Gastrointestinal Toxicity Prediction Not Influenced by Rectal Contour or Dose-Volume Histogram Definition.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Rectal dose delivered during prostate radiation therapy is associated with gastrointestinal toxicity. Treatment plans are commonly optimized using rectal dose-volume constraints, often whole-rectum relative-volumes (%). We investigated whether improved rectal contouring, use of absolute-volumes (cc), or rectal truncation might improve toxicity prediction. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients from the CHHiP trial (receiving 74 Gy/37 fractions [Fr] vs 60 Gy/20 Fr vs 57 Gy/19 Fr) were included if radiation therapy plans were available (2350/3216 patients), plus toxicity data for relevant analyses (2170/3216 patients). Whole solid rectum relative-volumes (%) dose-volume-histogram (DVH), as submitted by treating center (original contour), was assumed standard-of-care. Three investigational rectal DVHs were generated: (1) reviewed contour per CHHiP protocol; (2) original contour absolute volumes (cc); and (3) truncated original contour (2 versions; ±0 and ±2 cm from planning target volume [PTV]). Dose levels of interest (V30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 74 Gy) in 74 Gy arm were converted by equivalent-dose-in-2 Gy-Fr (EQD2α/β= 3 Gy) for 60 Gy/57 Gy arms. Bootstrapped logistic models predicting late toxicities (frequency G1+/G2+, bleeding G1+/G2+, proctitis G1+/G2+, sphincter control G1+, stricture/ulcer G1+) were compared by area-undercurve (AUC) between standard of care and the 3 investigational rectal definitions. RESULTS: The alternative dose/volume parameters were compared with the original relative-volume (%) DVH of the whole rectal contour, itself fitted as a weak predictor of toxicity (AUC range, 0.57-0.65 across the 8 toxicity measures). There were no significant differences in toxicity prediction for: (1) original versus reviewed rectal contours (AUCs, 0.57-0.66; P = .21-.98); (2) relative- versus absolute-volumes (AUCs, 0.56-0.63; P = .07-.91); and (3) whole-rectum versus truncation at PTV ± 2 cm (AUCs, 0.57-0.65; P = .05-.99) or PTV ± 0 cm (AUCs, 0.57-0.66; P = .27-.98). CONCLUSIONS: We used whole-rectum relative-volume DVH, submitted by the treating center, as the standard-of-care dosimetric predictor for rectal toxicity. There were no statistically significant differences in prediction performance when using central rectal contour review, with the use of absolute-volume dosimetry, or with rectal truncation relative to PTV. Whole-rectum relative-volumes were not improved upon for toxicity prediction and should remain standard-of-care.