BED Formula PDF

The British Journal of Radiology, 83 (2010), 554–568
REVIEW ARTICLE
21 years of Biologically Effective Dose

J F FOWLER, DSc, PhD, FInsTP
Emeritus Professor of Human Oncology & Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, WI 53792,
USA
ABSTRACT. In 1989 the British Journal of Radiology published a review proposing the
term biologically effective dose (BED), based on linear quadratic cell survival in
radiobiology. It aimed to indicate quantitatively the biological effect of any
radiotherapy treatment, taking account of changes in dose-per-fraction or dose rate,
total dose and (the new factor) overall time. How has it done so far? Acceptable clinical
results have been generally reported using BED, and it is in increasing use, although
sometimes mistaken for ‘‘biologically equivalent dose’’, from which it differs by large
factors, as explained here. The continuously bending nature of the linear quadratic
curve has been questioned but BED has worked well for comparing treatments in many
modalities, including some with large fractions. Two important improvements occurred
in the BED formula. First, in 1999, high linear energy transfer (LET) radiation was
included; second, in 2003, when time parameters for acute mucosal tolerance were
proposed, optimum overall times could then be ‘‘triangulated’’ to optimise tumour BED
and cell kill. This occurs only when both early and late BEDs meet their full constraints
simultaneously. New methods of dose delivery (intensity modulated radiation therapy,
stereotactic body radiation therapy, protons, tomotherapy, rapid arc and cyberknife) Received 3 February 2010
use a few large fractions and obviously oppose well-known fractionation schedules. Revised 15 March 2010
Careful biological modelling is required to balance the differing trends of fraction size Accepted 23 March 2010
and local dose gradient, as explained in the discussion ‘‘How Fractionation Really
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/31372149
Works’’. BED is now used for dose escalation studies, radiochemotherapy,
brachytherapy, high-LET particle beams, radionuclide-targeted therapy, and for ’ 2010 The British Institute of
quantifying any treatments using ionising radiation. Radiology
In 1989 the British Journal of Radiology (BJR) published until nearly a decade later (‘‘Labelling indices go to zero...’’
an article [1] that introduced the term BED, biologically Tubiana, oral comment in a conference in Rome, 1969). The
effective dose, as a linear quadratic (LQ)-based formula main contribution of BED was just to add a simple overall
with an overall time factor included, to replace Dr Frank time factor on to the equally simple LQ equation, log cell
Ellis’s (1969) nominal standard dose (NSD) and the kill5ad+ bd2, which had been in regular, but not universal,
Orton and Ellis (1973) time–dose factor (TDF) tables. use in radiotherapy since before 1980. Somehow, BED
stuck and continues to be useful. Does it need modifying
yet? Its record, of mainly avoiding accidental overdoses for
BED~nd ð1zd=½a=bÞ{loge 2 ðT{TkÞ=aTp ð1Þ late complications, has remained intact for nearly 30 years
because those effects of late complications didn’t depend
on overall time, but only on dose-per-fraction if intervals
Where n fractions of d Gy are given in an overall time of
between fractions were more than 6 h.
T days and tumour repopulation doesn’t start until day
Tk (using k for kick-off, or onset, of the delayed
repopulation during fractionated irradiation).
Dr Ellis had designed NSD as a much-needed concept, Three big steps
distinct from physical dose, because dose alone obviously
fails to represent the effect on biological tissues if it is Since 1989, three main changes have occurred. The first
delivered in one instead of 30 daily fractions, or at a was the gradual lifting of the late-tolerance complications
different dose rate or radiation quality. NSD was for constraint EQD3/2 (equivalent doses as 2-Gy fractions for
normal tissues only; repopulation had been discovered in a/b53 Gy, known also as NTD) from about 66 to 70 Gy in
tumours in rats and mice but was thought not to occur in head and neck (H&N) and non-small-cell lung cancer
human tumours during continued ‘‘daily’’ irradiation, (NSCLC) (the rapidly repopulating tumours) and from
about 64 to 78 Gy EQD3/2 in prostate radiotherapy with
Address correspondence to: Prof Jack F Fowler, Flat 1,150 Lambeth
definite volume constraints. (See Table 1 for an explana-
Rd, London SE1 7DF, UK. E-mail: jackfowlersbox@g-mail.com tion of the subscripts.) All this has been accomplished
Funding: The author has no financial conflict of interest. with much use of the BED concept, with acceptable
554 The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010

Review article: 21 years of BED
Table 1. The linear quadratic (LQ) dose terms used

BED: biologically effective dose (of a given schedule): the total dose required to give the same log cell kill as the schedule being
studied, at an infinitely low dose-rate or with infinitely small fractions well spaced out; now with an overall time factor for
repopulation during continued irradiation
ETD: extrapolated tolerance dose, and later ERD: extrapolated response dose. Exactly the same concept defined by Barendsen
[12] in 1982 but without the overall time factor explicitly included
EQD: equivalent total dose in 2-Gy fraction. Or NTD, normalised total dose, normalised to 2-Gy fractions. The total dose in 2-Gy
fractions that would give the same log cell kill as the given schedule. It is this that is the biologically equivalent dose, which
should not be abbreviated to BED. In previous literature EQD has been called NTD (normalised total dose at 2-Gy fractions)
Because BED5total dose6RE, then EQD[a/b] /25BED[a/b]/RE[a/b]/2
a/b, a/b ratio of the tissue; [a/b]/2, dose per fraction used
Relationship: BED~RE|Total Physical Dose Eqn (2)
RE~ð1zd=½a=b Þ where d is dose-per-f raction,
Eqn (3)
and a=b depends on the same tissue of interest
BED
So Total Physical Dose in 2 Gy f raction~ Eqn (4)
RE f or 2 Gy f raction
For a late-reacting tissue a BED in Gy3 must be divided by 1+2/351.67 to find its EDQ3 /2, using the same ‘‘late’’ a/b ratio, 3 Gy. For
a central nervous system or kidney BED in Gy2, divide by 1+2/252.0 to obtain its EQD2/2.
For an early-responding tissue, a BED in Gy10 must be divided by 1+2/1051.2 to find its EQD10 /2, using this ‘‘early’’ a/b ratio of
10 Gy. And so on for any tissue, using the same a/b ratio as that chosen to calculate its BED in the first place.
A BED can most conveniently be identified simply by a single subscript meaning the a/b ratio of the relevant tissue; thus, Gy10 for
early complications, Gy3 for late complications, or Gy2 for late complications in central nervous system or kidney.
Any EQD can be identified most securely by two subscripts, the first showing the a/b ratio of the relevant tissue and the second
showing the equivalent dose per fraction, usually 2 Gy for an EQD, but occasionally another equivalent as stated. Thus for an
irradiation of 30F62 Gy560 Gy, a BED of 100 Gy3560 Gy EQD3/2 is delivered to the late-reacting tissues, but a BED of
72 Gy10560 Gy10/2 EQD10/2 is delivered simultaneously to acutely reacting types of tissue. The BEDs are different in the two
tissues in the same beam, but the EQDs are equal, being all ‘‘normalised’’ to the 2-Gy fraction size at the two different a/b’s
because two different tissues.
clinical results. Intensity modulated radiation therapy unfocused story of the way that basic understanding has
(IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are gradually developed of the mechanisms and opportunities
currently writing new values of constraint doses. of fractionated radiotherapy, I have concentrated mostly on
This BED formula has also been used to predict the H&N radiotherapy (H&N RT). These tumour sites allow
effects on tumours of changes in fractionation, with reasonably complete clinical results to be obtained in fewer
remarkable agreement across a wide range of interna- years than most other sites except lung cancer, which has
tionally developed schedules. All of the best schedules for more complexities in interpretation of results. Appendix B
H&N radiotherapy now deliver 11.0–11.2 log10 cell kill in contains some of the grains of insight gathered during the
this modelling: no more, no less, as shown below. This hunt for ‘‘How fractionation actually works’’ to optimise
constancy speaks well for the reliability of Equation (1). 11 overall time for maximum tumour cell kill.
log10 means that the proportion of surviving cells would
be reduced from approximately 109 cells per gram of
tissue to a chance of one cell in 100 tumours surviving the Advantages and disadvantages of BED use
irradiation. These figures are approximate only, but they
ensure an exceedingly good chance of tumour control. An occasional disadvantage is that BED is confused with
‘‘biologically equivalent dose’’, which it definitely is not: not
The second main change was the spreading of BED
until after the biologically effective dose (which it is) has
outside its obvious uses in external beam X-ray scheduling
been divided by 1.2, or 1.67, or 2.0, depending on whether
studies, to evaluate equivalent radiation doses in other
the tissue under discussion was early or late responding or
treatment modalities starting with high LET radiotherapy,
was in the central nervous system, as explained in Table 1.
brachytherapy at high and low dose rates, radiochemother-
This problem could be solved by renaming these BED
apy and duration of palliation, etc. [A1–A31].
units, as discussed at the end of this review. Its many
The third main change is that in 2003 acute reactions
advantages are that it enables different radiotherapy
were found to have some credible parameters in a similar
schedules to be compared, after clinical use in explaining
BED formula, so that predictions of acute tolerance doses different results, and even before use to design clinical
could then be matched to clinical data for volumes above a trials more efficiently than by guesswork, however
few square centimetres of mucosa irradiated as a tolerance inspired. It was successfully used to design animal
prediction. This acute mucosal BED formula is now being experiments by the present author, with appropriate
used to evaluate the effects of chemoradiotherapy on different parameters, before writing that 1989 review [1].
tumours with some success compared with radiation-only
acute reactions. The important result of this step is that a
full explanation of how multifraction radiotherapy works
in optimising tumour cell kill has, at last, become possible.
A step backwards?
BED has been used in almost every field of radiotherapy, Correspondence within the past three years has ques-
including high-LET and high and low dose rates tioned whether the simple LQ curve should be straightened
and targeted nuclide radiotherapy. To avoid a wildly beyond an arbitrary dose of 7 Gy. This was suggested
The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010 555

J F Fowler
because of some scattered and non-mature two- and three- being widely used to plan improved fractionation schedules
year results from SBRT treatments of NSCLC on which no in the mid-1980s [10, 11].
reliance should yet be placed [2]. In practice, a good Dr Eddie Barendsen made the biggest step in formulat-
straightening can be simulated in the original simple LQ ing the usefulness of the LQ algorithm in 1982 [12]. This
curve simply by assuming that a/b for lung tumours is 20 was when ‘‘the genie came out of the bottle’’ for me! I based
instead of 10 Gy; I do this now for NSCLC tumours. There is the present BED concept firmly on his concept of an
good biological evidence that such higher values of the a/b extrapolated tolerance dose defined [12] as ‘‘That dose
ratio are found in rapidly repopulating tumours, for which, if given at infinitely small doses per fraction or at
example in tumours of the larynx, [3] where a ratio of infinitely low dose rate, would give the same log cell kill
a/b515 Gy was estimated, with even higher a/b values of (LCK) as the schedule being considered.’’ His ETD was
35 or 50 Gy found in other rapidly growing tumours. soon renamed ‘‘extrapolated response dose’’ (ERD) when it
However, even before there is any real evidence that a was realised that it applied to all types of biological effect
straightening is required, both Curtis [4] and Gilbert et al [5] and not just to tolerance of normal tissues. ERD is still used,
had pointed out that the simple two-term LQ equation was especially by Dutch scientists, as is appropriate. It uses the
an approximation of the exponential expansion that could be simplest form of LQ algorithm to calculate LCK, E5ad+bd2.
calculated to further terms (with appropriate coefficients to Eddie Barendsen’s other major contribution in 1982
be derived from reliable clinical data). A small negative was to choose to divide E by a instead of by b to define a
‘‘gamma dose-cubed’’ term could do that elegantly, as quantity (proportional to LCK) that had dimensions of
pointed out by Douglas and Fowler [6]. Such an additional dose instead of dose squared.
coefficient might well be derived from clinical results with The LQ formula was criticised at the time ‘‘because it
doses of 8–24 Gy as used in SBRT, but to date sufficiently didn’t have a time factor’’, although it was enormously useful
reliable clinical data have not been analysed. for schedules of similar overall time, and for all questions of
late complications because they depended little on overall
time of treatment. However, attachment to the old multi-
Origins of the BED formula target survival curve concept did not die easily, especially in
the USA. When I moved from the Gray Laboratory to
A LQ response for radiation effects was not new in Wisconsin in 1988, every resident in radiation oncology in the
radiobiology [7], but it had not been shown to be applicable USA seemed to have a little book of NSD-TDF tables (Orton
to fractionated radiotherapy until Douglas and Fowler [6] and Ellis time–dose factors) in his white coat pocket, although
did so in 1976 with multifraction experiments on the skin of by 1983 the LQ description of log cell kill had been used to
mouse feet comfortably restrained without anaesthetic. We point out the superiority of two fractions a day over one
used LQ to analyse the data instead of the generally fraction a day in radiotherapy schedules [10].
preferred multitarget or multihit models of cell killing. The cell kineticists and radiobiologists whose insights
Arguments about the shape of mammalian cell survival contributed directly to my derivation of Equation (1)
curves ended with the self-defeating multihit prediction of included Rod Withers [9, 13], Eddie Barendsen [8,12],
zero slope at very small doses, which could obviously not be Howard Thames [10], Bruce Douglas [6] and Barry
true. One of the leaders in cell culture at the time was Dr GW Michael, plus Liz Travis and Sue Tucker [14] and Jan van
(Eddie) Barendsen at Rijswijk in The Netherlands. He was der Geijn [15], who suggested the subtraction term for
respected but when he obtained in 1962 mammalian cell repopulation; not forgetting Julie Denekamp and Fiona
survival curves in vitro, which appeared to be LQ down to Stewart (by being sceptical about any equations in
1024 cell survival in vitro [8], he was not generally believed biology, so keep them simple!).
(he was, after all, originally a physicist!). Such curves were I have described this precursor background so that the
most plausibly related to the phases of the cell cycle by the derivation of the BED Equation (1) can be seen clearly to
biophysical ‘‘lethal/potentially lethal’’ model of Curtis [4] 24 depend on many previous contributors. I joined in
years later, and others. ‘‘climbing on the shoulders of others’’, adding just a
In 1980 Withers et al [9] had discovered, with ground- third time component out of the four (see below).
breaking insight, that the major difference between early
responding, fast turning-over mammalian tissues and the
late-responding, slowly proliferating tissues was in the
steepness of their response to changes in the dose-per- The BED formula
fraction. Instead of plotting dose–response curves as effect Log cell kill was calculated by the simple LQ formula
against increasing fraction number, he plotted them against a1d+a2d2 [12]. To derive the BED formula intended to replace
decreasing dose-per-fraction, which went the same way Ellis’s NSD and TDF calculations, I took this simple formula,
with overall time as increasing fraction numbers, and then converted Barendsen’s ratio a1/a2 to a/b because of its well-
the difference was obvious. Nobody was more forward- known radiobiological relevance [9, 10], added the negative
thinking than Rod Withers and his colleagues in Houston, term recently suggested by Travis and Tucker [14] and by
Howard Thames and Lester Peters. They found a ready Van de Geijn [15] (actually in the British Journal of Radiology
explanation for the steepness effect by a change in the ratio earlier in 1989), and simply wrote down this formula:
of initial slope to the higher-dose slope of the relevant cell
survival curves; that meant a change in the ratio of a to b of
the LQ cell survival curve. This important difference BED~nd ð1zd=½a=bÞ{loge 2ðT{TkÞ=aTp ð1Þ
between acute and late normal-tissue radiation damage
was soon accepted by the radiation oncology community, Where n fractions of d Gy are given in an overall time of
and this difference made logical sense. LQ modelling was T days and repopulation (with a cell doubling time Tp)

doesn’t start until day Tk (using k for kick-off for the

delayed repopulation during irradiation). It should be
noted that the repopulation term followed Withers et al
[13] in assuming a constant repopulation rate, i.e. a
constant cell doubling time Tp up to the end of the
radiation treatment. It should be noted that Tp is a little
shorter than Tpot (potential doubling time measured
before the tumour has received any cytotoxic treatment),
as illustrated in Figure 1. Thames and Withers [16], and
others had carried out tests for the equal effect of each
equal dose fraction before the time Tk.
For some reason BED was taken up more widely than
ETD or ERD. Although it’s sadly clear that not all
radiation workers are sufficiently well educated in this
basic part of their subject, so it bears repeating now at the
20-year mark that BED does NOT mean ‘‘biologically
equivalent dose’’, although it is sometimes used very
wrongly as if it did, and that can lead to dose errors by Figure 1. Estimated tumour log cell kill plotted vs tumour cell
factors of 1.2 or 1.67 or 2 (Table 1). BED means strictly doubling time Tp during radiotherapy of the four schedules in
what Equation (1) above says, and it is a biologically the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 90-03 clinical trial [27,
28]. The start of repopulation Tk was assumed to be 21 days.
effective dose for a tissue with a particular a/b ratio only.
The rapid decrease of tumour effect as doubling time
The most important part of this LQ algorithm is the decreases is obvious, with two pairs of the schedules predicted
basic Barendsen formula: to give identical results at two different levels of cell kill, but
both at Tp 52 days only, at the crossover points. Redrawn
BED or ERD~total dose|RE ð2Þ from log cell kill Figure 7 of Fowler 1989 [1].
where: RE~relative effectiveness~ð1zd=½a=bÞ ð2Þ

the definitive experiments demonstrating the delayed
If the irradiation lasts more than a few minutes, onset time Tk in skin of mice as early as 1973 [21].
These were followed in the mid-1980s by a series of
RE~ð1zgd=½ a= b Þ ð2aÞ brilliant biomathematical papers by Dr Roger Dale [22–24].
They are frequently quoted today because they untangled
where g is the dose rate factor for intracellular repair of the two aspects of the time factor that were considered the
radiation lesions [7]: most important factors until the animal experiments about
repopulation [6, 9–13, 19–21] brought those into focus as
g~v1~2 ½mT{1z exp ð{mT Þ=ðmT Þ2 ð2bÞ well. The two earlier factors concerned falling dose rates
rather than the third time factor, overall treatment time: they
where m50.693/TK and T5duration of irradiation (h). TK were repair of intracellular radiation damage (with half-
is often taken as 1.5 h, or in a 2-component repair model as times of an hour or so), and the half-lives of the radio-
60% at 0.4 h+ 40% at 4 h. All time components depend on nuclides used to deliver many kinds of brachytherapy
a/b inversely, as Equation (2a) shows. This gets us into the [22–25]. Dale and Jones [25] introduced a fourth time factor,
fascinating prospect that a slowly delivered IMRT fraction that of changes in tumour size leading to frank changes of
of 35 or 45 min might spare late complications by repair of dosimetry from any implanted sources. It is to be expected
about 10% of the BED3, but would spare most tumours that more information on this factor will be forthcoming as
(with a/b ,10 or 20 Gy) by much less. image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) grows in use. Roger
In any LQ calculation, RE is the first term that you Dale and Bleddyn Jones have gone on to publish a library of
calculate, and once you have calculated RE you have an papers that are important in radiotherapy modelling and
instant view of how much more radiation damage your therapeutic insight, with References 22 and 25 as still basic
schedule can do to tissue compared with just the obvious essential reading for any radiobiology scientist. It will be a
physical dose number. It may be modified also by detrimental change if the teaching of radiotherapy princi-
chemical, biological or genetic radiosensitisers or radio- ples, and of oncology generally, ever fails to include such
protectors, and particularly by repopulation or by dose seminal papers. That has been a fluctuating danger for the
rate, but the damage begins with total dose6RE and past 25 years.
there is still no escaping this basic relationship. A search for titles including ‘‘modelling’’ in the BJR
archives (kindly carried out by the BIR librarian Susanne
Smith) back to their digitised date of 1928, listed 47 titles,
The role of the British Journal of Radiology reduced to 40 by excluding all before 1989 and all diagnostic
topics. Of these 40, about half were relevant to radiobiology
The BJR has played a large part in these developments, or physics and clinical oncology. My select list of References
starting with the first tentative mention of LQ in relation 17–26 contains some of the most influential ones on LQ
to radiotherapy [17, 18]. Then followed many fractiona- modelling. Other important applications of BED are listed in
tion animal experiments [19] and early modelling [4–7], Appendix A, together with many more BJR references.
including the first published mention of the crucial I remember an early occasion when it was astonishing
mouse skin experiments [20]. This was even before the to discover, from looking only at the REs, that doubling
more often quoted Radiation Research reference [6], and the dose-rate from the traditional low dose-rate of

J F Fowler
42–80 rads (cGy) per hour, which the International significantly different by 8% at p50.02. Later follow-up
Commission on Radiological Units casually appeared to showed the difference to be 7% at seven years (41–42% vs
regard as equally effective ‘‘LDR’’, was actually biologi- 48–49%) (see also [27, 28]). The strong schedules were
cally equivalent to increasing daily fraction size from 2 Gy concomitant boost and the RTOG hyperfractionation of
to 4 Gy per fraction, which clinicians would rightly be 68F61.2 Gy b.i.d. (52F/day). The weak schedules were the
much more reluctant to do! Consideration of this standard 35F62 Gy570 Gy in seven weeks and the
modelling steers us away from such simplistic divisions hyperfractionated 42F61.6 Gy b.i.d.567.2 Gy but with a
into categories of LDR vs HDR (high dose rate). central split of two weeks. No gratitude was expressed (or
expected) that this modelling had been able to pick out the
two weakest and the two strongest schedules 11 years before
the two-year clinical results were obtained. But an important
Hyperfractionation or accelerated
scientific point was established in 2000 [27, 28]. A glance at
radiotherapy for head and neck RT? the graphs in Figure 7b of the 1989 review [1], redrawn here
In 1989, this was a major controversy in the radiotherapy as Figure 1 (note the two arrows), shows that these two
of head and neck (H&N) cancer. The 1989 BJR review [1] coincidences were predicted to occur only if the clonogenic
examined the implications for a number of well-known cell doubling times were close to two days for both the weak
H&N schedules, presenting graphs of the expected LCK as a and the strong pairs of schedules. Even if the kick-off times
function of the repopulation rate of malignant tumour cells, were changed over the whole likely range from Tk50–32
from doubling times of Tp51.5–20 days. The most uncertain days coincidences still occurred at Tp51.8–2.3 days only
parameters were Tk and Tp in Equation (1) above, so the (not shown). These results of modelling supported the faster
graphs were constructed to plot the result as LCK against doubling times being derived from other clinical studies
Tp, having chosen a Tk of 21 or 28 days from published where delayed treatments were giving lower tumour control
human tumour determinations in the range 18–32 days, results in H&N patients at 1.5–2% LRC per day of
knowing that repopulation is detectable in animal tumours lengthening, and confirmed that strong measures had to
within a few days after irradiation, which suggests earlier be taken to avoid delays in treatment once started. This was
rather than later. The other parameters chosen for this one of the important changes that LQ modelling brought to
modelling were unexceptional, being those required for a practical radiotherapy in 1996 [29, A8].
reasonable chance of tumour control at the schedules then
used, as described in the original 1989 paper [1].
Four of those schedules were tested synchronously in Small, encouraging steps
the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 90-03 During the next years the colleagues I visited several times
clinical trial of 1300 patients with advanced H&N cancer, in Uruguay strengthened the ‘‘weak’’ schedule of 1.6 Gy
which reported results in 2000 [27, 28]. The 1989 paper b.i.d. (10F/week), described above. This was achieved by
had shown unequivocally that two of the schedules were gradually reducing the gap to zero, using a slight modifica-
strong and two were weak (Table 2), but could make tion of this BED formula and deciding near the end of each
no more accurate prediction about tumour results until patient’s treatment whether to add one or two fractions of
both the kick-off time Tk and the actual repopulation 1.6 Gy, or instead to wait a day before adding another one or
doubling time Tp (during continuing radiotherapy, as two fractions or none. The improved results were published
derived from analysis of clinical data) were known to in 2001 [30] and showed with 1007 H&N patients an increase
some extent. Other studies of schedules with varied at five years of 19% LRC for T3–4 patients treated b.i.d. over
overall times had suggested that Tp (actual cell doubling 40 days compared with their previous 5F per week schedule
times during radiotherapy) was as rapid as about three which was a median length of 13 days longer. There was no
days [13]; i.e. shorter than the median Tpot of five days significant increase in either late or acute reactions. Also in
obtained from unirradiated pre-treatment tumour cell 2001, other colleagues, Lee et al in Hong Kong [31], had
proliferation by flow cytometry. Which could be wrong? found that shortening the treatment of nasopharyngeal
The results [27, 28] answered that question clearly. The carcinoma by one week had increased progression-free
two weak schedules gave coincident results of 46% loco- survival from 63% to 74% at 3 years (p50.02) as Equation (1)
regional tumour control (LRC) at two years, but the two had suggested. Much later, in 2003, Overgaard et al [32] also
strong schedules gave coincident results of 54% LRC, gained 12% LRC in advanced H&N patients by saving a
Table 2. The four arms of the clinical trial Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 90-03 [17]
Schedule Total Overall Tumour time-corrected Late complications Acute mucosal
Dose Time EQD Log10 EQD Gy EQD Gy

(Gy) (days) (Gy) cell kill (aim ,70) (,49–52.5)
(1) HFX: 1.2 Gy668 F 81.6 45 73.0 11.1 66.6 51.0

(2) Concom boost: 1.8630F + 1.5 6 12F 72 39 72.4 11.0 67.8 49.2
(3) CC Wang split AFX: 1.6 Gy642F 67.2 39 65.8 10.0 61.7 43.8
(4) Control: 2 Gy635 F 70 46 70 10.2 70 44.3
AFX, accelerated and split course; EQD, equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions; HFX, hyperfractionated.
Modelled assuming a50.35 Gy, a/b510 for tumour and mucosa, a/b53 for late complications, Tk521 days for tumour and
Tk57 days for acute mucosa. Tp53 days for tumour and 2.5 days for mucosa. Schedules 1 and 2 are the ‘‘strong’’ schedules
and Schedules 3 and 4 are ‘‘weak’’, as shown in the tumour log10 cell kill column.

week of overall time when they used 6F instead of 5F per region of total doses from 59 Gy to 63 Gy10 wide (49–
week with the same 33 fractions of 2 Gy. The tumour BEDs 52.5 Gy10/2 EQD). This means that doses near the bottom of
predicted by Equation (1) also matched the small (about 5%, that range signify a low probability of serious reactions, but
statistically insignificant) gains in LRC found in H&N those at the top signify higher probabilities.
radiotherapy for the CHART Continuous hyperfractionated Table 3 presents good evidence for the relevance of
accelerated radiation therapy MR UK trial [33] and Trans- Equation (1), with the altered parameters chosen specifically
Tasman Radiation Oncology Group [34] clinical trials, and for acute mucosal reactions, notably Tk57 days instead of
for the larger success of CHART in improving on the LRC of the Tk of more than 20 days in tumours [37]. Schedules are
their 60-Gy control arm in 2-Gy fractions then used for listed that were too ‘‘hot’’ (numbered 1) acutely when first
NSCLC [35]. used and so were soon moderated by the originating
It became obvious to me that all of the good clinicians to become tolerable (numbered 2). Since these
fractionation schedules in various countries were giving schedules were radiation only with no chemotherapy
remarkably similar tumour BEDs for H&N radiotherapy, added, they provide a good check on the modelling [37]
all yielding the narrow range 11.0–11.2 LCK on my scale because they show that all of the acute mucosal BEDs and
of assumed parameters [36]. This narrow range of the corresponding EQDs came down from above to just below
modelled BED and EQD tumour values is a strong the grey zone of acute constraint of BED563 Gy10 or
suggestion that the tumour modelling is giving reliable EQD552.5 Gy [37]. Even better confirmation of the BED
results for the overall times of four to seven weeks for the formula modified for acute mucosal reactions is obtained
rather rapidly repopulating tumours in H&N and from a schedule using 1.3 Gy at 2F/day660F578 Gy [38],
presumably in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). but in 42 days instead of the neat and obvious 39 days
overall time. At 39 days the mucosal BED was 62.8 Gy10,
close to the top of the grey zone, but at 42 days was at the
Late complications Gy3 BEDs were not the middle of the zone, 60.4 Gy10, and therefore much safer.
limiting constraint It is now well known that the limiting tolerance reactions
for altered fractionation for H&N radiotherapy are the acute
It was also shown that the limiting BEDs were clearly not reactions, mucositis and dysphagia. We have learnt to avoid
those for late complications, but were possibly those for late complications by respecting the late BEDs correspond-
acute BEDS. We return to this important point later. A hint ing to 70 Gy of 2-Gy fractions (EQD3/2), which is 117 Gy3,
can be seen in Table 2. The four schedules in the RTOG together with 45–50 Gy (EQD2/2) for spinal cord, which is a
90-03 trial show that three of the four late complications late BED of 90–100 Gy2. (Table 1 describes the terminology
EQDs (derived from late Gy3 BEDs by dividing by 1.67) are Gy3/2, etc.)
comfortably below the nominal constraint level of 70 Gy in By reviewing all the H&N schedules that we could
2-Gy fractions, whereas one of the acute mucosal BEDs and collect, together with the published reports of the acute
EQDs (for HFX) was above the middle of the grey zone reactions of Grades 1–3 and higher, Fowler et al [39]
level at 61 Gy10 (or 51 Gy EQD, obtained by dividing the proposed a ‘‘Grey Zone’’ of 59–63 Gy10 (corresponding to
BED in Gy10 by 1.2) [37]. The grey zone of acute mucosal EQD10/2549–52.5 Gy10/2). Within this zone any H&N
tolerance is described in detail below, but it represents a schedule should lie as a prediction for new schedules.
Table 3. ‘‘Hot’’ schedules (1), now moderated (2) by the originators

Dose/fraction6number of fractions Total Overall Tumour Late Acute Yes
dose time log10 complications mucosal aim or
(Gy) (days) cell kill aim ,70 EQD ,49–52.5 no
estimate Gy EQD Gy
Gortec 1 2F/d 2 Gy632F 10F/week 64 21 11.5 64.2 54.1 No

Gortec 2 2F/d 1.75636F 10F/week 63 23 11.05 60.0 51.2 Y
Cair 1 2 Gy635F 7F/week 70 34 11.5 70+ 52.2 ?
Cair 2 1.8 Gy639F 7F/week 70.2 39 10.9 67.2 48.6 Y
Harde 1 2F/d 1.2Gy620F+1.6610F 76 33 12.01 67.0 55.2 No
+1.4620F+2 Gy64F
Harde 2 2F/d 1.2 Gy636F 73.2 37 11.0 63.6 49.0 Y
+ 1.5 Gy620F
Sanguinetti 1 1.3 Gy660F 2F/d 78 39 11.6 67.1 52.3 No
Sanguinetti 2 1.3 Gy660F 2F/d 78 42 11.3 67.1 50.3 Y
Escalation study 2F/day All Yes
Leborgne et al 1.6 Gy642F 67.2 29 11.05 61.8 50.4 Y
Hyperfr no gap
different OvTs
Leborgne et al 1 1.6 Gy643F 68.8 30 11.2 63.3 52.8 No
Leborgne et al 2 1.6 Gy643F 68.8 31 11.1 62.5 52.1 Y
Leborgne et al 1 1.6 Gy644F 70.4 30 11.5 64.7 52.8 No
Leborgne et al 2 1.6 Gy644F All 2F/d 70.4 33 11.2 64.7 50.9 Y
Original references can be found in References 19, 25, 27 or 35.
Tumour Tk assumed, 21 days; Tp, 3 days; acute mucosiits Tk57 days and Tp52.5 days; both with a 50.35 Gy21 and a/b510 Gy.
EQD, equivalent dose; OvT, optimum overall times.

J F Fowler
This was confirmed by the five published schedules in How fractionated radiotherapy works:
Table 3. The fifth schedule shows the RTOG ‘‘hyperfracti- obtaining maximum optimum tumour cell kill
nation with a gap’’, after the gap had been gradually
reduced to zero by Leborgne et al’s [30] careful testing of It is obvious that in a situation like H&N radiotherapy
Equation (1). This was a major test of the BED concept at where malignant tissues cannot be reliably separated
the time, starting in the mid-1990s. from normal mucosal tissues by a steep dose gradient, a
high tumour dose can only be achieved when both the
late and early tolerance constraint doses are delivered
simultaneously. This is hard to achieve with altered
Tests for any X-ray radiotherapy schedule
schedules but happens quite closely with doses per
Table 4 therefore lists the three separate calculations fraction of about 2 Gy given 5 times a week for 44–46
that are now recommended for each schedule to be days, as explained in detail in Reference 42. This happy
investigated in its main radiobiological aspects of (1) late coincidence accounts for the long popularity of this
complications, (2) tumour BED or EQD or estimated log scheduling; but earlier modelling, based only on late
cell kill, and (3) acute mucosal BED or EQD in relation to BEDs in Gy3 vs tumour repopulation, had suggested in
the ‘‘tolerance grey zone’’. The ratio of the tumour BED 1990 that shorter overall times should be tried so as to
to the late BED, or even more clearly tumour EQD to avoid tumour repopulation [43]. The snag was that acute
the late EQD, is a good therapeutic ratio. The ratio reactions became the limiting factors in the shorter
of a calculated tumour BED (usually with a/b510 Gy) schedules [44] and there were no ways of modelling
to a late complications BED (a/b53 Gy usually, but those acute tolerance doses until after 2003, when a good
a/b52 Gy for CNS (central nervous system) and kidney value for their mucosal Tk was found.
had been used before the BED formula as a very rough Against this trend was the modelling showing that
approximation, but that was one of the reasons for smaller doses per fraction enabled higher total doses to
introducing BED with an overall time factor. be given for the same late tolerance, and several fractions
The grey zone for mucosa requires further clinical per day could achieve this without the excessive overall
verification but is well worth calculating before any new times. However, mucosal reactions again became limit-
schedule is tried on patients; it has been used to guide ing [44]. Three fractions a day were too many: perhaps
some new dose escalation steps in H&N radiotherapy, 2F/day would do better? Much clinical effort has been
and recently to compare acute responses in chemora- put into these obviously contradictory approaches, with
diotherapy (Appendix A). no indication whatever of any type of optimum overall
Equation 1 for acute mucosa reduces then simply to: time (Figure 2) until very recently, 2008 [42] and here;
the present paper is a shortened story of that unravelling
BEDam=10=2 ~nd ð1z d=10Þ{0:693ðT{7Þ=ð2:5|aÞ ð1am Þ of trends.
The subscript ‘‘am’’ stands for acute mucosa. There is

preliminary evidence that the same acute grey zone of Estimating kick-off time Tk for acute mucosal
tolerance dose might also apply to the other end of the reaction
gastrointestinal tract, to rectal mucosa, especially in the
treatments of prostate radiotherapy where tight volume One of the two main innovations in LQ modelling
constraints are now well known [39, 40]. since 1989 was the accumulation of data on fractionation
After these successes with acute mucosal BED we schedules that led to the concept of the ‘‘Grey Zone’’ for
should now ask whether the simple ‘‘linear’’ (exponen- acute mucositis tolerability in 2003 [37]. Those authors
tially) form of repopulation, following (Withers et al’s had narrowed the choice of Tk for oral mucosa down to
dog leg [13]) in Equation (1), is still adequate, or whether ‘‘between 5 and 10 days’’, but the strong V-shaped curve
we should allow for an expected (and long alleged) from cell counts in human mucosal biopsies pinned
accelerated repopulation towards the end of a schedule. down Tk to a clearly determined seven days in a
Table 5 lists the three formulae that have been proposed watershed paper [45]. This work enabled the parameters
for this [37, 40, 41]. The second of these references shows for this modification of Equation (1am) to be settled.
a clinical graph with a very slight upward curvature of Labelled cells, indicating proliferating cells, fell rapidly
accumulated acute damage at the end of the schedule. It to about 10% at seven days after starting irradiation with
differs by less than 4% from the predictions of tolerance 2-Gy fractions, and then began to rise sharply. This
EQDs of the present Equation (1am) [37]. finding alters the concept of Tk somewhat from ‘‘start of
Table 4. The three sets of biologically effective dose (BED) calculations to analyse any schedule with the parameters regularly
used by the author
1. Ensure late complication constraints are not overdosed: late BED3#117 Gy3#EQD3/2 70 Gy unless volume reduced, e.g. 80 Gy ,EQD3/2
for 2 cm3. No overall time factor normally assumed. a/b53 Gy, or 2 Gy for central nervous system and kidney
2. Tumour BED 105nd(1+d/[a/b])20.693 (T2Tk)/0.35 Tp, [1] with Tk521–32 days and Tp53 days for lung or head and neck cancer.
a50.35, occasionally 0.3 Gy21 where stated. For most tumours a/b510 Gy, but prostate cancer a/b51.5 to 2 Gy, breast cancer
a/b54 Gy, malignant melanoma a/b50.6 Gy, non-small-cell lung cancer a/b520 Gy. Log10 cell kill5BED Gy1060.152 and
EQD10/2 Gy60.1266.3 normal mucosa
3. Acute BED105nd(1+d/10)20.693 (T27d)/0.3562.5d [37] ,5grey zone of 59263 Gy10549–52.5 EQD10/2. Derived from oropharyngeal
data; possibly applies to rectal mucosa too, with the commonly applied volume limitations used in prostate radiotherapy [39]
EQD, equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions.

Table 5. The three proposed acute mucosal bed tolerance dose estimation systems
1. Fowler JF, Harari PM, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH [37]

d 0:693ðT{7Þ
BEDmucosa~nd 1z { ð1mÞ
10 0:35|2:5
Similar to Equation (1), but with Tk57 days and Tp52.5 days. a/b5!0 Gy and a 50.35 Gy21 as before. This assumes a constant rate
of repopulation as an average over the time T2Tk.) The term (T–Tk)/Tp gives the average number of cell doublings in the time
T–Tk days available for repopulation
2. Strigari l, Arcangeli G, Arcangeli S et al [40]
Their Figure 3 shows a clinically derived curve bending upwards by 4% above a straight line, for rectal toxicity during
conventional or hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. This is in reasonable agreement with Equation (1am). Their
formula is somewhat less simple algebraically
3. Fenwick [41]
BEDmucos.569.56(T/32.2)/sin (T/32.2)–3.5 Gy10
This formula curves upwards at the end – I believe too sharply unless modified
repopulation’’ to ‘‘time at which repopulating cells Optimum overall time for H&N radiotherapy:
become obvious’’. But it conforms to the concept of Tk solution of a puzzle
as defined in tumour observations [1, 13, 37, 45].
Figure 2 shows a plot of the estimated tumour EQDs/
LCKs delivered by many of the best schedules inter-
nationally, and a few nearly-best also. The best ones lie
The time at which mid-grey zone is reached on or just above the straight dotted line at 11 LCK and
defines the practical overall time the others less than 1 log10 below. There is obviously no
It was therefore not until 2003 that an acute mucosal indication of anything resembling an optimum ‘‘hump’’,
constraint could be defined [37], so that a meaningful which indicates how confused the field has been,
calculation of an optimum overall treatment time for including me [36, 43], until now [42].
altered fractionation could be attempted, with both late The following solutions were only arrived at by
and early constraints. For this acute constraint we could calculating the maximum tumour BEDs for every
use the middle of the acute grey zone: (61 Gy105EQD of number of fractions from one fraction of 17.3 Gy to 115
51 Gy10/2), being safely below the possible upper fractions of 0.8 Gy, given on five treatment days a week.
boundary of 63 Gy10 or 52.5 Gy EQD10/2. All of them had the same late BED of 117 Gy3,
An attempt at predicting realistic optimum overall corresponding to the EQD3/2 of 70 Gy. This late
times (OvT) was made, finally, in 2008, together with an constraint determined the exact fraction size of each of
explanation of how fractionation really works [42]. Why the 115 schedules, with no time factor involved.
did it all take so long? It took my final retirement from For each schedule, the maximum possible tumour
Madison for me to have the time to complete the many dose is only obtained when both the acute and the late
calculations of each ‘‘practical overall time for any dose constraints are delivered simultaneously. It’s too
fraction number’’, as described below. easy to decide on some round-figure dose-per-fraction
and so instead to score a near-miss in dose per fractions,
which is a much bigger miss in total dose. To match
equal acute mucosal BEDs (in Gy10) with the late
constraint was therefore tedious.
First I set up the ordinary, 5F/week, expected number of
days for the number of fractions, and calculated the
predicted acute mucosal BED. If this exceeded our chosen
acute constraint of the middle of the grey zone (5EQD10/2 of
51.0 Gy), I then had to extend the overall time a few days to
bring down the calculated acute BED to the constraint EQD
of 51.0 Gy or slightly below (or go to 2F/d with smaller
fraction size in a different time frame). This was more like
knitting than like the final moves in a game of chess against a
slippery opponent! That’s why anyone had to be retired to
do enough of these fractionated schedules to define the
overall time curve. It’s also not a coincidence that the first
paper under discussion, [1], was written just after I had
retired from the Gray Laboratory in 1988, before I got ‘‘busy
again’’ with day-to-day matters.
Figure 2. The lack of any obvious optimum overall time in The resulting ‘‘practical overall time’’ of the knitting/
head and neck radiotherapy with radiation only. The square
chess moves for each number of fractions was then recorded.
points show the estimated tumour log10 cell kill for schedules
used in 14 centres worldwide and the schedule of I had a list of fraction numbers and sizes, all limited by the
2 Gy635F570 Gy in 7 weeks commonly used as control. The same late and early constraint doses of 70 EQD3/2 and 51
best schedules are predicted to give 11.0 to 11.2 logs of cell kill EQD10/2 values, and each with the overall time that gave the
assuming a/b510 Gy, a50.35 Gy21, Tk521 days, Tp53 days. closest acute constraint EQD just below 51 Gy EQD [42].

J F Fowler
Each of those recorded schedules would then deliver the Old-fashioned low dose rates and permanent implants
maximum tumour BED (and EQD) which could be obtained have this magical advantage of being the only radiation
with that number of fractions in five treatment days a week. modality that approaches 100% therapeutic ratio
This principle is not limited to H&N patients. (because all REs tend to 1.0 for X-rays (or strictly to
These results should be clinically reliable for any tumour RBEmax) at low doses per fraction. Even radium at
site where the late tolerance dose is 70 Gy in 2-Gy 7000 cGy/week was 18% short of that for tumour effects.
fractions and the acute tolerance depends on mucosal That brings its RE of 1.18 very close to the RE of 1.2 for
tissues. The acute constraint at 51 Gy EQD10/2 is cautiously external beam acute reactions and most tumours, which
below the maximum of 52.5 Gy at the top of the grey zone. is just the standard conventional expectation. There was
The listed schedules here and in Reference 42 could be tried some rationale, as well as tradition, when experienced
in any new clinical trial with no more than a few patients radiation oncologists expressed reservations as HDR
treated at perhaps one fraction less than those listed, as a came in. Although I did not hear it expressed as clearly
doubly cautious mini-escalation test for any centre. But as this at the time. ‘‘Is HDR high risk for high
increasing fraction size, even very slightly, could lead to throughput?’’ is how it was put, although HDR has
strong acute reactions, unless extra overall time was become useful, with large dose reductions and good
allowed, which would decrease tumour control by the geometry [25, 48, 49, A19, A20, A28, A29].
equivalent of 1–2 Gy/day [29]. Finally, the maximum So, provided that a/b for tumours is so much larger than
tumour EQD was calculated at the ‘‘practical overall time’’ for late complications, and that tumour repopulation
for each schedule, using the tumour Tk of 21 days [46], and averages no more than about 0.7 Gy/day, multifraction
the resulting log10 cell kill was estimated. ‘‘Practical’’ meant radiotherapy (hyperfractionation) is advantageous in prin-
that Saturdays and Sundays were not allowed to be ciple. This principle makes pulsed dose rates (PDRs) more
treatment days. attractive, but PDR is available in convenient form only as
pulsed brachytherapy.
But are there any optimum overall times at smaller
Distinction between carcinomas and acutely fraction numbers, closer to the onset time of tumour cell
reacting normal tissues that drives the optimum repopulation Tk perhaps?
fractionation is not limited to H&N tumours
It was the big difference in the two values of Tk
between tumour and mucosa that was the important The solution of the puzzle: yes, there are clear
factor in determining this ‘‘practical overall time’’ result. optimum overall times
The values of Tp of 3 and 2.5 days average cell-doubling It should be emphasised that the following solutions
times respectively made relatively little difference. are not limited to H&N RT – they apply to any tumours
Figure 3 shows a simple graph by Arvidson et al [47] of that repopulate fairly fast, probably most carcinomas
gradually increasing tumour effect (specified as the esti- except prostate, gliomas and some breast tumours.
mated progression-free survival of patients treated with an
imaginary series of schedules with two fractions given on
each of five days a week, up to 60 fractions in six weeks (39
days)). The fraction size for each schedule was adjusted to
deliver always the same late constraint BED in Gy3 or total
EQD10/2. The two-day dips (due to no irradiation at
weekends) are obvious, but the point is that the tumour
effect continues to rise week after week although progres-
sively less rapidly. It is this gradual rise in tumour effect as
the fraction sizes become successively smaller and overall
time longer that has attracted users to move to longer and
longer overall times in spite of the detriment of tumour
repopulation, because the weekly increase in tumour
radiation damage continues to exceed the loss by repopula-
tion damage. It shows that ‘‘hyperfraction does work best’’,
until overall times become so long that they are incon-
venient, or doses per fraction become so low that they
cannot counteract the repopulation rate in the tumours of
about 0.7 Gy EQD10/2 per day. This is an average
approximate rate of loss of tumour effect every day,
translating to 7/560.750.98 Gy EQD10/2 if irradiated on Figure 3. Estimated biochemical recurrence-free survival of
five treatment days a week, as a minimum useful treatment patients treated with an imaginary series of schedules with
rate. Hyperfractionation will continue to improve when 2F given on each of 5 days a week, up to 60F in 6 weeks
(39 days), calculated from Equation (1) assuming Tp54 days
more and smaller fractions are given, down to fraction sizes
doubling time and Tk514 days. The fraction size for each
of approximately this small; that is how multifractionation schedule was adjusted to deliver always the same late
works. Radiotherapy goes on being more ‘‘efficient’’ constraint biologically effective dose in Gy3 or total EQD3/2.
(defined as tumour BED divided by late BED, that is The 2-day gaps at weekends are obvious, but the accumu-
BED10/2 divided by BED3/2) for more and smaller fractions, lated effect on tumours continues to rise with successive
down to this limit, if anyone had the time and patience. weeks. (Replotted from Arvidson et al [47].

Figure 4 shows my 2008 graph of those ‘‘maximum Table 6 summarises the best schedules in the 1F/day and
possible tumour EQDs’’ for any fraction number, all with the 2F/day schedules. The slightly extended overall times
same late and early constraint doses. Tumour EQDs are should be noted, as making them shorter would mean
scaled on the left axis and corresponding LCK on the right being more risky above the acute constraint.
axis, with all schedules plotted against increasing fraction Some of the finer points arising from all this model-
number, regardless of overall time. The crosses are the ling for optimum overall times, and from the new
highest resulting tumour EQDs obtainable for each number understanding of how fractionation works, are sum-
of fractions. The circles are the highest acute mucosal EQDs marised in Appendix B.
obtainable, all for the same constraint BED and EQD values.
For the tumour EQDs clear optimum ‘humps’ are now
obvious, the downward slopes being due to tumour
repopulation after both the constraints had been reached
Conclusions
[42]. It is interesting that the two types of schedule, 1F/day The considerable gains between the 2F/day and 1F/
and 2F/day (both at five days/week), are distinctly separate. day schedules are discussed in Appendix B. These points
However, they would join up as a kind of non-constant are relevant when we consider protons, SBRT and
‘‘ridge’’, which is what had been confusing the subject of radiosurgery that have a propensity for short schedules
‘‘optimum overall time’’ in earlier publications [36, 43]. with very large doses per fraction. These are based
In Figure 5 the same data are plotted against practical at best on more rapid dose gradients from tumour
overall time and this is the important result: with the same to surrounding normal tissue or, at worst on, cost
late constraint, and (after about five fractions) also for considerations.
their acute constraint of 51 Gy EQD10/2. It is shown how So the modelling suggests (rather strongly) that two
these acute EQDs (circles) can be maintained close to the fractions a day is the best practical compromise for
constraint level for many days by lengthening the overall external beam radiation, with PDRs as an interesting
time, which could not be seen in Figure 4 because overall competitor in the wings, even if it is used outside ‘‘office
time was not plotted there. Figure 5 illustrates what might hours.’’ With present technology, it is only available as
be called ‘‘constructive lengthening’’, when for each extra brachytherapy, which has some of its own good physical
day the tumour EQD10/2 goes up a little instead of down. dose gradients.
These curves are slightly irregular, subject to the Although both parts of Equation (1) are the most
weekend gaps and of overall time being integral days obvious mathematical simplifications of what could be
instead of continuous time. Local tumour maxima are longer series of terms, it does appear to work fairly well.
often but not always on a Friday. Both types of schedule To date, Equation (1) has been useful, both for tumours
have their main tumour maxima appreciably later than and for acute mucosa, as well as for late complications.
the intuitive expectation of Tk days, until we look (see There is still more to be done by using this modelling.
[42]) at even shorter doubling times for Tp than the It has come to my attention that a new radiobiological
presently plotted three days. unit is being suggested for deterministic clinical radiation
Figure 6 shows the same data, with only the tumour reactions (as distinct from stochastic events). It would
EQDs, cleaned up and some good schedules labelled. honour a former colleague appropriately and would also
Figure 4. Each schedule is represented by one X (tumour

equivalent dose (EQD)10/2) and one O (acute mucosal EQD10/2 Figure 5. The same data as in Figure 4 plotted against
below it), plotted against fraction number only. The circles show practical overall time (the minimum overall time that keeps
the maximum estimated acute mucosal EQDs given by choosing acute mucosal equivalent dose (EQD)10/2 at or below 51 Gy).
overall times according to 1F or 2F on weekdays only, and then X, Tumour EQD; O, acute mucosal EQD. Optimum tumour
extending overall time where necessary to the shortest ‘‘practical EQDs for 2F/day are higher than those for 1F/day by 4 Gy
OvT’’ that keeps the acute mucosal EQD 10/2 not greater than EQD and 0.3 log10 cell kill. The plotted curves fall when
51.0 Gy. (Reproduced from Fowler 2008 [42]). The separate the late constraint dose is reached (Reproduced from Fowler
families of points for 1F or 2F per day were then obvious. [42] 2008).

J F Fowler
made, from his obtaining of LQ shaped cell survival

curves in the early 1960s to the finding of rapid
repopulation in human-origin tumours implanted into
rats at a time when it was not known that repopulation is
common in tumours during continued irradiation, and
culminating in the concept of using the initial slopes of
cell survival curves to define the log cell kill which is the
basic concept of the present BED as explained above [12].
I support this proposal with great pleasure [15], especially
as it will be able to discriminate clearly between this concept
as Barendsen Units (Bd) proportional to log cell kill, for
specific tissues as designated by their a/b ratios, distinct
from that of EQD2, which is the biologically equivalent dose
in 2 Gy fractions in ordinary Gy units of dose.
References
Figure 6. The same data for tumour EQD and log-cell kill as 1. Fowler JF. A Review: The linear quadratic formula and
in Figures 4 and 5, cleaned up and the best schedules progress in fractionated radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 1989;62:
labelled. They are also listed in Table 6 slightly more legibly 679–675.
with mandatory minimum overall times listed too. It is 2. Park CS, Papiez L, Zhang S, Story M, Timmerman RD.
interesting how much better we can do than with 35 factions Universal survival curve and single fraction equivalent
of 2 Gy in 7 weeks, even without adding chemotherapy. dose: useful tools in understanding potency of ablative
radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;70:847–52.
3. Maciejewski B, Withers HR, Taylor JMG, et al. Dose fractiona-
avoid the confusion mentioned above that BED could be tion and regeneration in radiotherapy for cancer of the oral
mistaken for biologically equivalent dose instead of its cavity and oropharynx: tumor dose-response and repopula-
defined meaning of biologially effective dose. tion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1989;16:831–43.
This suggestion was made within the last year by a 4. Curtis SB. Lethal and potentially lethal lesions induced by
group from MIRD [50] and is under consideration by the radiation – a unified repair model. Radiat Res 1986;106:
ICRU and IAEA. It would be called the Barendsen (Bv) in 252–70.
honour of his many scientific contributions, as empha- 5. Gilbert CW, Hendry JH, Major D. The approximation in the
formulation for survival of S5exp – (ad+bd2). Int J Radiat
sised in the present account, that Eddie Barendsen has
Biol 37:469–71.
6. Douglas BG, Fowler JF. The effect of multiple small doses of
Table 6. Recommended optimum head and neck schedules X-rays on skin reactions in the mouse and a basic
and some other tumours from the present modelling interpretation. Radiat Res 1976;66:401–26.
(Figure 6) 7. Lea DE, Catcheside DG. The mechanism of the induction
by radiation of chromosome aberrations in Tradescantia.
Late constraints are always 70 Gy EQD with a/b53 Gy and no time
J Genet 1942;$$:216–45.
factor. Acute mucosal constraints are 51 Gy EQD with a/b510 Gy,
a50.35 Gy21, Tk57d, Tp52.5d. (Equation 1m) 8. Barendsen GW. Dose-survival curves of human cells in
tissue culture irradiated with alpha-, beta, 20-KV X- and
Two fractions a day should ideally These overall times 200KV X-radiation. Nature 1962;193:1153–5.
be used, as: must not be 9. Withers HR, Thames HD, Peters LJ. Differences in the
shortened by fractionation response of acutely and late-responding
even one day tissues. In: Kärcher KH et al, editors. Progress in radio-
without dropping oncology II. New York, NY: Raven Press, 1982: 287–96.
at least one fraction 10. Thames HD, Peters LJ, Withers HR, Fletcher GH.
1.4 Gy657F579.8 Gy/45 days, These overall times Accelerated fractionation vs hyperfractionation : rationales
not 39 days cannot be shortened for several treatments per day. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
without risk of 1983;9:127–38.
acute complications 11. Fowler JF. Brief summary of radiobiological principles in
1.3 Gy660F578 Gy/42 days, fractionated radiotherapy. Sem Radiat Oncol 1992;2:16–21.
not 39 days 12. Barendsen GW. Dose fractionation, dose rate, and isoeffect
1.2 Gy670F584 Gy/49 days, relationships for normal tissue responses. Int J Radiat Oncol
not 45 days Biol Phys 1982;8:1981–97.
If only one fraction a day can be 13. Withers HR, Taylor JMG, Maciejewski B. The hazard of
given, these are the best accelerated tumor clonogen repopulation during radio-
schedules to use: therapy. Acta Oncol 1988;27:131–46.
3.41 Gy616F554.56 Gy/23 days,
14. Travis EL, Tucker SL. Isoeffect models and fractionated
not 21 days
radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1987;13:
2.94 Gy620F558.8 Gy/27
283–7.
or 28 days
15. Van de Geijn J. Incorporating the time factor into the linear
2.53 Gy625F563.25/31
quadratic model [letter]. Br J Radiol 62:296–8.
or 32 days
16. Thames HD, Withers HR. Tests of equal effect per fraction
If 2F/day can be used, the tumour
and estimation of initial clonogen number in microcolony
EQDs will be 2–4 fractions of
assays of survival after fractionated irradiation. Br J Radiol
2 Gy greater than 1F/day
1980;53:1071–7.

17. Fowler JF, Stern BE. Dose-rate factors in integral dose 36. Fowler JF. Practical time–dose evaluation, or how to stop
estimations [letter]. Br J Radiol 1958;31:316. worrying and love LQ. In: Levitt SH, Purdy JA, Perez CA,
18. Fowler JF Stern BE. Dose-rate effects: some theoretical and Vijayakumar S, editors. Technical basis of radiation therapy,
practical considerations. Br J Radiol 1960;33:389–95; 58. 4th revised edition. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2006: 3–31.
19. Fowler JF, Morgan RL, Silvester JA, et al. Experiments with 37. Fowler JF, Harari PM, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Acute
fractionated X-ray treatment of the skin of pigs. I fractiona- radiation reactions in oral and pharyngeal mucosa: toler-
tion up to 28 days. Br J Radiol 1963;36:188–96. able levels in altered fractionation schedules. Radiother
20. Douglas BG, Fowler JF. Fractionation schedules and a quadratic Oncol 2003;69:161–8.
dose effect relationship [letter]. Br J Radiol 1975;48:502–3. 38. Sanguinetti G, Sosa M, Endres E, et al. Hyperfractionated
21. Denekamp J. Changes in the rate of repopulation during IMRT (HF-IMRT) alone for locally advanced oropharyngeal
multifraction irradiation of mouse skin. Br J Radiol carcinoma: a phase I study. Radiother Oncol 2004;73(Suppl
1973;46:381–7. 1):S300.
22. Dale RG. The application of the linear-quadratic dose-effect 39. Huang EH, Pollack A, Levy Y, et al. Late rectal toxicity:
equation to fractionated and protracted radiotherapy. Br J dose–volume effects of conformal radiotherapy for prostate
Radiol 1985;58:515–8. cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:1314–21.
23. Dale RG. The application of the linear-quadratic model to 40. Strigari L, Arcangeli G, Arcangeli S, et al. Mathematical model
fractionated radiotherapy when there is incomplete normal for evaluating incidence of acute reactal toxicity during
tissue recovery between fractions, and possible implications conventional or hypofractionated radiotherapy courses for
for treatments involving multiple fractions per day. Br J prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;73:1454–60.
Radiol 1986;59:919–27. 41. Fenwick J. Early mucosal reactions during and after head-
24. Dale RG. Possible dose rate dependence of recovery kinetics and-neck radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
as deduced from a preliminary analysis of the effects of 2008;71:625–34.
fractionated irradiations at varying dose rates. Br J Radiol 42. Fowler JF. Optimum overall times II: Extended modelling for
1988;61:153–7. head and neck radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (RCR) 2008;20:113–26.
25. Dale RG, Jones B. The clinical radiobiology of brachyther- 43. Fowler JF. How worthwhile are short schedules in radio-
apy. Br J Radiol 1998;71:465–83. therapy? Radiother Oncol 1990;18:165–81.
26. Armpilia CI, Dale RG, Jones B. Determination of the 44. Kaanders JHAM, van der Kogel AJ, Ang KK. Altered
optimum dose per fraction in fractionated radiotherapy fractionation: limited by mucosal reactions? Radiother
when there is delayed onset of tumour repopulation during Oncol 2002;22:81–91.
treatment. Br J Radiol 2004;77:765–7. 45. Dörr W, Hamilton CS, Boyd T, et al. Radiation induced
27. Fu KK, Pajak TF, Trotti A, et al. A Radiation Therapy Oncology changes in cellularity and proliferation in human oralmu-
Group (RTOG) phase III randomized study to compare cosa. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;52:911–17.
hyperfraction and two variants of accelerated fractionation to 46. Roberts SA, Hendry JH. Time factors in larynx tumour
standard fractionation radiotherapy for head and neck radiotherapy: lag times ad intertumour heterogeneity in
squamous cell carcinomas: first report of RTOG 90–03. Int J clinical data sets from four centers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48:7–16. Phys 1999;45:1247–57.
28. Trotti et al. Long term outcomes of RTOG 90-03. Int J Radiat 47. Arvidson NB, Khunyia D, Tome WA. Dose escalation
Oncol Biol Phys 2005;63:S70–1. model for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. Radiother
29. Hendry JH, Bentzen SM, Dale RG, et al. A modelled Oncol 2009;91:379–85.
comparison of the effects of using different ways to 48. Bentzen SM, Overgaard J, Thames HD, et al. Clinical
compensate for missed treatment days in radiotherapy. radiobiology of malignant melanoma. Radiother Oncol
Clin Oncol 1996;8:297–307. (Updated in 2002, see A8.) 1989;16:169–82.
30. Leborgne F, Leborgne JH, Zubizaretta E, Fowler JF, Mezzera 49. Fowler JF. The radiobiology of prostate cancer : new aspects
J. Accelerated hyperfractionated irradiation for advanced of fractionated radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 2005;44:265–75.
head and neck cancer: effect of shortening the median 50. Sgouros G, Howell RW, Bolch WE, Fisher DR. MIRD
treatment duration by 13 days. Head Neck 2001;23:661–8. Commentary: Proposed name for a dosimetry unit applic-
31. Lee AWM, Sze W-M, Yau T-K, et al. Retrospective analysis able to deterministic biological effects – The Barendsen (Bd).
on treating nasopharyngeal carcinoma with accelerated 51. Fowler JF, Dale RG. When is a BED not a BED? – When it’s
fractionation (6 fractions per week) in comparison with an EQDQ! [Letter] IJROBP. Accepted 5 May 2010.
conventional fractionation (5 fractions per week): report on
3-year tumor control and normal tissue toxicity. Radiother
Oncol 2001;58:121–30.
32. Overgaard J, Hansen HS, Lena S, et al Five compared with
six fractions per week of conventional radiotherapy of
APPENDIX A
squamous cell carcinomas of head and neck: DAHANCA 6
& 7 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;362:933–40.
33. Saunders M, Rojas AM, Dische S. CHART revisited: a Other applications of BED
conservative approach for advanced head and neck cancer.
Clin Oncol, (RCR) 2008;20:127–33.
34. Poulsen MG, Denham JW, Peters LJ, et al. A randomized
Other applications than ‘‘How fractionation with
trial of accelerated and conventional radiotherapy for stage X-ray beams really works’’
III and IV squamous carcinoma of the head and neck: a
The concept of BED has been applied to many
Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group Study. Radiother
Oncol 2001;60:113–22.
modalities of cancer treatment, as we have said. Many
35. Saunders MI, Dische S, Barrett A, et al. Continuous, of the following references pay further tribute to the
hyperfractionated, accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) versus continuing role of the BJR, as well as to the scientific
conventional radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer: enterprise and energy of my erstwhile colleagues
mature data from the randomized multicentre trial. Professors Roger Dale and Bleddyn Jones, whom I thank
Radiother Oncol 1999;52:137–48. for adding to these references.

J F Fowler
High LET radiotherapy treatments, and Dr Dee Buchler saying ‘‘what doses can
An important BED formula development was made in we give to be safe and effective?’’ She was a highly
1999 for high-let radiotherapy (high ionizing density), i.e. experienced radiation oncologist and also a surgeon, and
neutrons, heavy-particle beams and some radioactive she was asking me? She quickly understood that any HDR
nuclides. Dale & Jones [A1] explained how the ‘‘(1+…)’’ schedule could give the same tumour BED (with a large
in Equations (1) and (2) for BED and RE in the main text dose reduction) as her previous LDR (traditional low dose
should be simply replaced by the term ‘‘(RBEM+…)’’. rate). However either the late complications BED would
RBE varies inversely with dose per fraction and dose be too high or the tumour BED might be too low – both
rate, with RBEM to be determined at low doses per effects could not be matched at HDR. Her surgeon’s
fraction or lowest dose-rates. This is an echo of the instincts won: ‘‘I don’t want to risk tumour recurrence.’’
definition of BED (or ERD) itself and separates out the The ultimate results were clarified and published by Dr
non-linear, repairable, biological effects from the linear, Dan Petereit, using eventually slightly smaller doses
non-repairable effects. Previously, the changes in RBE [A19]. LQ came into the discussions but BED did not
were known only empirically in terms of the different arrive until a year later, partly indeed as the result of our
shapes of the two types of cell survival curve. A very having an ‘‘ERD’’ without yet having overall time allowed
curved shape indicates low vs nearly straight for high- for [A19]. It was Dr Rachelle Lanciano, from Fox Chase,
LET radiation. RBEs can now be better quantified during who first identified repopulation in Ca cervix and told me,
their variations with dose per fraction [A2–A4]. although the first publication of it was from Toronto.
My first collaboration with the late Dr Felix Leborgne
General modelling for radiotherapy from Uruguay was for medium dose rate brachytherapy
The specific reference to changes of tumour dose with of Ca cervix [A20]. He had such good data for his
time as a result of shrinkage of tumour volume were first stepped sequence of dose escalation that the LQ analysis
quantified in 1994 in the BJR [A5]. In the 1999 ground- enabled a moderate schedule to be designed that was
breaking discovery that prostate tumours have a very low subsequently used in Montevideo for many years, with
a/b ratio [A6], Dale’s important equations [22] played an acceptable results [A21–A22]. Further, the resulting
essential role and in the ensuing arguments [A1, A7]. rectal ‘‘tolerance BEDs’’ turned out to be consistent with
The team of Jones and Dale has dealt also with the corrected Manchester dose levels and with those
many other topics in conventional radiotherapy [A8, A9], from France [A23], and with the toe of an unusually
including duration of palliation [A10] and evaluating complete dose–response curve in human patients from
treatment errors [A11]. A general discussion of the utility Canada [A24], modelling by LQ and the T1/2 repair half-
of BED in clinical practice for medically knowledgeable time of about 2 h learnt from the Leborne rectal results.
but not so mathematically enthusiastic readers is given in A ‘‘tolerance’’ level of 10% grade 3 rectal reactions,
Reference A12. accepted during the 1990s, although not today, corre-
sponded to 125–130 Gy3 before rectal volume constraints
Radiochemotherapy were introduced about 2002 from the prostate experi-
Concomitant chemotherapy with radiotherapy, with ences [39]. These concerns about late complications do
or without surgery, is current standard practice for not involve the latter half of Equation (1), because it is
advanced H&N cancer and other tumour sites. BED accepted that late complications are reduced little, if at
analysis has been used to assess the proportion of total all, by longer overall treatment times. But for tumour
tumour effect provided by either modality if used alone effects [A25] the whole BED Equation (1) is necessary,
or in escalation of either alone [A13–A15]. because for almost every type of tumour (except prostate
Several authors are also investigating whether the up to 8 weeks) overall time is an important variable.
observed increase of acute (or late) complications from
chemotherapy is greater or less than the increase if Non-small-cell lung cancer
radiotherapy alone at escalated total dose was used Long after it was known that most types of carcinoma
using Equation (1) for tumour BED, and Equation (1am) had pre-treatment Tpot values less than about 10 days,
for the increases in acute mucosal reactions reported few determinations of the expected similar or slightly
clinically [A16–A18]. Although the D% increases in shorter doubling times of repopulation during radio-
mucosal scores are broadly similar, with wide spread, a therapy, called Tp, had been made. To determine Tp
balance in favour of radiochemotherapy seems to be requires data, preferably from controlled clinical trials, of
emerging at the time of writing (May 2010). the effect of extending overall time without altering
dose-per-fraction. Several RTOG trials of lung cancer
Ca cervix uteri were available in 2000, and my colleague statistician Dr
I had been aware since the 1950s that the British results Rick Chappell and I determined that the value of Tp for
in Ca cervix were regarded by American and French NSCLC was as short as three days [A26], similar to the
radiation oncologists as ‘‘in need of improvement’’. One average value found for H&N tumours [13]. This was
of the first clinical science lectures I ever heard as a young another case of ‘‘Why did it take so long?’’
radiation physicist was by Dr Gilbert Fletcher from Applying this through the BED Equation (1) to lung
Houston when he visited Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1955, tumour modelling [A27] showed at once that if the
and he spoke memorably on how to achieve better results overall treatment times for lung cancer could be reduced
with his method. Fast forward 33 years, and I was from 6 or 7 weeks to 2.5–3 weeks, the abysmally low
confronted in Madison, USA, with a newly purchased 3-year survival rates could be doubled to 40–50%. About
HDR afterloading machine intended for Ca Cervix four centres had used this approach and had shown that

it worked [A27, A33–A36], but it has too rarely been 3. The important practical conclusion is that 2F/day
exploited. At the same time some conventional ‘‘daily’’ provides more tumour damage than 1F/day (for the
dose escalation trials had reached over 80 Gy in daily same normal tissue risks) by 4–9 Gy total dose EQD, that
doses of 2 Gy, but in 9 weeks, giving well-founded is by two to four 2-Gy fractions, with the greater gain for
anxieties of too long overall times. Thus began in the the slower-repopulating tumours. The best tumour
early 2000s a series of attempts through the National EQD10/2 and cell kill will be found with the smallest
Institutes of Health to achieve at least this level of success doses per fraction, down to an average EQD of about
[A27]. One method in Amsterdam used two fractions a 1 Gy per day, below which repopulation (in H&N and
day. The BED Equation (1) was central to all of these. many other) tumours might not be cancelled out.
These initiatives were trumped in 2004 by Dr Bob 5. For any number of fractions, the optimum tumour
Timmerman’s revolutionary use of stereotactic body radio- LCK can only be obtained when both the acute and the
therapy [A29], based on a Swedish expansion of their brain late constraint doses are fully delivered. (This is obvious
physiology work, to use three fractions of about 20 Gy each but somewhat hard to achieve except by the Leborgne
in 2 weeks [A28, A29] and results are only now being method of observing every patient in the last few days of
published [A29, A32]. I was concerned in all of these with a treatment. Or by the present modelling.)
BED and EQD, and the trick for tolerance seems to be to 6. Optimum tumour cell kill occurs at the Tk related
keep the average BED in both lungs, excluding the time of, or soon after, 21–32 days if 2-Gy fractions are
prescribed treatment volume (PTV), below a value close to given five times a week, and at a range of times from 42
33 Gy3 which is an EQD 3/2 of about 20 Gy in 2-Gy fractions, to 50 days if two smaller fractions are given each day (see
normalised using a/b53 Gy, averaged from every voxel. Figure 6). The maximum tumour damage is 4–5 Gy EQD
Although the safety aspects did not involve the overall time higher for 2F/d than for 1F/d (therefore debatably
part of BED, they were vital to be checked first, largely from worthwhile), but rising to a 10-Gy superiority in favour
Amsterdam [A31]. Tumour comparisons [A27–A29, A32] of 2F/day at an overall time of about 50 days if
certainly involve the overall time part of Equation (1), hence repopulation is slower than 3 days, i.e. if doubling times
the controversy about LQ mentioned at the beginning of this Tp are longer than 3 days.
review [32], which is still to be resolved. 7. No optimum OvT can be shorter than Tk, when
tumour repopulation begins. This has implications for
some SBRT, proton or cyberknife schedules, although in
APPENDIX B practice it suggests ‘‘not shorter than about 2 weeks’’ as
far as we yet know. Five fractions in 5 days seems too
short to achieve highest tolerable doses (Figures 4–6).
8. Most tumours will have optimum overall times at
Discussion on ‘‘How fractionation really least a week or two longer than their Tk day.
works’’ 9. With the exception of the few fastest-repopulating
tumours, such as those with Tp of 3 days or less, whose
1. Figures 3 and 5 explain how the ‘‘momentum optimum OvTs are then just at Tk days, then ‘‘repopula-
towards longer overall times’’ encouraged the trend to tion rules.’’
schedules as long as six or seven weeks. This is in spite of 10. And with the exception of tumours with smaller
2F/day (at about half the 1F/d previous overall times) a/b ratios than the late constraint a/b of 3 Gy, of which
providing better tumour control, before any analysis the outstanding example is prostate cancer [49] with
such as the present one could explain why. Smaller breast cancer being near a cusp of no difference in its a/b
fraction sizes will always enable higher total doses to be ratios, and malignant melanoma with a/b ,0.6 Gy [48].
tolerated, but the competing balance of longer overall 11. More than two fractions a day suffer from two
times loses tumour control because of repopulation. disadvantages: the possibility of incomplete repair in
Modelling is necessary to quantify this balance [42]. Two normal tissues (see note 2 above) and the inconvenience
fractions a day are about right. to patients and departmental planning. However, pulsed
2. It is worth noting that the recent thorough remodel- brachytherapy has dealt head-on with incomplete repair,
ling of parameters for limited-stage small-cell-carcinoma even if its algorithms need further clinical confirmation.
of the lung by Arvidson et al [47] found a/b511.9 Gy, 12. If we do not know the values of Tk or Tp well
Tp54 days and Tk514 days. Not bad ‘‘general agreement enough, in individual tumours or in tumour types, that is
for most tumours’’ over 20 years, except that Tk appears a challenge to be able to measure them.
here notably shorter than the 21 days assumed for the
Fowler modelling here. Arvidson et al also considered References to the appendices
incomplete repair in 2F/day. Using their modelling for
two half-times of repair of 0.4 and 4 h, an increase of about A1. Dale RG, Jones B. The assessment of RBE effects using the
10% for late and 5% for tumour and early appears likely in concept of biologically effective dose. Int J Radiat Oncol
BED or EQD for the 6-h intervals of 2F/d. Overnight Biol Phys 1999;43:639–45.
incomplete repair of ,1% would accumulate for four A2. Dale RG, Carabe-Ferandez A. the radiobiology of con-
ventional radiotherapy and its application to radionuclide
nights, but not beyond a two-day weekend. So let’s just
therapy. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2005;20:47–51.
add these percentages to late BEDs and stop worrying, but A3. Carabe-Fernandez A, Dale RG, Jones B. The incorporation
continue to look for more evidence. Some modern 2F/day of the concept of minimum RBE (RBEmin) into the linear-
schedules are working already at 5–10% below my 70 Gy quadratic model and the potential for improved radio-
EQD3/10, constraint with only marginally less than biological analysis of high-LET treatments. Int J Radiat Biol
optimal tumour control (Tables 2 and 3). 2007;83:27–39.

J F Fowler
A4. Jones B, Carabe-Fernandez A, Dale RG. Calculation of high- cancer of the cervix: preliminary results of a prospectively
LET radiotherapy dose required for compensation of overall designed schedule based on the linear quadratic model.
treatment time extensions. Br J Radiol 2005;79:254–7. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;43:1061–4.
A5. Dale RG, Jones B, Coles IP. The effect of tumour shrinkage A22. Leborgne, F, Fowler JF, Leborgne JH et al. Biologically
on the biological effectiveness of permanent brachyther- Effective Doses in medium dose rate brachytherapy of
apy implants. Br J Radiol 1994;67:639–45. cancer of the cervix. Radiat Oncol Invest 1997;5:289–99.
A6. Brenner DL, Hall EJ. Fractionation and protraction for A23. Fowler JF. Dose reduction factors when increasing dose in
radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol LDR or MDR brachytherapy of carcinoma of the cervix.
Biol Phys 1999;43:1095–101. Radiother Oncol 1997;45:49–54.
A7. Chappell R, Fowler JF, Ritter MA. In response to Drs Dale A24. Clark BG, Souhami L. Roman TN, Chappell R, Evans
and Jones: ‘‘Is a/b for prostate tumours really low? In MDC, Fowler JF. The prediction of late rectal complica-
regard to Fowler et al IROBP 2001 50:1021–1031’’ [Letter]. tions in patients treated with high dose-rate brachyther-
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;52:1427–8. apy for carcinoma of the cervix using the linear quadratic
A8. Dale RG, Hendry JH, Jones B et al. Practical methods for model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;38:989–93.
compensating for missed treatment days in radiotherapy, A25. Gasinska A, Fowler JF, Lind BK et al. Influence of
with particular reference to head & neck schedules. Clin overall treatment time and radiobiological parameters
Oncol 2002;14:382–393. (Update of [29]). on biologically effective doses in cervical cancer patients
A9. Jones B, Dale RG, Gaya A. Linear quadratic modelling of treated with radiation therapy alone. Acta Oncol
increased late normal tissue effects in special clinical 2004;43:657–66.
situations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;64:948–953. A26. Fowler JF, Chappell R. Non-small cell lung tumors
A10. Jones B, Cominos M, Dale RG. Application of the repopulate rapidly during radiation therapy [Letter]. Int
Biological Effective Dose (BED) to estimate the duration J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;46:516–17.
of symptomatic relief and repopulation dose equivalent in A27. Mehta M, Scrimger R, Mackie R et al. A new approach to
palliative radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat dose escalation in non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat
Oncol Biol Phys 2003;55:736–742. Oncol Biol Phys 2001;49:22–3.
A11. Jones B, Dale RG. Radiobiological compensation of treat- A28. Fowler JF, Tome W, Fenwick J, Meta M. Stereotactic body
ment errors in radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2008;81:323–326. radiotherapy: a challenge to conventional radiation oncol-
A12. Jones, B, Dale RG, Deehan C, Hopkins KI, Morgan DAL. ogy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;60:1241–56.
The role of biologically effective dose (BED) in Clinical A29. Timmerman R, Paulus R, Galvin J, Michalski J, Straube W,
Oncology. Clin Oncol (UK RCR) 2001;13:71–81. Bradley J, et al. RTOG 0236: Stereo-tactic body radio-
A13. Jones B Dale RG. The potential for mathematical model- therapy to treat medically inoperable early stage lung
ling in the assessment of the radiation dose equivalent of cancer patients. J Am Med Assoc 2010;303:11:1070–1076.
cytotoxic chemotherapy given concomitantly with radio- A30. Bradley J, Bae K, Graham M, Byhardt R, Govindan R, Fowler
therapy. Br J Radiol 2005;78:939–944. J, et al. Primary analysis of phase II of a phase I/II dose
A14. Jones B, Dale RG, Gaya A. Linear quadratic modelling in intensification study using three dimensional conformal
the assessment of the radiation dose equivalent of radiation therapy and concurrent chemotherapy for oatients
cytotoxic chemotherapy given concomitantly with radio- with inoperable, non-smalll cell lung cancer. Radiation
therapy. Br J Radiol 2005;79:254–257. Oncology Group (RTOG 0117). J Clin Oncol 2010. Published
A15. Plataniotis GA, Dale RG. Use of concept of chemotherapy- ahead of print on April 5th, 2010 as10.1200/JCO.
equivalent biologically effective dose to provide quanti- 2009.27.1205.
tative evaluation of contribution of chemotherapy to local A31. Seppenwoolde Y, Lebesque J, de Jaeger K et al.
tumor control in chemoradiotherapy cervical cancer trials. Comparing different NTCP models that predict the
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72:1538–1543. incidence of radiation pneumonitis. Int J Radiat Oncol
A16. Fowler J. Correction to Kasibhatla et al. How much Biol Phys 2003;55:724–35.
radiation is the chemotherapy worth in advanced head A32. Chi A, Welsh J, Fowler J, Tome W, Meta M. Stereotactic
and neck cancer? (IJROBP 2007;68:1491–1495). Int J Radiat body radiation therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer:
Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71:326–329. linking radiobiologic modeling and clinical outcome. Am
A17. Lee I, Eisbruch A. Mucositis versus tumor control: the J Clin Oncol; 2010 Accepted 19 Feb 2010.
therapeutic index of adding chemotherapy to irradiation of A33. Slotman BJ, Antonosse LE, Njo KH. Limited field
head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys irradiation in early stage (T1-2 N0) non-small cell lung
2009;75:1060–1063. cancer. Radiother Oncol 1996;41:41–44.
A18. Hartley A, Sanghera P, Glaholm J et al. Radiobiological A34. Maguire J, Marks LB, Sibley GS, Herndon SE 2nd, Clough
modelling of the therapeutic ratio for the addition of RW, Light KL et al. 73.6 Gy and beyond; hyperfractio-
synchronous chemotherapy to radiotherapy in locally nated, accelerated radiotherapy for non-small cell lung
advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:705–11.
Clin Oncol 2009 Oncology (UK RCR) 2010;22:125–130. A35. Cheung PCF, Yeung LTF, Basrur V, Ung YC, Balogh J,
A19. Petereit DG, Sarkaria JN Chappell R, Fowler JF, Danjoux CE. Accelerated hypofraction for early-stage
Hartmann, Kinsella TJ, et al. The adverse effect of non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
treatment prolongation in cervical carcinoma. Int J 2002;54:1014–1023.
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;32:1301–7. A36. Mehta MP, Wang W, Johnson D, Wagner H, Schiller J,
A20. Leborgne F, Fowler JF, Leborgne JH, Zubizarreta E, Veeder M, et al. Induction chemotherapy followed by
Chappell. Fractionation in medium dose rate brachyther- standard thoracic radiotherapy vs hyperfractionated
apy of cancer of the cervix. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys accelerated radiotherapy for patients with unresectable
1996;35:907–14. stage IIIA and B non-small-cell lung cancer: phase III
A21. Leborgne F, Fowler JF, Leborgne JH, Zubizareta E, study of the eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG
Curuchquin R. Medium–dose-rate brachytherapy of 2597). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:S14.

BED Formula PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BED Formula PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BED Formula PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The British Journal of Radiology, 83 (2010), 554–568

21 years of Biologically Effective Dose

554 The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010

Table 1. The linear quadratic (LQ) dose terms used

The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010 555

556 The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010

doesn’t start until day Tk (using k for kick-off for the

where: RE~relative effectiveness~ð1zd=½a=bÞ ð2Þ

The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010 557

Dose Time EQD Log10 EQD Gy EQD Gy

(1) HFX: 1.2 Gy668 F 81.6 45 73.0 11.1 66.6 51.0

558 The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010

Table 3. ‘‘Hot’’ schedules (1), now moderated (2) by the originators

Gortec 1 2F/d 2 Gy632F 10F/week 64 21 11.5 64.2 54.1 No

The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010 559

The subscript ‘‘am’’ stands for acute mucosa. There is

560 The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010

The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010 561

562 The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010

Figure 4. Each schedule is represented by one X (tumour

The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010 563

made, from his obtaining of LQ shaped cell survival

564 The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010

The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010 565

566 The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010

The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010 567

568 The British Journal of Radiology, July 2010

You might also like