Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak ( for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 18, Number 5, 2013

Radiobiological comparison of two radiotherapy treatment techniques for high-risk prostate cancer

Trinitat García Hernández, Aurora Vicedo González, Jorge Pastor Peidro,
Juan V. Roselló Ferrando, Luis Brualla González, Domingo Granero Caban˜ ero,
José López Torrecilla


Background: To make a radiobiological comparison, for high risk prostate cancer (T3a, PSA > 20 ng/ml or Gleason > 7) of two radiotherapy treatment techniques. One technique consists of a treatment in three phases of the pelvic nodes, vesicles and prostate using a conventional fractionation scheme of 2 Gy/fraction (SIMRT). The other technique consists of a treatment in two phases that gives simultaneously different dose levels in each phase, 2 Gy/fraction, 2.25 Gy/fraction and 2.5 Gy/fraction to the pelvic nodes, vesicles and prostate, respectively (SIBIMRT).
Materials and methods: The equivalent dose at fractionation of 2 Gy (EQD2), calculated using
the linear quadratic model with ˛/ˇprostate = 1.5 Gy, was the same for both treatment strategies.
For comparison the parameters employed were D95, mean dose and Tumour Control
Probabilities for prostate PTV and D15, D25, D35, D50, mean dose and Normal Tissue Complication
Probabilities for the rectum and bladder, with physical doses converted to EQD2.
Parameters were obtained for ˛/ˇprostate = 1.5, 3 and 10 Gy and for ˛/ˇoar = 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8.
Results: For prostate PTV, both treatment strategies are equivalent for ˛/ˇprostate = 1.5 Gy but
for higher ˛/ˇprostate, EQD2 and TCP, decrease for the SIBIMRT technique. For the rectum and
bladder when ˛/ˇoar ≤ 2 Gy, EQD2 and NTCP are lower for the SIMRT technique or equal in
both techniques. For ˛/ˇoar ≥ 2–3 Gy, EQD2 and NTCP increase for the SIMRT treatment.
Conclusions: A comparison between two radiotherapy techniques is presented. The SIBIMRT
technique reduces EQD2 and NTCP for ˛/ˇoar from 2 to 8 Gy.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2013; 18(5) : 265-271

« back


Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.