapted for particular situations.
Unscheduled interruption of a radiotherapy treatment can lead to significant loss in local tumour control, particularly in tumours that repopulate rapidly. This article further elaborates on the practical application of these methods. Simple calculations are used to illustrate the approaches which may be adapted for particular situations.
doi:10.1053/clon.2002.0111, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
Original Article Practical Methods for Compensating for Missed Treatment Days in Radiotherapy, with Particular Reference to Head and Neck Schedules R. G. Dale*, J. H. Hendry, B. Jones*, A. G. Robertson, C. Deehan, J. A. Sinclair* *Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust/Imperial College School of Medicine, London, U.K.; Paterson Institute for Cancer Research, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester, U.K.; Beatson Oncology Centre, Western Inrmary, Glasgow, U.K.; Department of Medical Physics, Leicester Royal Inrmary, Leicester, U.K. ABSTRACT: Unscheduled interruption of a radiotherapy treatment can lead to signicant loss in local tumour control, particularly in tumours that repopulate rapidly. General guidelines for dealing with such treatment gaps have been issued by the Royal College of Radiologists and more specic advice on the use of compensation methods has been published previously [Hendry et al., Clin Oncol 1996;8:297307; Slevin et al., Radiother Oncol 1992;24:215220]. This article further elaborates on the practical application of these methods. It sets out the main considerations arising in the especially critical case of head and neck treatments and simple calculations are used to illustrate the approaches which may be adapted for particular situations. Radiobiological parameter values are suggested for use in the calculations, but these may require modication in the light of further research in this important area. Dale, R. G. et al. (2002). Clinical Oncology 14, 382393 2002 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Key words: Cancer, cell kinetics, fractionation, overall time, radiotherapy, time factors in radiotherapy, treatment interruptions Received: 5 July 2001 Accepted: 2 May 2002 Introduction Local tumour control can be adversely aected by prolongation of overall treatment time in radiotherapy. A number of studies have highlighted that tumour cell repopulation can produce losses in local control which, particularly for squamous cell cancers of the head and neck region, may amount to 12% per day of treatment prolongation [1,2]. Similarly, recent studies on non- small cell lung cancer and cervix carcinoma have indi- cated respectively 1.6% and 0.8% loss of local control per day of treatment extension [3,4]. Adherence to radiotherapy schedules is therefore important if individ- ual treatments are not to be compromised. However, there are occasions when unforeseen interruptions occur, prime causes being equipment breakdown or unwell patients and the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) in 1996 issued guidelines for dealing with unscheduled treatment interruptions [5]. In parallel with these guidelines a more detailed review of the evidence for the deleterious eects of treatment prolongation was published, together with a comparative assessment of the methods available for the compensation of missed treatment days [1]. Many U.K. departments have since implemented measures for handling unscheduled treatment interrup- tions and the evolving experience has highlighted that some diculties remain, particularly with respect to terminology and in relation to how to use the various radiobiological parameter values. This article reiterates some of the points previously discussed [1], but in addition it specically elaborates on the practical issues which arise when devising compensations for inter- rupted treatments. Although some methods of treatment compensation are clearly preferable to others, practical factors (machine availability, ability of centres to work extended hours and/or weekends, ability of an unwell patient to undergo the full compensation, etc.) also inuence the decision regarding which form of compen- sation to adopt. It is therefore of some importance (particularly in more dicult cases) to examine two or three possible solutions in order to identify a compro- mise scheme which helps the patient without causing severe disruption to local service arrangements. The methods described below are those to be considered Author for correspondence: Dr R. G. Dale, Radiation, Physics & Radiobiology, Charing Cross Hospital, London W6 8RF, U.K. E-mail: r.dale@ic.ac.uk 09366555/02/040382+12 $35.00/0 2002 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. when technical failures have caused the interruption. For gaps resulting from adverse clinical reactions the methodology is the same but the condition of the patient may mean that it is not always possible to compensate to the same extent. Although this paper concentrates on head and neck squamous cell cancer, the methodology is applicable to other sites provided appropriate alternative parameter values are used. Inuence of unscheduled treatment interruptions on tumour repopulation Figure 1 is a simplied diagram showing how the total (physical) dose for a given tumour response (e.g. 50% tumour control probability when the dose is delivered in 2 Gy fractions) is assumed to vary with treatment time. If the treatment is completed before the initiation of accelerated repopulation (denoted by the rising line beginning at time T delay ) then the dose required in this region is xed and is independent of the treatment time used. If, however, the treatment is of duration greater than T delay days, the iso-eect dose increases in order to compensate for the consequent tumour repopulation, the dose in this region now being time-dependent. The dose prescribed in schedules which extend beyond T delay days will inherently include extra dose to compensate for the repopulation eect. Figure 2 illustrates a prescribed treatment which is scheduled to be completed at time T. If there occurs an unscheduled interruption of duration t days during the treatment, and no allowance is immediately made for this, then the treatment will need to be extended by t days at the end of the prescribed schedule. To maintain the tumour iso-eect would require the addition of extra dose, incurring an associated penalty (impaired Therapeutic Index) in terms of a higher normal tissue dose. To prevent overdosing of the normal tissue would require that the supplementary tumour dose be reduced, also with detrimental eect. If, however, the unscheduled interruption could be compensated for by delivering the missing dose (by extra daily fractions, or weekend treatments), without extending thetreatment duration, no such penalty would be incurred. This demonstrates an important point: it is the likelihood of extension to the treatment time, rather than the gap per se, which is the main cause for concern when interruptions occur. A further point is that unscheduled gaps occurring early in treatment (before the onset of tumour repopulation), if they lead to a treatment extension, are assumed to be no less detrimen- tal (on current evidence) than those occurring later in treatment. The dierence between an early- and late- interruption is practical rather than radiobiological: with the former more time remains within the prescribed schedule to eect a satisfactory compensation. More detailed schematics illustrating the problems of treatment interruptions have been published elsewhere [68]. Equations The biologically eective dose (BED) received by a uniformly irradiated tissue which is concurrently repopulating is calculated as: where n is the number of fractions, d is the dose per fraction, T is the overall treatment time. T delay is the delay time (from the beginning of treatment) before the onset of signicant repopulation [9]. / (in units of Gy) is the fractionation factor and K (in units of Gy day 1 ) is the biological dose per day required to compensate for Fig. 1 Schematic showing how the total dose required for a given tumour control probability (TCP) changes with increasing treatment duration. The horizontal and sloped lines demonstrate how the dose rises steadily after an initial delay period. coxirNs:1ioN ro xissrn 1r:1xrN1 n:xs iN :nio1nr:ix 383 on-going tumour cell repopulation. K is the BED- equivalent of 1 days worth of repopulation [9]. The expression in square brackets in Eqn (1) is termed the Relative Eectiveness factor (RE). Both / and K are tissue-specic and appropriate values must be selected for each when calculating tumour BEDs. As applied to a tumour, Eqn (1) may be remembered in words as: BED=Total physical dose RERepopulation Factor (RF) For most late-responding normal tissues the prolifer- ation rate is usually so small (except in cases where consequential late reactions are dose-limiting [10]) that K can be neglected, i.e. K=0 and RF=0 in such cases. It has become conventional practice to place the / value used in the BED calculation as a subscript to both, the BED symbol and its associated numerical value. For example, a stated BED 3 of 100 Gy 3 indicates that /=3 Gy was used in calculating that particular biologi- cal dose. The use of the subscript reinforces the point that biological dose is conceptually dierent to physical dose, even though both are in similar dimensions. Bio- logical doses expressed in (for example) Gy 10 can be added to other Gy 10 values to provide a measure of resultant eect, but it is not permissible to add (say) Gy 3 values to Gy 10 values. Eqn (1) is valid in cases where the fractions are relatively well-spaced. When two or more fractions are delivered per day there may be incomplete repair of sub-lethal damage between successive fractions, leading to increased biological damage [11]. This is particularly so withregard to late reactions. In such cases Eqn (1) is changed to: Factor h in Eqn (4) reects the increased damage caused by incomplete repair. It is complex in form and is dependent on the inter-fraction intervals (which are not usually the same between all fractions) and the repair kinetics. The derivation of the h factor is discussed in the Appendix. There may be occasions when compensation for unscheduled treatment gaps will involve the use of many relatively close fractions (less than 8 h between fractions) and, in such cases, the eects of incomplete repair should be borne in mind. If there is to be more than one day on which twice-or thrice daily fraction- ation is required then, where possible, such days should not be consecutive. It is recommended that allowances for incomplete-repair should always be included when the use of four or more closely-spaced fractions is unavoidable. A later example (Example 5) will illustrate some of the issues involved. Eqns (1) and (2) provide the basis for devising com- pensation for unscheduled treatment interruptions, but there are many instances where they need to be utilized in a slightly dierent form. Rather than list a family of related equations, the methodology appropriate to par- ticular circumstances will be explained in the worked examples. Fig. 2 Showing the eect of a treatment extension, caused by an earlier unscheduled gap. If the treatment extends into the time period where steady tumour repopulation is occurring, extra dose (X) is required to compensate for this. It should be noted that this will be the case even if, as here, the unscheduled gap occurred during the period prior to the initiation of tumour repopulation. 384 ciiNic:i oNcoiocx Recommended values of /, K and T delay The range of / values usually considered for head and neck cancers is around 1020 Gy [12]. A preliminary analysis of the recently reported RTOG9003 head and neck trial indicates a value just below the bottom end of this range [13]. We therefore suggest that a generic / value of 10 Gy be used for head and neck cancers, but this gure should be kept under review. For late-responding normal tissues a generic / of 3 Gy is generally recommended. The important excep- tions to this are brain and spinal cord, for each of which an / value of 2 Gy should be used, reduced further to 1.5 Gy when fraction sizes greater than 2 Gy are employed. A reduced / of 2.5 Gy may also be prefer- able for normal tissues in cases where there are concerns that tolerance may be clinically compromised [11]. A comprehensive tabulation of / values for various nor- mal tissue and tumours can be found in the chapter by Joiner and van der Kogel in reference [14]. The data reviewed for the previous Clinical Oncology article on gap compensation [1] indicated that head and neck K factors were in the range 0.50.74 Gy day 1 . Since then more sophisticated analyses of multi-centre data have shown that K values are likely to be higher than originally believed. Roberts and Hendry [15] have conducted a meta- analysis of larynx treatment results from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester and Toronto, leading to an upwardly revised K estimate of 1.2 (95% CL 0.82.2) Gy day 1 . The results of the RTOG9003 head and neck trial [16] also lend support to the likelihood of higher K values with early analyses of those data suggesting K values of 0.940.99 Gy day 1 [13,17]. The head and neck tumour control data collated by Withers et al. [12] demonstrated a dog-leg eect of the type illustrated in Fig. 1 and have been analysed in detail by Hendry and Roberts [18], who found the repopulation delay time (T delay ) to be 29 (95% CL 1731) days. For the shorter Manchester treatment regimes the delay time was established as 26 (95% CL 1933) days. On the basis of the above, and bearing in mind the relatively large condence intervals and the fact that the tted values of K and T delay must be used together, we suggest that respective working values of 0.9 Gy day 1 and 28 days be adopted for head and neck cancers. It is stressed that neither of these recommended values can yet be considered as denitive and that they must be reviewed in the light of continuing research. The recommended K value of 0.9 Gy day 1 repre- sents the BED required each day (after T delay has been passed) to oset repopulation. If / for tumours is taken as 10 Gy then, more specically, K is the BED- equivalent of repopulation in units of Gy 10 per day. This means that, when 2 Gy fractions are being used, the daily physical dose required to oset the repopulation after time T delay is K/[1+2/10]=0.75 Gy day 1 , i.e. for each 2 Gy fraction delivered, (0.75/2)100=38% is wasted in combating repopulation. Values of K and T delay are derived on the basis that there is an intrinsic pairing between them. This arises because there is an a priori assumption that there is zero population in the period up to T delay , meaning that the paired parameter values provide the best t to the observed increases in dose over the whole range of treatment times studied. The data relating to time factors and the eects of gaps for head and neck treatments were reviewed up to 1996 in the previous article [1]. That review discussed the fact that the time factor was approximately the same during protracted treatments as in split-course treat- ments and that there were contradictory suggestions regarding the relative importance of gaps early or late in the schedule. Since 1996 the importance of treatment interruptions in radiotherapy for oropharyngeal carci- nomas has been highlighted [19]. Evidence has also emerged that the position of the gap is not important and that the loss of tumour control following each day of interruption of a head and neck treatment is about the same as occurs when conventional schedules are protracted [20,21]. The latter feature was conrmed in a human xenograft tumour model in mice [22]. In con- trast, in rat tumours it has been shown that the position of the gap does matter [23]. Regarding the combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, there are reports of a lack of a time factor in alternating chemoradiotherapy for advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma [24]. Long gaps were found to be detrimental to local control in anal canal carcinoma treated by split-course radiotherapy and concomitant chemotherapy [25]. As discussed earlier, the assumptions in the head and neck data tting exercises inherently excluded the possi- bility of there being any repopulation in the period up to the T delay time point, but that does not mean that repopulation does not occur in that time. Indeed, other analyses suggest that repopulation does occur from the beginning of treatment [26]. There thus arises the ques- tion of what K factor should be used in interrupted treatments for which the nal overall time is less than T delay . Withers et al. [12] suggested that the repopulation rate during the early part of treatment reected the pre-treatment tumour growth-rate. Examination of the slopes before and after the delay time suggests they are in the approximate ratio 1:10, i.e. that the K value to use prior to T delay is one-tenth that used after the delay point. For head and neck treatments we therefore rec- ommend K=0.1 Gy day 1 and T delay =0 in cases where the nal overall times are less that 28 days. It is emphasized that these values are suggested on the basis of the evidence currently available; they cannot be regarded as being denitive. Although the methodology described in this paper is more widely applicable, there is at present very little data relating to K and T delay factors for other tumour types. For non-small-cell lung tumours there is evidence that the loss of local control per day towards the end of treatment is about the same as that for head and neck cancers [3,27]. For cervix tumours the time factors are coxirNs:1ioN ro xissrn 1r:1xrN1 n:xs iN :nio1nr:ix 385 probably around half those for head and neck tumours, i.e. c0.5 Gy day 1 [1]. For breast tumours the K fac- tors are likely to be around 0.3 Gy day 1 while for prostate tumours they are likely to be in the region 0.10.3 Gy day 1 , or even lower [2830]. Little is known about the corresponding values of T delay . Calculation process The table below (based on reference [1]) identies the main methods for compensation and the associated benets and diculties. Interrupted treatments need to be evaluated on an individual basis and there is no universal method for tackling all problems. However, most examples will involve a series of general steps which may be summarized as follows: Once an unscheduled gap has occurred, rst determine the remaining treatment time and the number of frac- tions still to be delivered. Determine if there are ways of delivering these fractions to allow the originally pre- scribed treatment time to be maintained, e.g. by treating at weekends or by giving all or part of the remaining treatment twice-daily. If this is possible then further radiobiological calculations may not be necessary. (Ex- amples 1 and 2 below relate to such a case). If this option is not feasible (i.e. it is not possible to complete treatment within the prescribed treatment time) then: (1) First calculate the tumour and normal tissue BEDs for the prescribed schedule. Both BEDs are calculated via Eqn (1) but, for the late-reacting normal tissue, K is set to zero. (2) Determine the overall time until the beginning of the unscheduled gap and, hence, the respective pre-gap BEDs. (3) Determine the late-normal BED still to give (the post-gap BED). (4) Review the various treatment options (e.g. twice-daily fractionation and hyperfractionation, increased fraction sizes, etc.) to ascertain which will be likely to produce the minimum extension to the treatment time, then calculate the required dose per fraction to achieve the required late-normal BED value. Calculate the resulting tumour BED for this option, remembering to make allowance for the extended time (Example 36 below demonstrate various versions of this scenario). (5) Review the nal tumour and normal tissue BEDs which will result from the preferred compensation option. If the tumour BED is signicantly smaller than that originally prescribed a degree of clinical judgement may be required in order to ne tune the compensation in order to arrive at a reasonable compromise. (Examples 46 illustrate the dilemmas which may be involved in such cases). It is stressed that these are general steps. For example, if the favoured compensation option involves closely- spaced fractions after the gap, the modied BED for- mula [Eqn (2)] must be used to determine the possible enhancement to normal tissue toxicity as a consequence of incomplete-repair. It is suggested that if a total of four Method Benet Diculty (1a) Retain overall time and dose per fraction by treating on weekend days as necessary. Overall time, fraction size, inter-fraction interval and Therapeutic Index maintained. Unsocial hours and associated costs. May not be appropriate for gaps occurring near the end of a schedule. (1b) Retain overall time and dose per fraction by treating twice-daily as necessary. Overall time and fraction size maintained. Possible loss of late-normal tissue tolerance when several fractions have to be delivered at 68 h inter-fraction intervals. Scheduling diculties. (2a) Retain overall time by increasing dose per fraction for same number of post-gap days as there were gap days. Overall time retained by accepting reduced number of fractions. Still one fraction on each treatment day. Not suitable for schedules which already use high dose per fraction. Therapeutic Index adversely aected: Seeking equivalence for tumour control gives increase in late reactions. Seeking equivalence for late-reactions leads to tumour under-dosage. (2b) Retain overall time by using smaller number of larger fractions after the gap. Overall time retained. Still one fraction per day. As above. (3a) Accept that treatment extension is unavoidable and deliver extra fractions, using increased dose per fraction to minimize the extension duration. Allows at least partial restoration of the prescribed schedule. Therapeutic Index adversely aected. Might require acceptance of both reduced tumour control and increased late-eects. (3b) As for 3(a) but use twice-daily fractions and a slightly reduced treatment extension. As above. As for 3(a), but deterioration in Therapeutic Index is not so marked. 386 ciiNic:i oNcoiocx fractions or more are to be given at twice-daily intervals (or more frequently) then the eects of incomplete repair should always be considered. Worked examples Worked examples 13 each consider the handling of 5-day gaps. In practice the majority of unscheduled interruptions involve interruptions of 5 days or less and are relatively easy to deal with. With a gap of just 1 or 2 days dierent policies may apply in dierent centres. Examples 15 involve a reference schedule of 70 Gy delivered in 35 fractions over 46 days, typically used for Category 1 head and neck tumours. The overall time of 46 days corresponds to a treatment beginning on a Monday, continues with daily-fractionation for 7 weeks with no treatment at weekends and nishes on a Friday. For a similar 35 fraction schedule which begins mid- week the treatment time will be longer (because the treatment will extend into an eighth week) and specic calculations should allow for this. For other schedules, e.g. the commonly used 4-week treatments, the principle involved in determining a method of compensation is exactly the same as set out in the 7-week treatments used here. In such cases, however, there is more concern about b.i.d treatments if the dose per fraction is already signicantly larger than 2 Gy, because of the greater potential for incomplete repair. Example 6 elaborates on this and also discusses a treatment which does not begin on a Monday. In all the examples requiring calculations, the process here has been to devise a compensation scheme to maintain the desired late-reacting BED and then, as necessary, to consider alternatives in the light of how much the resultant tumour BED is compromised. This is done because late morbidity is often the most critical concern in radiotherapy and some normal tissue para- meter values are more reliably known than those for tumours. Also, because late-responding tissues are associated with less heterogeneity than tumours they often exhibit steeper dose-response curves, i.e. any deviations from the BEDs associated with the original schedule will be more critical for the normal tissues. Notwithstanding this view, however, there may be instances where clinicians decide from the outset to accept the risk of an elevated late-normal BED in order to maintain a desired tumour eect. Example 1. Loss of all of the third week (ve fractions) of a treatment schedule of 70 Gy/35 fractions/46 days. Assuming the treatment began on a Monday, the intended overall treatment time is 46 days. After the gap, treatment resumes on the Monday of the fourth week of the schedule. Ten fractions have been delivered; 25 remain to be given. If treatment is to be completed on the prescribed nishing date the available number of days (including weekends) is 26. Thus the missed dose in the gap can be compensated for by delivering the remainder of the treatment on weekdays (20 fractions) and on ve of the six remaining weekend days. This does not involve changing the fraction size and, as the treatment is not extended, constitutes a good compensation. If weekend treatments are not feasible a good com- pensation is still possible if, on ve of the 20 remaining treatment days, two fractions are delivered instead of one. The important proviso is that the twice-daily frac- tions must be delivered with a minimum time gap between them of at least 6 h, preferably 8 h, in order to minimize any potential problems with incomplete repair [31]. It is further recommended that the days on which twice-daily treatments are delivered are not consecutive, but spaced throughout the available time period. In this instance Fridays are a good choice for delivery of some of the twice-daily fractions as there is a greater oppor- tunity for completion of repair before treatment resumes the following week. Example 2. Loss of all of the sixth week (ve fractions) of a treatment schedule of 70 Gy/35 fractions/46 days. After the gap, treatment resumes on the Monday of the seventh week of the schedule. Twenty-ve fractions have been delivered; 10 remain to be given. Ideally these 10 fractions should be delivered over the ve remaining treatment days. The missed dose can therefore be compensated for by delivering the remainder of the treatment as twice-daily fractions in each weekday of the nal week. This does not involve changing the fraction size and, as the treatment is not extended, constitutes a good compensation. A better solution, if feasible, would be also to make use of the weekend before the nal week of treatment, thus providing 7 days within which 10 fractions have to be delivered. Bi-daily fractionation could be used (for example) on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, single fractions on the other 4 days. The advantage of the latter scheme is that it reduces the likelihood of creating excess biological damage if there is incomplete repair between fractions. Examples 1 and 2 represent sound solutions for dealing with unscheduled interruptions; they do not involve changing fraction size or overall time and, provided there is reasonable spacing between treatment days on which bi-daily treatment is given, do not invoke any quantitative evaluations or serious radiobio- logical dilemmas. The following examples illustrate the compromises involved in more dicult cases. Example 3. Loss of all of the seventh week (ve fractions) of a treatment schedule of 70 Gy/35 fractions/46 days. For the prescribed treatment the normal tissue BED (BED 3 ) is, from Eqn (1) with K=0: coxirNs:1ioN ro xissrn 1r:1xrN1 n:xs iN :nio1nr:ix 387 The tumour BED (BED 10 ), also from Eqn (1) but with K=0.9 and T delay =28 days is: In this example the unscheduled gap extends to the time when treatment should have nished and any form of compensation will therefore extend the treatment time beyond the scheduled time. We begin by assuming that the missing dose is replaced by treating ve 2 Gy fractions over a full extra (eighth) week, beginning on a Monday. On completion, the overall time is 7 days longer than scheduled. With a daily BED-equivalent of tumour repopulation of 0.9 Gy day 1 the tumour BED 10 will be lower than intended by an amount 70.9=6.3 Gy 10 . The late- normal BED 3 will be as prescribed. If, instead, the outstanding daily treatments are given in the period SaturdayWednesday, the net treatment extension is 5 days, i.e. the tumour BED 10 is low by a smaller factor of 50.9=4.5 Gy 10 . A further alternative is to treat two fractions per day on Saturday and Monday with one fraction on Sunday, thus extending treatment by 3 days. In this case the tumour BED 10 will be low by an even smaller amount of 30.9=2.7 Gy 10 . In each of these instances the normal tissue BED 3 will be as prescribed. The dilemmas arise when attempts are made to increase the total dose in order to restore the tumour BED 10 to that originally prescribed; in this case it is impossible to do that without increasing the normal tissue BED 3 [8]. Delivering extra dose by treating with extra fractions has the eect of further extending the treatment time, which may compound the original prob- lem. Increasing the dose per fraction helps minimize the treatment extension but, because of the greater sensitiv- ity of the late-responding critical tissue to changes in dose per fractions, will increase the normal tissue bio- logical dose proportionately more than that for the tumour. We next consider an instance where it is felt essential to restore the tumour BED 10 to what it should be, initially without regard for the eect on the normal tissue. We assume the option of treating additionally over the weekend is to be adopted, i.e. the overall time is 46+5=51 days. The tumour BED 10 of 67.8 Gy 10 is to be maintained. Therefore, for the whole schedule (pre-gap plus post- gap): BED 10 (pre-gap)+BED 10 (post-gap)Tumour Repopulation Factor=Required BED 10 where d is the new value of dose per fraction to be utilized over the ve fractions. The solution for d in the above equation is d=2.62 Gy, i.e. 52.62 Gy will restore the tumour BED 10 to that initially prescribed. Again it should be noted that the required extra BED 10 of (50.9)=4.5 Gy 10 cannot be added simply pro-rata across the ve 2 Gy fractions. The values of the biologi- cal Gy 10 and the physical Gy units are dierent and they cannot be added; to do so would lead to an even higher fraction dose of 2.9 Gy. This and other subtleties associ- ated with the use BED-equivalents has been discussed in more depth elsewhere [9,11]. For the normal tissue, the compensated treatment increases the BED 3 to: BED 3 (pre-gap)+BED 3 (post-gap) i.e. Thus the revised treatment delivers a 6.7% excess in normal tissue BED 3 . To evaluate what this compensated scheme would mean in terms of the equivalent dose in a schedule delivered with 2 Gy fractions we note that, by re-arrangement of Eqn (1) and omitting the repopulation factor: i.e. the total dose in 2 Gy fractions would be 74.7 Gy. Thus, the given normal tissue BED 3 is approximately equivalent to 372 Gy fractions. If the normal tissue dose is considered too high it is possible to split the dierence, i.e. aim to achieve a tumour BED 10 which is a little less than that prescribed whilst accepting a small increase in normal tissue BED 3 . Such a result may be arrived at by trial and error processing of dierent values of dose per fraction. For instance, in the above example an intermediate dose per fraction of 2.3 Gy would deliver a total tumour BED 10 of: BED 10 (pre-gap)+BED 10 (post-gap)Tumour Repopulation Factor i.e. The normal tissue BED is: BED 3 (pre-gap)+BED 3 (post-gap) 388 ciiNic:i oNcoiocx i.e. Thus, with 2.3 Gy fractions in the compensation, the tumour and normal tissue BEDs are respectively 3.5% lower and 3.1% higher than for the uninterrupted sched- ule. The eects of higher or lower values of dose per fraction could be tested, as appropriate, using the same process. It is stressed that the process of hypofraction- ating treatment after the gap is not necessarily the best option: a better result is likely to be obtained if some extra fractions can be used (via bi-daily fractionation) in order to further reduce fraction size. Worked examples for more complex cases Unscheduled interruptions of longer than 5 days are generally more dicult to deal with as there is less chance of completing treatment without incurring a signicant extension of the treatment time. The following examples highlight such cases. Example 4. Loss of all of the sixth and seventh weeks (10 fractions) of a treatment schedule of 70 Gy/35 fractions/ 46 days. As in Example 3, the unscheduled gap runs right up to the time when treatment should have nished. In this case however, a very signicant part of the treatment has yet to be delivered. In order to minimize the consequent extension to treatment time it is inevitable that an increased dose per fraction will need to be considered if treatment is to be delivered in once-daily fractions. We initially attempt to complete treatment in ve fractions delivered during the eighth week, i.e. the treatment time is extended by 7 days to 53 days. We rst aim to match the prescribed late-normal tissue BED 3 (116.7 Gy 3 ), i.e. the dose per fraction to use is d, where d is solved from: BED 3 (pre-gap)+BED 3 (post-gap)=Required BED 3 . i.e. for which d=3.22 Gy. This same dose per fraction would produce a resultant tumour BED 10 of: BED 10 (pre-gap)+BED 10 (post-gap)Tumour Repopulation Factor i.e. Thus, despite using a relatively large dose per fraction for the last ve fractions, the resultant tumour BED 10 is 13.2% less than prescribed. If the weekend prior to the eighth treatment week is used for treatment then seven fractions may be delivered, leading to a fractional dose of 2.57 Gy and a tumour BED 10 of 60.1 Gy 10 . If 11 fractions are distributed over the seven available treat- ment days (by treating bi-daily on four of them) the required fractional dose drops to 1.87 Gy, the tumour BED 10 then being 61.9 Gy 10 . This latter value is still 8.7% short of the prescribed tumour BED 10 (67.8 Gy 10 ), thus some degree of compromise, achieved by increasing dose per fraction as illustrated in the previous example, might be considered. In extreme cases thrice-daily fractionation could be considered, but only after care- ful consideration of the potential for detriment from incomplete repair. If weekend or twice-daily fractionation cannot be accommodated then it might be considered to treat the remaining treatment over two full working weeks, i.e. extend treatment into an eighth and ninth week, making the overall treatment time 46+14=60 days. For this the dose per fraction (d) ideally required to maintain the tumour BED 10 is obtained from: BED 10 (pre-gap)+BED 10 (post-gap)Tumour Repopulation Factor i.e. for which d=2.85 Gy, leading to an associated BED 3 of 138.9 Gy 3 , which is 19% higher than prescribed. This result demonstrates the alternative dilemma associated with further extending the treatment in order to avoid weekend and twice-daily treatments: the total dose to be delivered is again increased by the extension into the ninth week, with a consequently incurred penalty to BED 3 . Example 5. Loss of the nal 13 fractions of a treatment schedule of 70 Gy/35 fractions/46 days. This represents a very dicult case. As a compromise between minimizing the extension whilst at the same time ensuring that a reasonable number of fractions are used we assume that 10 post-gap fractions will be given, twice daily from Saturday to Wednesday, extending the coxirNs:1ioN ro xissrn 1r:1xrN1 n:xs iN :nio1nr:ix 389 treatment to 46+5=51 days. We rst consider that the eect of incomplete repair is negligible, i.e. that Eqn (1) remains valid. The relevant equation to determine the dose per fraction (d) to maintain the prescribed normal tissue BED 3 (116.7 Gy 3 ) is: BED 3 (pre-gap)+BED 3 (post-gap)=Required BED 3 i.e. For which d=2.41 Gy. The resultant tumour BED 10 would then be: BED 10 (pre-gap)+BED 10 (post-gap)Tumour Repopulation Factor i.e. To allow for the possibility of incomplete repair in the critical normal tissue Eqn (2) is used for calculating the post-gap BED 3 . Eqn (2) requires prior evaluation of the h factor, which in turn requires an assumption to be made about the nature of the repair kinetics. Mono- exponential repair half-times for late-normal tissues are often assumed to be of the order of 1.5 h, but there is evidence that they may be longer for head and neck morbidity. Bentzen et al. [31] investigated the repair half-times of three normal tissue end-points from an analysis of the CHART head and neck data and found these to be in the range 3.84.9 h. Taking a mid-range value of 4.5 h, this corresponds to an exponential repair rate () of 0.15 h 1 . (The repair rate is related to repair half-time via: =0.693/half-time). If the post-gap daily fractions are 6 h apart and there is an 18-h overnight gap, it is easier to calculate h only for the shorter time interval between any two adjacent fractions. This is because the incomplete repair after the longer (18 h) gaps is relatively negligible compared with that following each 6-h gap. Referring to the Appendix, and using Eqn (A1) with N=2, =6 h and =0.15 h 1 , h is calculated to be 0.407. The normal tissue BED 3 then becomes from Eqns (1) and (2) with K=0: BED 3 (pre-gap)+BED 3 (post-gap) i.e. This is 6.7% higher than the value calculated when incomplete repair is ignored. If the twice-daily fractions were to be spaced at 4-h intervals then the h factor is 0.549 and BED 3 increases further to 127.4 Gy 3 , 9.1% higher than when incomplete repair is ignored. (Because the h factors are based only on the shorter inter-fraction intervals the consequent BED 3 values are slightly under- estimated as there will be an additional amount of incomplete repair following the longer, overnight, inter- vals. This overnight contribution will become more signicant as the number of successive days on which multiple treatment is delivered is increased.) It has been speculated [33,34] that the sub-lethal damage repair may not be exponential in form (as conventionally assumed) but may proceed at a slower rate than is predicted by a single exponential function. A reciprocal time model of repair, built on this supposi- tion, has been found to give an excellent t a to a wide range of experimental repair data and, unlike models based on the mono-exponential repair mechanism, helps explain the cases of radiation myelopathy observed in the CHART trial [35]. The h factors in the reciprocal time model may be calculated from Eqn (A2) in the Appendix and used directly in Eqn (4). Bi-phasic and other stretched functions have also been developed [36]. Example 6. A nominal 4-week schedule beginning on a Wednesday is prescribed as 54 Gy/20 fractions/27days. As the patient is too unwell for the last seven fractions to be treated on schedule their deferment extends eventual completion of treatment to 38 days. This treatment began on a Wednesday and the expected treatment time (with no treatment at weekends) is 27 days, rather than 25 days if it had began on a Monday. The prescribed normal tissue BED 3 is: Because the overall time is extended from 27 to 38 days we assume for calculation purposes that K is zero in the time up to 28 days and 0.9 Gy day 1 thereafter. The prescribed tumour BED is therefore: The interruption extends the overall time to 38 days. If the seven outstanding fractions were treated at the original fraction size (2.8 Gy) the late-reaction normal tissue BED 3 would be unaltered. However, the tumour BED 10 will be compromised because the treatment has extended beyond the 28 days at which time faster tumour repopulation is assumed to begin. The tumour BED 10 would then be calculated from: BED 10 (pre-gap)+BED 10 (post-gap)Tumour Repopulation Factor 390 ciiNic:i oNcoiocx i.e. a reduction of 13.1%. In short-duration treatments of this type the dose per fraction is already relatively large and any further increase (as may be required to strike a balance between normal tissue and tumour BEDs) should be considered with caution. As an example, to achieve a tumour BED 10 with an intermediate value 65.0 Gy 10 requires a dose per fraction (d) which is obtained from: BED 10 (pre-gap)+BED 10 (post-gap)Tumour Repopulation Factor=Required BED 10 i.e. i.e. d=3.19 Gy per fraction. Use of this fraction size for the deferred seven treatments would increase the normal tissue BED 3 to: BED 3 (pre-gap)+BED 3 (post-gap) i.e. which is still 10% more than that prescribed, even though the tumour BED 10 has been deliberately compromised. A nal diculty with interrupted schedules which already employ large fraction sizes is that the scope for post-gap acceleration using twice-daily treatments is limited on account of the large total daily doses which would result. In this particular example, bi-daily frac- tionation would deliver a total daily dose of 22.7 Gy, corresponding to a BED 3 delivery rate of 10.3 Gy 3 per day. This is over 50% higher than the BED 3 delivery rate (6.8 Gy 3 per day) associated with the thrice-daily frac- tionation of CHART, which itself is very similar to 22 Gy daily fractionation (6.7 Gy 3 per day). These gures take no account of incomplete repair, which would increment the BED 3 associated with 22.7 Gy even further. Even with well-spaced fractions some caution would be required when contemplating daily biological doses of this magnitude and the possibility of treating bi-daily with a signicantly reduced fractional dose should be explored. Conclusion This paper sets out the practical considerations involved in calculating compensations once a treatment interrup- tion has occurred, but it is stressed that it is good practice to aim to avoid interruptions wherever possible. A wealth of radiobiological and clinical evidence con- rms the seriousness of unnecessary treatment prolon- gation and unscheduled gaps, particularly those near the end of treatment, are especially problematic. Although it is impossible to pre-empt some interruptions, e.g. those resulting from machine breakdowns or bad clinical response to treatment, those resulting form Public Holidays and Statutory Days can be pre-planned. It is not sucient to devise last-minute compensations for such interruptions and departmental policies should prohibit such practice. Rather, patients should be cat- egorized in advance according to RCR guidelines and their treatment schedules reviewed such that the pre- dictable treatment gap is properly compensated by, if necessary, revision to the whole schedule. Extremely busy departments are clearly more likely to be troubled by unscheduled gaps and will also nd it less easy to timetable an eective compensation when such gaps do occur. The permanent presence of spare treat- ment capacity (e.g. by provision of enough treatment machines within each department to allow the deliberate under-usage of at least one of them) is an obvious method for anticipating and coping with unscheduled interruptions. Such a policy has resource implications, but these need to be set against the fact that with treatment interruptions, as in several other aspects of radiotherapy treatment delivery, there exists a likely inverse relationship between pressurized working conditions and treatment quality. Radiobiological methods of compensation, when they have to be utilized, are better than none at all, but it is nevertheless essential to be aware of the potential down- side of invoking calculations which are themselves over- simplications and which rely on parameter valueswhich sometimes are not accurately known. Three particular aspects of the calculation methods set out above should be borne in mind. Firstly (and as has been assumed in the calculations here), although there is strong evidence for accelerated repopulation following an initial period of slower repopulation, it is not clear whether or not the K factor varies during treatment. There is the possibility that changing the dose per fraction, or the dose delivery rate, (as occurs in devising some gap compensations) may itself alter K or the lag period. Secondly, the sub-lethal damage repair mechanisms are not fully understood and there is a strong likeli- hood that repair is slow in some normal tissues. Hyperfractionated compensation schemes, involving the delivery of many closely-spaced fractions after the unscheduled gap, carry the risk of signicantly increas- ing normal tissue morbidity, even in cases where the consequences of incomplete repair potentially have been coxirNs:1ioN ro xissrn 1r:1xrN1 n:xs iN :nio1nr:ix 391 allowed for by the inclusion of a seemingly appropriate h factor in the calculations. Finally, it should be remembered that BED calcula- tions take no account of the physiological factors which may inuence radiation response throughout an irradi- ated volume. The response is essentially governed by the integrated eect of the radiation, which in turn is related to the degree of dose uniformity and to the functional complexity of the tissue or organ. Where there are unavoidable or deliberate dose gradients the response to the gap compensation may dier throughout the treat- ment volume. In such cases it is prudent to repeat the biological assessments at the normal tissue hot spots [37]. Where tumour shrinkage is known to have occurred the clinician may feel that the use of reduced eld size during gap compensation may partially oset some of the potential problems. The possibilities of this and other safeguards (increased shielding, revised treat- ment plan, etc.) should always be considered alongside the radiobiological aspects whenever the normal tissue BED is likely to increase as a result of treatment prolongation. Ongoing elucidation of radiobiological processes and parameters will inevitably mean that there will be a requirement to review and, in some cases, modify, the recommendations set out in this article. It is recom- mended that each radiotherapy centre identies an indi- vidual (local or remote) who is in a position to keep abreast of unfolding developments and who can be the prime source of advice to that centre on how to devise treatment compensations. Acknowledgements. The authors wish to express their apprecia- tion to Drs Colligan (Inverness), Fowler (Wisconsin), Henk (London), Morgan (Nottingham), Roberts (Manchester), Slevin (Manchester) and Spittle (London), all of whom read the draft manuscript and made a number of useful and constructive comments. REFERENCES 1 Hendry JH, Bentzen SM, Dale RG, et al. A modelled comparison of the eect of using dierent ways to compensate for missed treatment days in radiotherapy. Clin Oncol 1996;8:297307. 2 Slevin NJ, Hendry JH, Roberts SA, Agren-Cronqvist A. The eects of increasing the treatment time beyond three weeks on the control of T2 and T3 laryngeal cancer using radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 1992;24:215220. 3 Fowler JF, Chappell R. Non small cell lung tumours repopulate rapidly during radiation therapy. (Letter) . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;46:516517. 4 Fowler JF. Radiobiological modelling to compensate for unplanned gaps in radiation treatment. International Congress of Radiation Research, Dublin, July, 1999. In Radiation Research, Vol 2 Proceedings. Moriarty M, Mothersill C, Seymour C, Eddington M, Ward JF, Fry RJM, eds. Oak Brook, IL, U.S.A.: Int. Assoc. Rad. Res., pp. 653659, 2000. 5 RCR Ref No BFCO (96) 4. Guidelines for the management of the unscheduled interruption or prolongation of a radical course of radiotherapy. ISBN 1 872599 26 5. 1996; Royal College of Radiologists. 6 Sinclair JA, Oates J, Dale RG. BED-time charts and their appli- cation to the problems of interruptions in external beam radiotherapy treatments. Int J Radiat Onc Biol Physics 1999; 44:381389. 7 Wheldon TE, Barrett A. Radiobiological rationale for compensa- tion for gaps in radiotherapy regimes by post-gap acceleration of fractionation. Br J Radiol 1990;63:114119. 8 Dale RG, Sinclair JA. A proposed Figure of Merit for the radiobiological assessment of unscheduled treatment interruptions. Br J Radiol 1994;67:10011007. 9 Dale RG, Jones B, Sinclair JA. Dose-equivalents of tumour repopulation during radiotherapy: the potential for confusion. Br J Radiol 2000;73:892894. 10 Doerr W, Hendry JH. Consequential late eects in normal tissues. Radiother Oncol 2001;61:223231. 11 Jones B, Dale RG, Deehan C, et al. The role of biologically eective dose (BED) in clinical oncology. Clin Oncol 2001;13: 7181. 12 Withers HR, Taylor JMG, Maciejewski B. The hazard of acceler- ated tumour clonogen repopulation during radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 1988;27:131146. 13 Fowler JF, Harari PM. Conrmation of improved loco-regional control with altered fractionation in head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48:36. 14 Steel GG. (ed.) Basic clinical radiobiology. London: Arnold, 1997. 15 Roberts SA, Hendry JH. Time factors in larynx tumour radio- therapy: Lag times and intertumour heterogeneity in clinical data- sets from four centres. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;45: 12471257. 16 Fu KK, Pajak TF, Trotti A, et al. A Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Phase III randomised study to compare hyperfrac- tionation and two variants of accelerated fractionation to standard fractionation radiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carci- nomas: rst report of RTOG 9003. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48:716. 17 Withers HR, Peters LJ. Transmutability of dose and time. Comments on the 1st report of RTOG 9003 (KK Fu et al) . Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48:12. 18 Roberts SA, Hendry JA. The delay before onset of accelerated tumour cell repopulation during radiotherapy: a direct maximum- likelihood analysis of a collection of worldwide tumour-control datasets. Radiother Oncol 1993;29:6974. 19 Allal AS, de Pree C, Dulguerov P, Bierei S, Maire D, Kurtz JM. Avoidance of treatment interruption: an unrecognised benet of accelerated radiotherapy in oropharyngeal carcinomas? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;45:4145. 20 Robertson C, Robertson AG, Hendry JH, et al. Similar decreases in local control are calculated for treatment protraction and for interruptions in the radiotherapy of carcinoma of the larynx in four centers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998;40:319329. 21 Robertson AG, Robertson C, Perone C, et al. Eect of gap length and position on results of treatment of cancer of the larynx in Scotland by radiotherapy: a linear quadratic analysis. Radiother.Oncol 1998;48:165173. 22 Baumann M, Petersen C, Wolf J, Schreiber A, Zips D. No evidence for a dierent magnitude of the time factor for continuously fractionated irradiation and protocols including gaps in two human squamous cell carcinoma in nude mice. Radiother Oncol 2001;59:187194. 23 Zieron JO, Omniczynski M, Raabe A, Beck-Bornholdt HP. Impact of the position of a gap on the response of the RIH-tumour of the rat on fractionated split-course radiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2001;177:592596. 24 Sanguineti G, Benasso M, Corvo R, et al. Lack of a time factor in alternating chemotherapy for advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Tumori 2001;87:1013. 25 Weber DC, Kurtz JM, Allal AS. The impact of gap duration on local control in anal canal carcinoma treated by split-course radiotherapy and concomitant chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;50:675680. 26 Bentzen SM, Thames HD. Overall treatment time and tumour control dose for head and neck tumours: the dog leg revisited. Radiother Oncol 1992;25:143144. 392 ciiNic:i oNcoiocx 27 Mehta M, Scrimger R, Mackie R, et al. A new approach to dose escalation in non small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;49:2333. 28 Haustermans K, Fowler J, Geboes K, et al. Relationship between potential doubling time (T pot ), labelling index and duration of DNA synthesis in 60 oesophageal and 35 breast tumours: is it worthwhile to measure T pot ? Radiother Oncol 1998;46:157167. 29 Trott KR, Kummermehr J. What is known about tumour prolifer- ation rates to choose between accelerated fractionation or hyperfractionation? Radiother Oncol 1985;3:19. 30 King CR. What is the T pot for prostate cancer? Radiobiological implications of the equivalent outcome with 125 I or 103 Pd. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;47:11651167. 31 Bentzen SM, Saunders MI, Dische S. Repair halftimes estimated from observations of treatment-related morbidity after CHART or conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 1999;53:219226. 32 Thames HD, Hendry JH. Fractionation in radiotherapy. London: Taylor and Francis, 1987. 33 Fowler JF. Is repair of DNA strand break damage from ionizing radiation second order rather than rst order? A simpler explanation of apparently multiexponential repair. Radiat Res 1999;153:124136. 34 Dale RG, Fowler JF, Jones B. A new incomplete-repair model based on a reciprocal-time pattern of sub-lethal damage repair. Acta Oncol 1999;7:919929. 35 Dische S, Saunders MI. Continuous, hyperfractionated, acceler- ated radiotherapy (CHART): an interim report upon late morbidity. Radiother Oncol 1989;16:6572. 36 Millar WT, Van den Aardweg GJ, Hopewell JW, Canney PA. Repair kinetics in pig epidermis: an analysis based on two separate rates of repair. Int J Radiat Biol 1996;69:123140. 37 Jones B, Dale RG, Khaksar SJ. Biological equivalent dose assess- ment of the consequences of hypofractionated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;47:13791384. APPENDIX Calculation of h values for closely-spaced fractions For mono-exponential recovery kinetics h is calculated from: In Eqn (A1), N is the number of fractions in a group of closely spaced fractions and =exp(x), where is the exponential repair constant of sub-lethal damage and x is the average time interval (h) between these closely- spaced fractions. For late-responding normal tissues is often assumed to have a generic value of 0.5 h 1 ; for prediction of radiation myelopathy subsequent to head and neck radiotherapy a smaller value of around 0.22 h 1 is more appropriate [31,32]. For reciprocal-time repair kinetics h is calculated from: In this model z is the reciprocal-time repair constant of sub-lethal damage [34]. The myelopathies observed in the CHART Trial [35] are consistent with a z value of 0.36 h 1 [34]. Provided there are only a few consecutive days on which multiple daily fractions are delivered the calcula- tion of h using either Eqn (A1) or Eqn (A2) may be simplied by taking into account only the shortest inter-fraction intervals. For example, if twice-daily frac- tionation is being used with an interval of 6 h between fractions, followed by an longer overnight interval of 18 h, the values used to calculate h are N=2 and x=6. Allowance for the additional incomplete repair follow- ing the longer overnight intervals may become necessary if there are many successive days on which twice-daily fractions is delivered. Reference [34] provides more details on this. coxirNs:1ioN ro xissrn 1r:1xrN1 n:xs iN :nio1nr:ix 393