Comparison of Different Models in Calculation of Tumor Control Probability and Normal Tissue Complication Probability in Breast Cancer Radiotherapy.
- 1Department of Biomedical Engineering and Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
- 2Department of Medical Physics, Radiation Oncology Center, Vali Asr Hospital, Qom, Iran.
- 3Department of Medical Physics, Nasiriyah Teaching Hospital, Nasiriyah, Iraq.
Abstract
Background
The aim of this study is to compare tumor control probability (TCP) for the planning target volume (PTV) using Poisson, Niemierko, and Zaider-Minerbo models, and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for organs at risk (OARs) using Niemierko, Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) and relative seriality (RS) models.Methods
Radiotherapy dosimetry data of sixty breast cancer patients were utilized to calculate TCP and NTCP with various models. Patients underwent planning using a 16-slice CT scanner, delivering 50 Gy in 25 fractions using 6 MV photon beam energy and the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS).Results
Significant differences in TCP were found between Poisson and Zaider-Minerbo models, and between Zaider-Minerbo and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) based models, with no difference between Poisson and EUD-based models. For NTCP, differences were observed between RS model and LKB for heart, spinal cord, and thyroid, as well as between RS model and EUD-based model for the heart, spinal cord and thyroid. LKB and EUD-based models showed differences when considering the lungs as an additional OAR.Conclusion
Differences among models for calculation TCP and NTCP emphasize the importance of considering specific treatment objectives and patient characteristics in breast cancer radiotherapy planning, ensuring optimized therapeutic outcomes while minimizing adverse effects on healthy tissues.
Related
- Comparative Radiobiological Evaluation of Radiotherapy Techniques Using Equivalent Uniform Dose, Tumor Control Probability, and Normal Tissue Complication Probability in Postmastectomy Breast Cancer
- Comparison of different radiotherapy planning techniques in breast cancer using active breathing coordinator
- Assessment of Calculation Grid Size Impact on Plan Quality and Gamma Evaluation Metrics in Intracranial Stereotactic Radiotherapy
- DoseRAD2026: A benchmark dataset for AI‐accelerated photon and proton dose calculation in radiotherapy
- Same worst case, different risk: how transient response shapes failure probability
BibTeX
@article{tareq2026comparison,
title = {{Comparison of Different Models in Calculation of Tumor Control Probability and Normal Tissue Complication Probability in Breast Cancer Radiotherapy.}},
author = {Hayder Tareq and Mahdi Ghorbani and Mohammad Reza Deevband and Mehdi Khosravi and Abdullah Ali},
journal = {Journal of medical signals and sensors},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.4103/jmss.jmss_57_25},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42924342},
note = {CC BY-NC-SA},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparison of Different Models in Calculation of Tumor Control Probability and Normal Tissue Complication Probability in Breast Cancer Radiotherapy.
AU - Hayder Tareq
AU - Mahdi Ghorbani
AU - Mohammad Reza Deevband
AU - Mehdi Khosravi
AU - Abdullah Ali
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - Journal of medical signals and sensors
DO - 10.4103/jmss.jmss_57_25
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42924342
AB - Background The aim of this study is to compare tumor control probability (TCP) for the planning target volume (PTV) using Poisson, Niemierko, and Zaider-Minerbo models, and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for organs at risk (OARs) using Niemierko, Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) and relative seriality (RS) models.Methods Radiotherapy dosimetry data of sixty breast cancer patients were utilized to calculate TCP and NTCP with various models. Patients underwent planning using a 16-slice CT scanner, delivering 50 Gy in 25 fractions using 6 MV photon beam energy and the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS).Results Significant differences in TCP were found between Poisson and Zaider-Minerbo models, and between Zaider-Minerbo and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) based models, with no difference between Poisson and EUD-based models. For NTCP, differences were observed between RS model and LKB for heart, spinal cord, and thyroid, as well as between RS model and EUD-based model for the heart, spinal cord and thyroid. LKB and EUD-based models showed differences when considering the lungs as an additional OAR.Conclusion Differences among models for calculation TCP and NTCP emphasize the importance of considering specific treatment objectives and patient characteristics in breast cancer radiotherapy planning, ensuring optimized therapeutic outcomes while minimizing adverse effects on healthy tissues.
SN - 2228-7477
ER -