1. The Radiobiology Behind Dose
Fractionation
Bill McBride
Dept. Radiation Oncology
David Geffen School Medicine
UCLA, Los Angeles, Ca.
wmcbride@mednet.ucla.edu
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

2. Objectives
•
•
•
•
•
•
To understand the mathematical bases behind survival curves
Know the linear quadratic model formulation
Understand how the isoeffect curves for fractionated radiation
vary with tissue and how to use the LQ model to change dose
with dose per fraction
Understand the 4Rs of radiobiology as they relate to clinical
fractionated regimens and the sources of heterogeneity that
impact the concept of equal effect per fraction
Know the major clinical trials on altered fractionation and their
outcome
Recognize the importance of dose heterogeneity in modern
treatment planning
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

3. Relevance of Radiobiology to Clinical
Fractionation Protocols
Conventional treatment:
Tumors are generally irradiated with 2Gy dose per fraction delivered
daily to a more or less homogeneous field over a 6 week time period to
a specified total dose
The purpose of convenntional dose fractionation is to increase dose to
the tumor while PRESERVING NORMAL TISSUE FUNCTION
• Deviating from conventional fractionation protocol impacts outcome
• How do you know what dose to give; for example if you want to change dose
per fraction or time? Radiobiological modeling provide the guidelines. It uses
– Radiobiological principles derived from preclinical data
– Radiobiological parameters derived from clinical altered fractionation
protocols
• hyperfractionation, accelerated fractionation, some hypofractionation schedules
The number of non-homogeneous treatment plans (IMRT) and extreme hypofractionated
treatments are increasing. Do existing models cope?
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

4. In theory, knowing relevant radiobiological parameters
one day may predict the response for
• Dose given in a single or a small number of fractions
• SBRT, SRS, SRT, HDR or LDR brachytherapy, protons,
cyberknife, gammaknife
• Non-uniform dose distributions optimized by IMRT
• e.g. dose “painting” of radioresistant tumor subvolumes
•
•
Combination therapies with chemo- or biological agents
Different RT options when tailored by molecular and
imaging theragnostics
• If you know the molecular profile and tumor phenotype, can you
predict the best delivery method?
• Biologically optimized treatment planning
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

5. The First Radiation Dosimeter
prompted the use of dose fractionation
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

6. In general, history has shown
repeatedly that single high
doses of radiation do not allow
a therapeutic differential
between tumor and critical
normal tissues.
Dose fractionation does.
SBRT/SRS often aims at TISSUE ABLATION
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

7. How to modify a treatment
schedule
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

8. Modeling Radiation Responses
Assumes that ionizing ‘hits’ are random events in space
Which are fitted by a Poisson Distribution
P of x = e-m.mx/x!
where m = mean # hits, x is a hit
P survival
(when x = 0)
100 targets 100 hits m=1 e-1=0.368
100 targets 200 hits m=2 e-2=0.137
100 targets 300 hits m=3
e-3=0.05
N.B. Lethal hits in DNA are not really randomly
distributed, e.g. condensed chromatin is more
sensitive, but it is a reasonable approximation
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

9. This Gives a Survival Curve Based on a Model
where one hit will eliminate a single target
•
When there is single lethal hit per target
1.0
•
S.F.= e-1 = 0.37
This is the mean lethal dose D0
0.37
•
D10 = 2.3 xD0
•
In general, S.F. = e-D/D0
S.F.
0.1
or LnS.F. = -D/D0
0.01
0.001
or S.F. = e-αD , i.e. D0 = 1/α
D0
D 10
DOSE Gy
Where α is the slope of the curve and D0 the
reciprocal of the slope
How many logs of cells would be killed
by 23 Gy if D0 = 1 Gy?
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

10. Mean Inactivation Dose (Do)
•
•
•
•
Virus D0 approx. = 1500 Gy
E. Coli D0 approx. = 100 Gy
Mammalian bone marrow cells D0 = 1 Gy
Generally, for mammalian cells D0 = 1-1.5 Gy
Why the differences?
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

11. Puck and Marcus, J.E.M.103, 563, 1956
First in vitro mammalian survival curve
Eukaryotic Survival Curves are
Exponential, but have a ‘Shoulder’
Two component model
single
lethal
hits
n
1.0
0.1
0.01
Accumulation of
sub-lethal
damage
0.001
dose
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

12. Two Component Model
single
lethal
hits
n
1.0
D0 =
1
reciprocal
initial slope
S.F.
0.1
• Two Component Model
(or single target, single hit +
multi-target (n), single hit)
• S.F.=e-D/1D0[1-(1-e-D/nD0)n]Extrapolation
Number
Single hit
0.01
Accumulation
of sublethal
damage
0.001
Accumulate
d
damage
D0 =
n
reciprocal
final slope
DOSE Gy
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

13. 1
limiting slope/
low dose rate
S.F.
Multi-fraction survival curves can be
considered linear if sublethal damage is
repaired between fractions
they have an extrapolation number (n) = 1.0
5 fractions
•The resultant slope is the effective D0
•e D 0 is often 2.5 - 5.0Gy and e D 10 5.8 - 11.5Gy
.1
•S.F. = e-D/eD0
3 fractions
Single dose
.01
0
4
8
12
16
Dose (Gy)
20
•If S.F. after 2Gy = 0.5, eD0 = 2.9Gy; eD10 =
6.7Gy and 30 fractions of 2 Gy (60Gy) would
reduce survival by (0.5)30 = almost 9 logs (or
60/6.7)
•If a 1cm tumor had 109 clonogenic cells, there
would be an average of 1 clonogen per tumor
and cure rate would be about 37%
24
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

14. Linear Quadratic Model
•
1.0
αD
S.F. = e-αD
Single lethal hits
βD2
S.F. 0.1
Cell kill is the result of single lethal hits
plus accumulated damage from 2
independent sublethal events
S.F. = e-(αD+βD2)
Single lethal hits plus
accumulated damage
0.01
•
The generalized formula is E = αD + βD2
•
0.001
α/β in Gy
DOSE Gy
For a fractionated regimen E= nd(α + βd) = D (α + βd)
Where d = dose per fraction and D = total dose
∀
α/β is dose at which death due to single lethal
lesions = death due to accumulation of sublethal
lesions i.e. αD = βD2 and D = α/β in Gy
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

15. • Over 90% of radiation oncologists use the LQ model:
– it is simple and has a microdosimetric underpinning
α/β is large (> 6 Gy) when survival curve is almost
exponential and small (1-4 Gy) when shoulder is
wide
– the α/β value quantifies the sensitivity of a
tissue/tumor to fractionated radiation.
• But:
– Both α and β vary with the cell cycle. At high doses,
S phase and hypoxic cells become more important.
– The α/β ratio varies depending upon whether a cell
is quiescent or proliferative
– The LQ model best describes data in the range of 1 6Gy and should not be used outside this range
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

16. Thames et al Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 8: 219, 1982.
•The slope of an isoeffect curve changes
with size of dose per fraction depending on
tissue type
• Acute responding tissues have flatter
curves than do late responding tissues
• α/β measures the sensitivity of tumor or
tissue to fractionation i.e. it predicts how total
dose for a given effect will change when you
change the size of dose fraction
Douglas and Fowler Rad Res 66:401, 1976
Showed and easy way to arrive at an α/β
ratio
Reciprocal
total dose
for an isoeffect
Slope = β
Intercept = α
Dose per fraction
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

17. Response to Fractionation Varies
With Tissue
1
1
Acute Responding
Acute
Tissues α/β = 10Gy
S.F.
Late Responding
Tissues - α/β = 2Gy
0
4
8
12
Dose (Gy)
Fractionated
Acute Effects
Single Dose
Late Effects
α/β = 2Gy
α/β is high (>6Gy) when survival
curve is almost exponential and low
(1-4Gy) when shoulder is wide
.01
Fractionated
Late Effects
.1
.1
S.F.
Single Dose
Acute Effects
α/β = 10Gy
.01
16
0
4
8
12
16
Dose (Gy)
20
Fractionation spares late responding tissues
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

18. Sensitivity
Fractionation
the
of Tissue to Dose
can be estimated by
α/β ratio
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

19. What are α/β ratios for human
cancers?
In fact, for some tumors e.g. prostate, breast, melanoma, soft tissue
sarcoma, and liposarcoma α/β ratios may be moderately low
Prostate
– Brenner and Hall IJROBP 43:1095, 1999
• comparing implants with EBRT
∀ α/β ratio is 1.5 Gy [0.8, 2.2]
– Lukka JCO 23: 6132, 2005
• Phase III NCIC 66Gy 33F in 45days vs 52.5Gy 20F in 28 days
• Compatible with α/β ratio of 1.12Gy (-3.3-5.6)
Breast
– Owen, J.R., et al. Lancet Oncol, 7: 467-471, 2006 and Dewar et al JCO,
ASCO Proceedings Part I. Vol 25, No. 18S: LBA518, 2007.
• UK START Trial
– 50Gy in 25Fx c.w. 39Gy in 13Fx; or 41.6Gy in 13Fx [or 40Gy in 15Fx (3
wks)]
• Breast Cancer α/β = 4.0Gy (1.0-7.8)
• Breast appearance α/β = 3.6Gy; induration α/β
If fractionation sensitivity of a cancer is similar to = 3.1Gy
dose-limiting
healthy
tissues, it may be possible to give fewer, larger fractions without
compromising effectiveness or safety
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

20. What total dose (D) to give if
the dose/fx (d) is changed
New
Dnew (dnew + α/β )
Old
= Dold (dold + α/β )
So, for late responding tissue, what total dose in 1.5Gy
fractions is equivalent to 66Gy in 2Gy fractions?
Dnew (1.5+2) = 66 (2 + 2)
Dnew = 75.4Gy
NB: Small differences in α/β for late responding tissues can make a
big difference in estimated D!
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

21. Biologically Effective Dose (BED)
S.F. = e-E = e-(αD+βD2)
E = nd(α + βd)
E/α = nd(1+d/α/β)
Biologically
Effective Dose
Total dose
Relative
Effectiveness
35 x 2Gy = B.E.D.of 84Gy10 and 117Gy3
NOTE: 3 x 15Gy = B.E.D.of 113Gy10 and 270Gy3
Equivalent to 162 Gy in 2Gy Fx -unrealistic!
(Fowler et al IJROBP 60: 1241, 2004)
Normalized total dose2Gy
= BED/RE
= BED/1.2 for α/β of 10Gy
= BED/1.67 for α/β of 3Gy
www.radbiol.ucla.edu
WMcB2009

22. α/β=3Gy; 1.5Gy/fx
α/β=30Gy; 1.5Gy/fx
80
2.0Gy/fx
70
α/β=30Gy; 4Gy/fx
60
D new
α/β=3Gy; 4Gy/fx
50
40
30
20
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
D old
Note how badly late responding tissues respond to increased dose/fraction
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

23. Does this Matter?
Prescribed Dose:
25 fractions of 2Gy = 50Gy
Hot spot: 110%
Physical dose: 55Gy
Biological dose: 60.5Gy
“Double
Trouble”
www.radbiol.ucla.edu
WMcB2009

24. The Linear Quadratic Formulation
• Does not work well at high dose/fx
• Assumes equal effect per fraction
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

25. HT29 cells
N.B. Survival curves may
deviate from L.Q. at low and
high dose!!!!
• Certain cell lines, and tissues, are
hypersensitive at low doses of 0.050.2Gy.
• The survival curve then plateaus over
0.05-1Gy
• Not seen for all cell lines or tissues, but
has been reported in skin, kidney and
lung
• At high dose, the model probably does not
fit data well because D2 dominates the
equation
Lambin et al. Int J Radiat Biol 63:639 1993
www.radbiol.ucla.edu
WMcB2009

26. The Linear Quadratic Formulation
• Does not work well at low or high dose/fx
• Assumes equal effect per fraction
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

27. 4Rs OF DOSE FRACTIONATION
• Assessed by varying the
time between 2 or more
doses of radiation
700R
1500R
Repopulation
Redistribution
Repair
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

28. 4Rs OF DOSE FRACTIONATION
These are radiobiological mechanisms that
impact the response to a fractionated course of
radiation therapy
• Repair of sublethal damage
– spares late responding normal tissue preferentially
• Redistribution of cells in the cell cycle
– increases acute and tumor damage, no effect on late
responding normal tissue
• Repopulation
– spares acute responding normal tissue, no effect on late
effects,
– danger of tumor repopulation
• Reoxygenation
– increases tumor damage, no effect in normal tissues
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

29. Repair
•
•
•
•
“Repair” between fractions should be complete - N.B. we are
dealing with tissue recovery rather than DNA repair
– Correction for incomplete repair is possible (Thames)
In general, time between fractions for most tissues should
be >6 hours
Some tissues, such as CNS, recover slowly making b.i.d.
treatment inadvisable
Bentzen - Radiother Oncol 53, 219, 1999
– CHART analysis HNC showed that late morbidity was
less than would be expected assuming complete recovery
between fractions
– Is the T1/2 for recovery for late responding normal
tissues 2.5-4.5hrs?
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

30. Regeneration in Normal Tissues
•
•
The lag time to regeneration varies with the tissue
In acute responding tissues,
– Regeneration has a considerable sparing effect
• In human mucosa, regeneration starts 10-12 days into a
2Gy Fx protocol and increases tissue tolerance by at least
1Gy/dy
– Prolonging treatment time has a sparing effect
– As treatment time is reduced, acute responding tissues
become dose-limiting
•
In late responding tissues,
– Prolonging overall treatment time beyond 6wks has little effect,
but
prolonging time to retreatment may increase tissue tolerance
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

31. Repopulation in Tumor Tissue
Rat rhabdosarcoma
Human SCC head and neck
T2
70
Total
Dose
(2 Gy equiv.)
55
T3
local control
no local control
40
Treatment Duration
Hermens and Barendsen, EJC 5:173, 1969
4 weeks to start of accelerated
repopulation.
Thereafter T1/2 of 4 days = loss of 0.6Gy
per day
Treatment breaks are often “bad”
Withers, H.R., Taylor, J.M.G., and Maciejewski, B.
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu
Acta Oncologica 27:131, 1988

32. Other Sources of Heterogeneity
•
Biological Dose
– Cell cycle
– Hypoxia/reoxygenation
– Clonogenic “stem cells” (G.F.)
•
•
•
•
S.F
hypoxic
oxic
Dose
Number
Intrinsic radiosensitivity
Proliferative potential
Differentiation status
Phillips, J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1777, 2006
•
Physical Dose
– Need to know more about the importance of dose-volume constraints
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

33. • Heterogeneity within and between between
tumors in dose-response characteristics, often
resulting in large error bars for α/β values
• In spite of this, the outcome of clinical studies of
altered fractionation generally fit the models,
within the constraints of the clinical doses used
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

34. Altered Fractionation
or
How to optimally distribute
dose over time
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

35. Players
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Total dose (D)
Dose per fraction (d)
Interval between fractions (t)
Overall treatment time (T)
Tumor type
Acute reacting normal tissues
Late reacting normal tissues
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

36. Definitions
• Conventional fractionation
– Daily doses (d) of 1.8 to 2 Gy
– Dose per week of 9 to 10 Gy
– Total dose (D) of 40 to 70 Gy
• Hyperfractionation
–
–
–
–
The number of fractions (N) is increased
T is kept the same
Dose per fraction (d) less than 1.8 Gy
Two fractions per day (t)
Rationale: Spares late responding tissues
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

37. Definitions
• Accelerated fractionation
– Shorter overall treatment time
– Dose per fraction of 1.8 to 2 Gy
– More than 10 Gy per week
Rationale: Overcome accelerated tumor repopulation
• Hypofractionation
– Dose per fraction (d) higher than 2.2 Gy
– Reduced total number of fractions (N)
Rationale: Tumor has low α/β ratio and there is no
therapeutic advantage to be gained with respect to late
complications
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

38. TCP
or NTC
Tumor control
Late responding tissue
complications
Complication-free cure
TCP
or
NTC
Accelerated
Fractionation
Hyperfractionation
Dose
www.radbiol.ucla.edu
WMcB2009

39. Conventional
70 Gy - 35 fx - 7 wks
Hyperfractionated
81.6 Gy - 68 fx - 7 wks
Very accelerated
with reduction of dose
54 Gy - 36 fx - 12 days
Moderately
accelerated
72 Gy - 42 fx - 6 wks
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

40. Hyperfractionated
Barcelona (586), Brazil (112), RTOG 90-03 (1113), EORTC 22791 (356),
Toronto (331)
Very accelerated
CHART (918), Vancouver (82), TROG 91-01 (350),GORTEC 94-02 (268)
Moderately accelerated
RTOG 90-03 (1113), DAHANCA (1485), EORTC 22851 (512) CAIR (100),
Warsaw (395)
Other
EORTC 22811 (348), RTOG 79-13 (210)
7623 patients in 18 randomized phase III trials !!
HNSCC only will be discussed
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

41. EORTC hyperfractionation trial in
oropharynx cancer (N = 356)
Oropharyngeal Ca T2-3, N0-1
80.5 Gy - 70 fx - 7 wks
LOCAL CONTROL
Years
Horiot 1992
control: 70 Gy - 35-40 fx - 7-8 wks
p = 0.02
SURVIVAL
p = 0.08
Years
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

42. Very Accelerated: CHART (N = 918)
Dische 1997
54 Gy - 36 fx - 12 days
control: 66 Gy - 33 fx - 6.5 wks
Loco-regional control
conventional
CHART
Favourable outcome with CHART:
www.radbiol.ucla.edu
Survival
conventional
CHART
well differentiated tumors
larynx carcinomas
WMcB2009

43. CHART: Morbidity
Dische 1997
54 Gy - 36 fx - 12 days
control: 66 Gy - 33 fx - 6.5 wks
P = 0.04
P = 0.003
Moderate/severe subcutaneous
fibrosis and oedema
Mucosal ulceration and
deep necrosis
P = 0.04
P = 0.009
Laryngeal oedema
Moderate/severe dysphagia
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

44. Moderately Accelerated
Overgaard 2000
DAHANCA 6: only glottic, (N = 694)
DAHANCA 7: all other sites, + nimorazole (N = 791)
66-68 Gy - 33-34 fx - 6 wks
control: 66-68 Gy - 33-34 fx - 7 wks
Actuarial 5-year rates
Local control
DAHANCA 6
DAHANCA 7
Nodal control
DAHANCA 6 + 7
Disease-specific survival
DAHANCA 6 + 7
5 fx/wk
6 fx/wk
73%
56%
81% p=0.04
68% p=0.009
Overall survival
Late effects (edema, fibrosis)
n.s.
n.s.
87%
65%
.
89% n.s.
72% p=0.04
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

45. Moderately Accelerated
CAIR: 7-day-continuous accelerated irradiation (N = 100)
Skladowski 2000
66-72 Gy - 33-36 fx - 5 wks
68.4-72 Gy - 38-40 fx - 5.5 wks
control: 70-72 Gy - 35-36 fx - 7 wks
control: 66.6-72 Gy - 37-40 fx - 7.5-8 wks
OVERALL SURV IV AL
Probability
CAIR
CONTROL
log-rank
p=0.00001
Follow-up (months)
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

46. RTOG 90-03, Phase III comparison of
fractionation schedules in Stage III and IV
SCC of oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx,
hypopharynx (N = 1113)
Fu 2000
Conventional
70 Gy - 35 fx - 7 wks
Hyperfractionated
81.6 Gy - 68 fx - 7 wks
Accelerated with split
67.2 Gy - 42 fx - 6 weeks (including 2-week split)
Accelerated with
Concomitant boost
72 Gy - 42 fx - 6 wks
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

47. RTOG 90-03, loco-regional control
Fu 2000
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

48. RTOG 90-03, survival
Fu 2000
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

49. RTOG 90-03, adverse effects
Acute
Fu 2000
Maximum toxicity
Conventional
Hyperfract
Concom Acc +
per patient
boost
split
Grade 1
15%
4%
4%
7%
Grade 2
57%
39%
36%
41%
Grade 3
35%
54%
58%
49%
Grade 4
0%
1%
1%
2%
Late
Maximum toxicity
per patient
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Conventional
11%
50%
19%
8%
1%
Hyperfract
8%
56%
19%
9%
0%
Concom Acc +
boost
split
7%
16%
44%
50%
29%
20%
8%
7%
1%
1%
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

50. Toxicity of RT in HNSCC
Acute effects in accelerated or hyperfractionated RT
Author
Regimen
Grade 3-4 mucositis
Cont
Exp
Horiot (n=356)
HF
49%
67%
Horiot (n=512)
Acc fx + split 50%
67%
Dische (n=918)
CHART
43%
73%
Fu (n=536)
Acc fx(CB)
25%
46%
Fu (n=542)
Acc fx + split 25%
41%
Fu (n=507)
HF
25%
42%
Skladowski (n=99) Acc fx
26%
56%
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

51. Altered fractionation in head and
neck cancer: meta-analysis
Randomized trials 1970-1998 (no postop RT)
15 trials included (6515 patients)
Bourhis, Lancet 2006
Survival benefit: 3.4% (36%
39% at 5 years, p = 0.003)
Loco-regional control benefit: 7% (46.5%
53% at 5 years, p < 0.0001)
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

52. Conclusions for HNSCC
•
•
•
•
•
Hyperfractionation increases TCP and protects late responding tissues
Accelerated treatment increase TCP but also increases acute toxicity
What should be considered standard for patients treated with radiation
only?
– Hyperfractionated radiotherapy
– Concomitant boost accelerated radiotherapy
Fractions of 1.8 Gy once daily when given alone, cannot be considered
as an acceptable standard of care
TCP curves for SSC are frustratingly shallow … selection of tumors?
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

53. Conclusions for HNSCC
• The benefit derived from altered fractionation is consistent
with can be of benefit but should be used with care
• In principle, tumors should be treated for an overall
treatment time that is as short as possible consistent with
acceptable acute morbidity, but with a dose per fraction
that does not compromise late responding normal tissues,
or total dose.
• Avoid treatment breaks and treatment prolongation
wherever possible – and consider playing “catch-up” if
there are any
• Start treatment on a Monday and finish on a Friday, and
consider working Saturdays
• Never change a winning horse!
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

54. Other Major Considerations
• Not all tumors will respond to hyper or accelerated
fractionation like HNSCC, especially if they have a low
α/β ratio.
• High single doses or a small number of high dose per
fractions, as are commonly used in SBRT or SRS
generally aim at tissue ablation. Extrapolating based on a
linear quadratic equation to total dose is fraught with
danger.
• Addition of chemotherapy or biological therapies to RT
always requires caution and preferably thoughtful preconsideration!!!
• Don’t be scared to get away from the homogeneous field
concept, but plan it if you intend to do so.
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

55. Questions:
The Radiobiology Behind Dose Fractionation
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

56. Modeling of radiation responses are based
on
1. Random events occurring in cell nuclei
2. Random events in space as defined by
the Poisson distribution
3. A Gaussian distribution
4. Logarithmic dose response curves
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

57. D0 is
1. Is a measure of the shoulder of a survival
curve
2. Is the mean lethal dose of the linear
portion of the dose-response curve
3. Represents the slope of the log linear
survival curve
4. Is constant at all levels of radiation effect
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

58. Dq is
1. A measure of the inverse of the terminal
slope of the survival curve
2. A measure of the inverse of the initial
slope of the survival curve
3. A measure of the shoulder of the survival
curve
4. A measure of the intercept of the terminal
portion of the survival curve on the y axis
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

59. If Dq for a survival curve is 2Gy, what dose
is equivalent to a single dose of 6Gy given in
2 fractions, assuming complete repair and
no repopulation between fractions.
1. 4 Gy
2. 6 Gy
3. 8 Gy
4. 10 Gy
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

60. A whole body dose of 7 Gy of x‑rays would produce severe,
potentially lethal hematologic toxicity. Assuming that the Do of
the hematopoietic stem cells is 1 Gy and that these cells have
a negligible capacity to repair sublethal radiation damage,
what is the surviving fraction of these stem cells after this dose
of radiation?
1. 0.0001
2. 0.001
3. 0.025
4. 0.067
5. 0.1167
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

61. If 90% of a tumor is removed by surgery,
what does this likely represent in term of
radiation dose given in 2 Gy fractions?
1. 1-2 Gy
2. 3-4 Gy
3. 6-7 Gy
4. 9-12 Gy
5. 20-30 Gy
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

62. What is true for the α/β ratio
1. It is unitless
2. It is a measure of the shoulder of the
survival curve
3. It measures the sensitivity of a tissue to
changes in size of dose fractions
4. It is the ratio where the number of nonrepairable lesions equals that for
repairable lesions
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

63. The alpha component in the linear quadratic
formula for as radiation survival curve
represents
1. Unrepairable DNA double strand breaks
2. Lethal single track events
3. Multiply damaged sites in DNA
4. Damage that can not be altered by
hypoxia
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

64. Which parameter is most relevant for
standard clinical regimens in RT
1. The α/β ratio
2. Do
3. Alpha
4. Beta
5. The extrapolation number
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

65. If cells have a Do of 2 Gy, assuming no shoulder,
what dose is required to kill 95% of the cells?
1. 6 Gy
2. 12 Gy
3. 18 Gy
4. 24 Gy
5. 30 Gy
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

66. The extrapolation number N for a multifraction survival curve, allowing complete
repair between fractions and no repopulation
is
1. 1
2. < 1
3. >1
4. Dependent on the size of the dose per
fraction
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

67. The extrapolation number N for a single
dose neutron survival curve is
1. 1
2. < 1
3. >1
4. Dependent on the size of the dose per
fraction
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

68. The extrapolation number N for a low dose
rate survival curve is
1. 1
2. < 1
3. >1
4. Dependent on the size of the dose per
fraction
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

69. The inverse of the slope of a multifraction
survival curve (effDo) is generally within the
range
1. 1.0-1.5 Gy
2. 1.5-2.5 Gy
3. 2.5-5.0 Gy
4. 5.0-10.0 Gy
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

70. If the effDo for a multifraction survival curve is
3.5 Gy, what dose would cure 37% of a
series of 1cm diameter tumors (109
clonogens).
1. 56 Gy
2. 64 Gy
3. 72 Gy
4. 80 Gy
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

71. If the effDo for a multifraction survival curve is
3.5 Gy, what dose would cure 69% of a
series of 1cm diameter tumors (109
clonogens).
1. 56 Gy
2. 64 Gy
3. 72 Gy
4. 80 Gy
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

72. If a tumor has an effective Do of 3.5 Gy,what is the
S.F. after 70 Gy?
1. 2 x 10-11
2. 2 x 10-9
3. 2 x 10-7
4. 2 x 10-5
5. 2 x 10-3
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

73. If 16 x 2 Gy fractions reduce survival by 10-4, what
dose would be needed to reduce survival to 10-10?
1. 50 Gy
2. 60 Gy
3. 64 Gy
4. 70 Gy
5. 80 Gy
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

74. If 16 x 2 Gy fractions reduce survival by 10-4, what is
the effective D0?
1. 2.0 Gy
2. 2.3 Gy
3. 3.0 Gy
4. 3.5 Gy
5. 3.8 Gy
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

75. The α/β ratio for mucosal tissues is closest
to
1. 2 Gy
2. 4 Gy
3. 6 Gy
4. 8 Gy
5. 10 Gy
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

76. Which of the following human tumors Is
thought to have an α/β ratio of 1-2 Gy
1. Oropharyngeal Ca
2. Prostate Ca
3. Glioblastoma
4. Colorectal Ca
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

77. The TD5/5 for a certain tissue irradiated at 2
Gy/fraction is 60 Gy whereas at 4 Gy/fraction it is 40
Gy. Assuming that the linear quadratic equation,
‑lnSF= N (αD + βD2), accurately represents cell survival
for this tissue, what is the value of α/β?
1. 1 Gy
2. 2 Gy
3. 4 Gy
4. 10 Gy
5. 20 Gy
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

78. It is decided to treat a patient with hypofractionation at 3
Gy/fraction instead of the conventional schedule of 60 Gy
in 2 Gy fractions. What total dose should be delivered in
order for the risk of late normal‑tissue damage to remain
unchanged according to the linear‑quadratic model with
α/β for late damage = 3 Gy?
1. 40 Gy
2. 48 Gy
3. 50 Gy
4. 55.4 Gy
5. 75 Gy
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

79. A standard treatment for HNSCC tumors is 70 Gy delivered at 2
Gy/fraction. Hyperfractionation is being attempted with a fraction
size of 1.2 Gy. What total treatment dose should be used to
maintain the same complication rate for the late responding
normal tissues. Assume full repair of sublethal damage between
fractions and an α/β of 3 Gy.
1. 42 Gy
2. 58 Gy
3. 70 Gy
4. 83 Gy
5. 117 Gy
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

80. A standard treatment for HNSCC tumors is 70 Gy delivered at 2
Gy/fraction. Hyperfractionation is being attempted with a fraction
size of 1.2 Gy. What total treatment dose should be used to
maintain the same complication rate for the late responding
normal tissues. Assuming no proliferation and complete repair
between fractions, an α/β of 3 Gy for late responding tissue and
12 Gy for tumor, what would be the therapeutic gain.
1.
6%
2. 12%
3. 18%
4. 24%
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

81. Which of the following sites is the least
suitable for b.i.d. treatment
1. Head and neck
2. Brain
3. Lung
4. Prostate
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

82. The rationale behind accelerated
fractionation is
1. To spare late responding normal tissue
2. To combat encourage tumor
reoxygenation
3. To exploit redistribution in tumors
4. To combat accelerated repopulation in
tumors
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

83. The CHART regimen for HNSCC of 54Gy in 36 fractions over
12 days compared with 66 Gy in 33 fractions in 6.5 weeks,
overall showed
1. Superior locoregional control, no increase in overall
survival, increased late effects
2. Superior locoregional control that translated into an
increase in overall survival, no change in late effects
3. No change in locoregional control and overall survival,
decreased late effects
4. Superior locoregional control, no increase in overall
survival, increased acute effects
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

84. DAHANCA 6 and 7 clinical trials with 6668Gy given in 6 compared to 7 weeks
1. Was a hyperfractionation trial
2. Treated 6 days a week
3. Showed no increase in local control
4. Showed no increase in disease-specific
survival
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

85. RTOG 90-03, which compared hyperfractionation,
accelerated fractionation with a split, and
accelerated fractionation with a boost showed
1. Hyperfractionation to be superior in terms of
loco-regional control and late effects
2. Accelerated fractionation with a split to be
equivalent to hyperfractionation in terms of locoregional control
3. There to be no advantage to altered fractionation
4. Accelerated fractionation to be superior to
hyperfractionation
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu

86. Answers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
NA
2
2
4
1
5
2
4
2
4
4
3
2
1
3
2
1
2
3
3
1
3
1
2
5
1
3
1
3
3
WMcB2009
www.radbiol.ucla.edu