Page 68 - ARNM-2-4

Advances in Radiotherapy
& Nuclear Medicine Different approaches for the computation of BED

Author contributions Biol Phys. 1989;16(6):1623-1630.

Conceptualization: Vadim Y. Kuperman doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(89)90972-3
Formal analysis: All authors 8. Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, et al. Tolerance of normal
Investigation: All authors tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
Methodology: All authors 1991;21(1):109-122.
Writing – original draft: Vadim Y. Kuperman doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(91)90171-Y
Writing – review & editing: All authors
9. Dawson LA, Normolle D, Balter JM, McGinn CJ,
Ethics approval and consent to participate Lawrence TS, Ten Haken RK. Analysis of radiation-induced
liver disease using the Lyman NTCP model. Int J Radiat
Not applicable Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53(4):810-821.

Consent for publication doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02846-8
10. Seppenwoolde Y, Lebesque JV, de Jaeger K, et al. Comparing
Not applicable different NTCP models that predict the incidence of
radiation pneumonitis. Normal tissue complication
Availability of data probability. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55(3):724-735.
Data are available from the corresponding author on doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)03986-X
reasonable request.
11. Barendsen GW. Dose fractionation, dose rate and iso-effect
References relationships for normal tissue responses. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys. 1982;8(11):1981-1997.
1. Graham MV, Purdy JA, Emami B, et al. Clinical dose-volume doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(82)90459-X
histogram analysis for pneumonitis after 3D treatment for
non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol 12. Jones B, Dale RG, Deehan C, Hopkins KI, Morgan DA.
Phys. 1999;45(2):323-329. The Role of Biologically Effective Dose (BED) in clinical
oncology. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2001;13(2):71-81.
doi: 10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00183-2
doi: 10.1053/clon.2001.9221
2. Li XA, Alber M, Deasy JO, et al. The use and QA of
biologically related models for treatment planning: Short 13. Fowler JF. 21 years of biologically effective dose. Br J Radiol.
report of the TG-166 of the therapy physics committee of 2010;83(991):554-568.
the AAPM. Med Phys. 2012;39(3):1386-1409. doi: 10.1259/bjr/31372149
doi: 10.1118/1.3685447 14. Barton M. Tables of equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions:
3. Nahum AE, Uzan J. (Radio)biological optimization of A simple application of the linear quadratic formula. Int J
external-beam radiotherapy. Comput Math Methods Med. Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31(2):371-378.
2012;2012:329214. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(94)e0126-5
doi: 10.1155/2012/329214 15. Nahum AE, Sanchez-Nieto B. Tumor control probability
4. Marks LB, Yorke ED, Jackson A, et al. Use of normal tissue modeling: Basic principles and applications in treatment
complication probability models in the clinic. Int J Radiat planning. Phys Med. 2001;17(2):13-23.
Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3 Suppl):S10-S19. 16. Schultheiss TE, Orton CG, Peck RA. Models in radiotherapy:
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1754 Volume effects. Med Phys. 1983;10(4):410-415.
5. Bentzen SM, Constine LS, Deasy JO, et al. Quantitative doi: 10.1118/1.595312
analyses of normal tissue effects in the clinic (QUANTEC): 17. Withers HR, Taylor JM, Maciejewski B. Treatment
An introduction to the scientific issues. Int J Radiat Oncol volume and tissue tolerance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
Biol Phys. 2010;76(3 Suppl):S3-S9. 1988;14(4):751-759.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.09.040 doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(88)90098-3
6. Lyman JT. Complication probability as assessed from dose- 18. Kutcher GJ, Burman C, Brewster L, Goitein M, Mohan R.
volume histograms. Radiat Res. 1985;104:S13-S19. Histogram reduction method for calculating complication
doi: 10.2307/3576626 probabilities for three-dimensional treatment planning
evaluations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21(1):137-146.
7. Kutcher GJ, Burman C. Calculation of complication
probability factors for non-uniform normal tissue doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(91)90173-2
irradiation: The effective volume method. Int J Radiat Oncol 19. Jones LC and Hoban PW. Treatment plan comparison using

Volume 2 Issue 4 (2024) 8 doi: 10.36922/arnm.4826