001     131578
005     20240228145607.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1324209
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:28502238
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a 1100-1704
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 1651-226X
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 1651-2499
|2 ISSN
037 _ _ |a DKFZ-2017-06210
041 _ _ |a eng
082 _ _ |a 610
100 1 _ |a Gabryś, Hubert Szymon
|0 0000-0001-5657-8432
|b 0
|e First author
245 _ _ |a Parotid gland mean dose as a xerostomia predictor in low-dose domains.
260 _ _ |a Abingdon
|c 2017
|b Taylor & Francis Group
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1662982830_5887
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a Xerostomia is a common side effect of radiotherapy resulting from excessive irradiation of salivary glands. Typically, xerostomia is modeled by the mean dose-response characteristic of parotid glands and prevented by mean dose constraints to either contralateral or both parotid glands. The aim of this study was to investigate whether normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models based on the mean radiation dose to parotid glands are suitable for the prediction of xerostomia in a highly conformal low-dose regime of modern intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques.We present a retrospective analysis of 153 head and neck cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. The Lyman Kutcher Burman (LKB) model was used to evaluate predictive power of the parotid gland mean dose with respect to xerostomia at 6 and 12 months after the treatment. The predictive performance of the model was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and precision-recall (PR) curves.Average mean doses to ipsilateral and contralateral parotid glands were 25.4 Gy and 18.7 Gy, respectively. QUANTEC constraints were met in 74% of patients. Mild to severe (G1+) xerostomia prevalence at both 6 and 12 months was 67%. Moderate to severe (G2+) xerostomia prevalence at 6 and 12 months was 20% and 15%, respectively. G1 + xerostomia was predicted reasonably well with area under the ROC curve ranging from 0.69 to 0.76. The LKB model failed to provide reliable G2 + xerostomia predictions at both time points.Reduction of the mean dose to parotid glands below QUANTEC guidelines resulted in low G2 + xerostomia rates. In this dose domain, the mean dose models predicted G1 + xerostomia fairly well, however, failed to recognize patients at risk of G2 + xerostomia. There is a need for the development of more flexible models able to capture complexity of dose response in this dose regime.
536 _ _ |a 315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315
|c POF3-315
|f POF III
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed,
700 1 _ |a Buettner, Florian
|0 0000-0001-5587-6761
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Sterzing, Florian
|0 P:(DE-He78)75d45845a04db67c5a88db1086046ef1
|b 2
|u dkfz
700 1 _ |a Hauswald, Henrik
|0 P:(DE-He78)9e8fb0cffee71172acb6ac45c40bade0
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Bangert, Mark
|0 P:(DE-He78)fec480a99b1869ec73688e95c2f0a43b
|b 4
|e Last author
773 _ _ |a 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1324209
|g Vol. 56, no. 9, p. 1197 - 1203
|0 PERI:(DE-600)1492623-4
|n 9
|p 1197 - 1203
|t Acta oncologica
|v 56
|y 2017
|x 0284-186X
909 C O |p VDB
|o oai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:131578
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 0
|6 0000-0001-5657-8432
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 2
|6 P:(DE-He78)75d45845a04db67c5a88db1086046ef1
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 3
|6 P:(DE-He78)9e8fb0cffee71172acb6ac45c40bade0
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 4
|6 P:(DE-He78)fec480a99b1869ec73688e95c2f0a43b
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Gesundheit
|l Krebsforschung
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-310
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF3
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-300
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Imaging and radiooncology
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2017
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0310
|2 StatID
|b NCBI Molecular Biology Database
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0600
|2 StatID
|b Ebsco Academic Search
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b ASC
915 _ _ |a Nationallizenz
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0420
|2 StatID
|d 2021-01-30
|w ger
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2021-01-30
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b ACTA ONCOL : 2019
|d 2021-01-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2021-01-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0600
|2 StatID
|b Ebsco Academic Search
|d 2021-01-30
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b ASC
|d 2021-01-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2021-01-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1030
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Life Sciences
|d 2021-01-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0160
|2 StatID
|b Essential Science Indicators
|d 2021-01-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1050
|2 StatID
|b BIOSIS Previews
|d 2021-01-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1190
|2 StatID
|b Biological Abstracts
|d 2021-01-30
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0113
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
|d 2021-01-30
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
|d 2021-01-30
915 _ _ |a IF < 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9900
|2 StatID
|d 2021-01-30
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331
|k E040
|l E040 Med. Physik in der Strahlentherapie
|x 0
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)E050-20160331
|k E050
|l E050 KKE Strahlentherapie
|x 1
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-He78)E050-20160331
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21