Potential implications on TCP for external beam prostate cancer treatment when considering the bystander effect in partial exposure scenarios

Abstract

Purpose: This work investigated the potential implications on tumour control probability (TCP) for external beam prostate cancer treatment when considering the bystander effect in partial exposure scenarios.

Materials and methods: The biological response of a prostate cancer target volume under conditions where a sub-volume of the target volume was not directly irradiated was modelled in terms of surviving fraction (SF) and Poisson-based TCP. A direct comparison was made between the linear-quadratic (LQ) response model, and a response model that incorporates bystander effects as derived from published in vitro data by McMahon et al. in 2012 and 2013. Scenarios of random and systematic misses were considered.

Results: Our results suggested the potential for the bystander effect to deviate from LQ predictions when even very small (< 1%) sub-volumes of the target volume were directly irradiated. Under conditions of random misses for each fraction, the bystander model predicts a 3% and 1% improvement in tumour control compared to that predicted by an LQ model when only 90% and 95% of the prostate cells randomly receive the intended dose. Under conditions of systematic miss, if even a small portion of the target volume is not directly exposed, the LQ model predicts a TCP approaching zero, whereas the bystander model suggests TCP will improve starting at exposed volumes of around 85%.

Conclusions: The bystander model, when applied to clinically relevant scenarios, demonstrates the potential to deviate from the TCP predictions of the common local LQ model when sub-volumes of a target volume are randomly or systematically missed over a course of fractionated radiation therapy.

Keywords::

• Bystander effect
• prostate cancer
• modelling
• tumour control probability (TCP)

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Derek Brown for his useful discussions and Dr McMahon for providing the details of his group's work.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.