Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35303922›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2022

Variability of α/β ratios for prostate cancer with the fractionation schedule: caution against using the linear-quadratic model for hypofractionated radiotherapy.

Ming Cui, Xian-Shu Gao, Xiaoying Li, Mingwei Ma, Xin Qi, Yuta Shibamoto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Estimation of the α/β ratio for metastatic melanomas in a patient based on actual responses to radiation therapy delivered with various fractionation schedules.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Lesion Dosimetry for [Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ming CuiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xian-Shu Gao *Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, People's Republic of China. doctorgaoxs@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8348-456X
Xiaoying LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Mingwei MaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xin QiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yuta Shibamoto *Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, 467-8601, Japan. yshiba@med.nagoya-cu.ac.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate cancer (PCa) is known to be suitable for hypofractionated radiotherapy due to the very low α/β ratio (about 1.5-3 Gy). However, several randomized controlled trials have not shown the superiority of hypofractionated radiotherapy over conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. Besides, in vivo and in vitro experimental results show that the linear-quadratic (LQ) model may not be appropriate for hypofractionated radiotherapy, and we guess it may be due to the influence of fractionation schedules on the α/β ratio. Therefore, this study attempted to estimate the α/β ratio in different fractionation schedules and evaluate the applicability of the LQ model in hypofractionated radiotherapy.

methodsThe maximum likelihood principle in mathematical statistics was used to fit the parameters: α and β values in the tumor control probability (TCP) formula derived from the LQ model. In addition, the fitting results were substituted into the original TCP formula to calculate 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival for further verification.

resultsInformation necessary for fitting could be extracted from a total of 23,281 PCa patients. A total of 16,442 PCa patients were grouped according to fractionation schedules. We found that, for patients who received conventionally fractionated radiotherapy, moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy, and stereotactic body radiotherapy, the average α/β ratios were 1.78 Gy (95% CI 1.59-1.98), 3.46 Gy (95% CI 3.27-3.65), and 4.24 Gy (95% CI 4.10-4.39), respectively. Hence, the calculated α/β ratios for PCa tended to become higher when the dose per fraction increased. Among all PCa patients, 14,641 could be grouped according to the risks of PCa in patients receiving radiotherapy with different fractionation schedules. The results showed that as the risk increased, the k (natural logarithm of an effective target cell number) and α values decreased, indicating that the number of effective target cells decreased and the radioresistance increased.

conclusionsThe LQ model appeared to be inappropriate for high doses per fraction owing to α/β ratios tending to become higher when the dose per fraction increased. Therefore, to convert the conventionally fractionated radiation doses to equivalent high doses per fraction using the standard LQ model, a higher α/β ratio should be used for calculation.

Indexed as

Linear ModelsRadiation Dose HypofractionationHumansMaleProstatic NeoplasmsHigh dose per fractionHypofractionated radiotherapyLQ modelProstate cancerα/β ratio

Identifiers

PMID35303922
PMCPMC8932192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.