1
|
Mein S, Wuyckens S, Li X, Both S, Carabe A, Vera MC, Engwall E, Francesco F, Graeff C, Gu W, Hong L, Inaniwa T, Janssens G, de Jong B, Li T, Liang X, Liu G, Lomax A, Mackie T, Mairani A, Mazal A, Nesteruk KP, Paganetti H, Pérez Moreno JM, Schreuder N, Soukup M, Tanaka S, Tessonnier T, Volz L, Zhao L, Ding X. Particle arc therapy: Status and potential. Radiother Oncol 2024; 199:110434. [PMID: 39009306 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110434] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2023] [Revised: 06/23/2024] [Accepted: 07/10/2024] [Indexed: 07/17/2024]
Abstract
There is a rising interest in developing and utilizing arc delivery techniques with charged particle beams, e.g., proton, carbon or other ions, for clinical implementation. In this work, perspectives from the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) 2022 physics workshop on particle arc therapy are reported. This outlook provides an outline and prospective vision for the path forward to clinically deliverable proton, carbon, and other ion arc treatments. Through the collaboration among industry, academic, and clinical research and development, the scientific landscape and outlook for particle arc therapy are presented here to help our community understand the physics, radiobiology, and clinical principles. The work is presented in three main sections: (i) treatment planning, (ii) treatment delivery, and (iii) clinical outlook.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stewart Mein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany; Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Sophie Wuyckens
- UCLouvain, Molecular Imaging, Radiotherapy and Oncology (MIRO), Brussels, Belgium
| | - Xiaoqiang Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health, William Beaumont University Hospital, Proton Therapy Center, Royal Oak, MI, USA
| | - Stefan Both
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Macarena Chocan Vera
- UCLouvain, Molecular Imaging, Radiotherapy and Oncology (MIRO), Brussels, Belgium
| | | | | | - Christian Graeff
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany; Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institut für Physik Kondensierter Materie, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Wenbo Gu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Liu Hong
- Ion Beam Applications SA, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
| | - Taku Inaniwa
- Department of Accelerator and Medical Physics, Institute for Quantum Medical Science, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Chiba, Japan; Department of Medical Physics and Engineering, Graduate School of Medicine, Division of Health Sciences, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan
| | | | - Bas de Jong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Taoran Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Xiaoying Liang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Gang Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health, William Beaumont University Hospital, Proton Therapy Center, Royal Oak, MI, USA; Cancer Center, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Antony Lomax
- Centre for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland; ETH, Department of Physics, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Thomas Mackie
- Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany; National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Medical Physics, Pavia, Italy
| | | | - Konrad P Nesteruk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | | | | | | | - Sodai Tanaka
- Department of Accelerator and Medical Physics, Institute for Quantum Medical Science, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Chiba, Japan
| | | | - Lennart Volz
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany; Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institut für Physik Kondensierter Materie, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Lewei Zhao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health, William Beaumont University Hospital, Proton Therapy Center, Royal Oak, MI, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Liew H, Tessonnier T, Mein S, Magro G, Glimelius L, Coniavitis E, Held T, Haberer T, Abdollahi A, Debus J, Dokic I, Mairani A. Robustness of carbon-ion radiotherapy against DNA damage repair associated radiosensitivity variation based on a biophysical model. Med Phys 2024; 51:3782-3795. [PMID: 38569067 DOI: 10.1002/mp.17045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2023] [Revised: 03/14/2024] [Accepted: 03/19/2024] [Indexed: 04/05/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Interpatient variation of tumor radiosensitivity is rarely considered during the treatment planning process despite its known significance for the therapeutic outcome. PURPOSE To apply our mechanistic biophysical model to investigate the biological robustness of carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) against DNA damage repair interference (DDRi) associated patient-to-patient variability in radiosensitivity and its potential clinical advantages against conventional radiotherapy approaches. METHODS AND MATERIALS The "UNIfied and VERSatile bio response Engine" (UNIVERSE) was extended by carbon ions and its predictions were compared to a panel of in vitro and in vivo data including various endpoints and DDRi settings within clinically relevant dose and linear energy transfer (LET) ranges. The implications of UNIVERSE predictions were then assessed in a clinical patient scenario considering DDRi variance. RESULTS UNIVERSE tests well against the applied benchmarks. While in vitro survival curves were predicted with an R2 > 0.92, deviations from in vivo RBE data were less than 5.6% The conducted paradigmatic patient plan study implies a markedly reduced significance of DDRi based radiosensitivity variability in CIRT (13% change ofD 50 ${{D}_{50}}$ in target) compared to conventional radiotherapy (62%) and that boosting the LET within the target further amplifies this robustness of CIRT (8%). In the case of heightened tumor radiosensitivity, a dose de-escalation strategy for photons allows a reduction of the maximum effective dose within the normal tissue (NT) from aD 2 ${{D}_2}$ of 2.65 to 1.64 Gy, which lies below the level found for CIRT (D 2 ${{D}_2}$ = 2.41 Gy) for the analyzed plan and parameters. However, even after de-escalation, the integral effective dose in the NT is found to be substantially higher for conventional radiotherapy in comparison to CIRT (D m e a n ${{D}_{mean}}$ of 0.75, 0.46, and 0.24 Gy for the conventional plan, its de-escalation and CIRT, respectively). CONCLUSIONS The framework offers adequate predictions of in vitro and in vivo radiation effects of CIRT while allowing the consideration of DRRi based solely on parameters derived from photon data. The results of the patient planning study underline the potential of CIRT to minimize important sources of interpatient divergence in therapy outcome, especially when combined with techniques that allow to maximize the LET within the tumor. Despite the potential of de-escalation strategies for conventional radiotherapy to reduce the maximum effective dose in the NT, CIRT appears to remain a more favorable option due to its ability to reduce the integral effective dose within the NT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hans Liew
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stewart Mein
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Giuseppe Magro
- National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Medical Physics, Pavia, Italy
| | | | | | - Thomas Held
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), University Hospital Heidelberg, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Haberer
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Amir Abdollahi
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), University Hospital Heidelberg, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Ivana Dokic
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Medical Physics, Pavia, Italy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), University Hospital Heidelberg, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wase V, Marthin O, Fredriksson A, Finnson A. Optimizing the traversal time for gantry trajectories for proton arc therapy treatment plans. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:065007. [PMID: 38359454 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad29b7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2023] [Accepted: 02/15/2024] [Indexed: 02/17/2024]
Abstract
Background.Proton arc therapy (PAT) is an emerging radiation therapy technique where either the gantry or the patient continuously rotates during the irradiation treatment. One of the perceived advantages of PAT is the reduced treatment time, but it is still unclear exactly how long these treatment times will be, given that no machine capable of its delivery is available on the market at the time of writing.Objective.We introduce the algorithm arc trajectory optimization method (ATOM), which aims to determine an efficient velocity profile for the gantry for rapid delivery of a given proton arc treatment plan. This algorithm could be used to minimize the delivery time of a proton arc plan without changing the plan or updating the machine.Approach.ATOM computes the trajectory with the shortest delivery time while ensuring there is enough time to deliver all spots in each energy layer and switch energy between layers. The feasibility of the dynamic gantry movement was assured by enforcing maximum and minimum limits for velocity, acceleration, and jerk. This was achieved by discretizing the gantry velocity and combining theA* algorithm with the open-source motion generation library Ruckig. The algorithm was tested on a synthetic data set as well as a liver case, a prostate case and a head and neck case.Main results.Arc trajectories for plans with 360 energy layers were calculated in under a second using 256 discrete velocities. The delivery time of the liver case, the prostate case and the head and neck case were 284 s, 288 s and 309 s respectively, for 180 energy layers.Significance.ATOM is an open-source C++ library with a Python interface that rapidly generates velocity profiles, making it a highly efficient tool for determining proton arc delivery times, which could be integrated into the treatment planning process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- V Wase
- RaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - O Marthin
- RaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - A Finnson
- RaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Helm A, Fournier C. High-LET charged particles: radiobiology and application for new approaches in radiotherapy. Strahlenther Onkol 2023; 199:1225-1241. [PMID: 37872399 PMCID: PMC10674019 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-023-02158-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2023] [Accepted: 09/17/2023] [Indexed: 10/25/2023]
Abstract
The number of patients treated with charged-particle radiotherapy as well as the number of treatment centers is increasing worldwide, particularly regarding protons. However, high-linear energy transfer (LET) particles, mainly carbon ions, are of special interest for application in radiotherapy, as their special physical features result in high precision and hence lower toxicity, and at the same time in increased efficiency in cell inactivation in the target region, i.e., the tumor. The radiobiology of high-LET particles differs with respect to DNA damage repair, cytogenetic damage, and cell death type, and their increased LET can tackle cells' resistance to hypoxia. Recent developments and perspectives, e.g., the return of high-LET particle therapy to the US with a center planned at Mayo clinics, the application of carbon ion radiotherapy using cost-reducing cyclotrons and the application of helium is foreseen to increase the interest in this type of radiotherapy. However, further preclinical research is needed to better understand the differential radiobiological mechanisms as opposed to photon radiotherapy, which will help to guide future clinical studies for optimal exploitation of high-LET particle therapy, in particular related to new concepts and innovative approaches. Herein, we summarize the basics and recent progress in high-LET particle radiobiology with a focus on carbon ions and discuss the implications of current knowledge for charged-particle radiotherapy. We emphasize the potential of high-LET particles with respect to immunogenicity and especially their combination with immunotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Helm
- Biophysics Department, GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Claudia Fournier
- Biophysics Department, GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research, Darmstadt, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Engwall E, Marthin O, Wase V, Sundström J, Mikhalev V, de Jong BA, Langendijk JA, Melbéus H, Andersson B, Korevaar EW, Both S, Bokrantz R, Glimelius L, Fredriksson A. Partitioning of discrete proton arcs into interlaced subplans can bring proton arc advances to existing proton facilities. Med Phys 2023; 50:5723-5733. [PMID: 37482909 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16617] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Accepted: 06/19/2023] [Indexed: 07/25/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Proton arcs have shown potential to reduce the dose to organs at risks (OARs) by delivering the protons from many different directions. While most previous studies have been focused on dynamic arcs (delivery during rotation), an alternative approach is discrete arcs, where step-and-shoot delivery is used over a large number of beam directions. The major advantage of discrete arcs is that they can be delivered at existing proton facilities. However, this advantage comes at the expense of longer treatment times. PURPOSE To exploit the dosimetric advantages of proton arcs, while achieving reasonable delivery times, we propose a partitioning approach where discrete arc plans are split into subplans to be delivered over different fractions in the treatment course. METHODS For three oropharyngeal cancer patients, four different arc plans have been created and compared to the corresponding clinical IMPT plan. The treatment plans are all planned to be delivered in 35 fractions, but with different delivery approaches over the fractions. The first arc plan (1×30) has 30 directions to be delivered every fraction, while the others are partitioned into subplans with 10 and 6 beam directions, each to be delivered every third (3×10), fifth fraction (5×6), or seventh fraction (7×10). All plans are assessed with respect to delivery time, target robustness over the treatment course, doses to OARs and NTCP for dysphagia and xerostomia. RESULTS The delivery time (including an additional delay of 30 s between the discrete directions to simulate manual interaction with the treatment control system) is reduced from on average 25.2 min for the 1×30 plan to 9.2 min for the 3×10 and 7×10 plans and 5.7 min for the 5×6 plans. The delivery time for the IMPT plan is 7.9 min. When accounting for the combination of delivery time, target robustness, OAR sparing, and NTCP reduction, the plans with 10 directions in each fraction are the preferred choice. Both the 3×10 and 7×10 plans show improved target robustness compared to the 1×30 plans, while keeping OAR doses and NTCP values at almost as low levels as for the 1×30 plans. For all patients the NTCP values for dysphagia are lower for the partitioned plans with 10 directions compared to the IMPT plans. NTCP reduction for xerostomia compared to IMPT is seen in two of the three patients. The best results are seen for the first patient, where the NTCP reductions for the 7×10 plan are 1.6 p.p. (grade 2 xerostomia) and 1.5 p.p. (grade 2 dysphagia). The corresponding NTCP reductions for the 1×30 plan are 2.7 p.p. (xerostomia, grade 2) and 2.0 p.p. (dysphagia, grade 2). CONCLUSIONS Discrete proton arcs can be implemented at any proton facility with reasonable treatment times using a partitioning approach. The technique also makes the proton arc treatments more robust to changes in the patient anatomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Bas A de Jong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Johannes A Langendijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Erik W Korevaar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Stefan Both
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Lysakovski P, Besuglow J, Kopp B, Mein S, Tessonnier T, Ferrari A, Haberer T, Debus J, Mairani A. Development and benchmarking of the first fast Monte Carlo engine for helium ion beam dose calculation: MonteRay. Med Phys 2022; 50:2510-2524. [PMID: 36542403 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16178] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2022] [Revised: 12/04/2022] [Accepted: 12/05/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are considered the gold-standard for accuracy in radiotherapy dose calculation; however, general purpose MC engines are computationally demanding and require long runtimes. For this reason, several groups have recently developed fast MC systems dedicated mainly to photon and proton external beam therapy, affording both speed and accuracy. PURPOSE To support research and clinical activities at the Heidelberg Ion-beam Therapy Center (HIT) with actively scanned helium ion beams, this work presents MonteRay, the first fast MC dose calculation engine for helium ion therapy. METHODS MonteRay is a CPU MC dose calculation engine written in C++, capable of simulating therapeutic proton and helium ion beams. In this work, development steps taken to include helium ion beams in MonteRay are presented. A detailed description of the newly implemented physics models for helium ions, for example, for multiple coulomb scattering and inelastic nuclear interactions, is provided. MonteRay dose computations of helium ion beams are evaluated using a comprehensive validation dataset, including measurements of spread-out Bragg peaks (SOBPs) with varying penetration depths/field sizes, measurements with an anthropomorphic phantom and FLUKA simulations of a patient plan. Improvement in computational speed is demonstrated in comparison against reference FLUKA simulations. RESULTS Dosimetric comparisons between MonteRay and measurements demonstrated good agreement. Comparing SOBPs at 5, 12.5, and 20 cm depth, mean absolute percent dose differences were 0.7%, 0.7%, and 1.4%, respectively. Comparison against measurements behind an anthropomorphic head phantom revealed mean absolute dose differences of about 1.2% (FLUKA: 1.5%) with per voxel errors ranging from -4.5% to 4.1% (FLUKA: -6% to 3%). Computed global 3%/3 mm 3D-gamma passing rates of ∼99% were achieved, exceeding those previously reported for an analytical dose engine. Comparisons against FLUKA simulations for a patient plan revealed local 2%/2 mm 3D-gamma passing rates of 98%. Compared to FLUKA in voxelized geometries, MonteRay saw run-time reductions ranging from 20× to 60×, depending on the beam's energy. CONCLUSIONS MonteRay, the first fast MC engine dedicated to helium ion therapy, has been successfully developed with a focus on both speed and accuracy. Validations against dosimetric measurements in homogeneous and heterogeneous scenarios and FLUKA MC calculations have proven the validity of the physical models implemented. Timing comparisons have shown significant speedups between 20 and 60 when compared to FLUKA, making MonteRay viable for clinical routine. MonteRay will support research and clinical practice at HIT, for example, TPS development, validation and treatment design for upcoming clinical trials for raster-scanned helium ion therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Lysakovski
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Judith Besuglow
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Benedikt Kopp
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stewart Mein
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Alfredo Ferrari
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Haberer
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Medical Physics, National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Pavia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Mairani A, Mein S, Blakely E, Debus J, Durante M, Ferrari A, Fuchs H, Georg D, Grosshans DR, Guan F, Haberer T, Harrabi S, Horst F, Inaniwa T, Karger CP, Mohan R, Paganetti H, Parodi K, Sala P, Schuy C, Tessonnier T, Titt U, Weber U. Roadmap: helium ion therapy. Phys Med Biol 2022; 67. [PMID: 35395649 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac65d3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2021] [Accepted: 04/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Helium ion beam therapy for the treatment of cancer was one of several developed and studied particle treatments in the 1950s, leading to clinical trials beginning in 1975 at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The trial shutdown was followed by decades of research and clinical silence on the topic while proton and carbon ion therapy made debuts at research facilities and academic hospitals worldwide. The lack of progression in understanding the principle facets of helium ion beam therapy in terms of physics, biological and clinical findings persists today, mainly attributable to its highly limited availability. Despite this major setback, there is an increasing focus on evaluating and establishing clinical and research programs using helium ion beams, with both therapy and imaging initiatives to supplement the clinical palette of radiotherapy in the treatment of aggressive disease and sensitive clinical cases. Moreover, due its intermediate physical and radio-biological properties between proton and carbon ion beams, helium ions may provide a streamlined economic steppingstone towards an era of widespread use of different particle species in light and heavy ion therapy. With respect to the clinical proton beams, helium ions exhibit superior physical properties such as reduced lateral scattering and range straggling with higher relative biological effectiveness (RBE) and dose-weighted linear energy transfer (LETd) ranging from ∼4 keVμm-1to ∼40 keVμm-1. In the frame of heavy ion therapy using carbon, oxygen or neon ions, where LETdincreases beyond 100 keVμm-1, helium ions exhibit similar physical attributes such as a sharp lateral penumbra, however, with reduced radio-biological uncertainties and without potentially spoiling dose distributions due to excess fragmentation of heavier ion beams, particularly for higher penetration depths. This roadmap presents an overview of the current state-of-the-art and future directions of helium ion therapy: understanding physics and improving modeling, understanding biology and improving modeling, imaging techniques using helium ions and refining and establishing clinical approaches and aims from learned experience with protons. These topics are organized and presented into three main sections, outlining current and future tasks in establishing clinical and research programs using helium ion beams-A. Physics B. Biological and C. Clinical Perspectives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Mairani
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Medical Physics, Pavia, Italy.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stewart Mein
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Eleanor Blakely
- Biological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, United States of America
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Marco Durante
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany.,Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institut für Physik Kondensierter Materie, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Alfredo Ferrari
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Hermann Fuchs
- Division of Medical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.,MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Dietmar Georg
- Division of Medical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.,MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - David R Grosshans
- The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Fada Guan
- The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.,Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 06510, United States of America
| | - Thomas Haberer
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Semi Harrabi
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Felix Horst
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Taku Inaniwa
- Department of Accelerator and Medical Physics, Institute for Quantum Medical Science, QST, 4-9-1 Anagawa, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8555, Japan.,Medical Physics Laboratory, Division of Health Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, 1-7 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan
| | - Christian P Karger
- National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Radhe Mohan
- The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States of America.,Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States of America
| | - Katia Parodi
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Department of Experimental Physics-Medical Physics, Munich, Germany
| | - Paola Sala
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Department of Experimental Physics-Medical Physics, Munich, Germany
| | - Christoph Schuy
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Uwe Titt
- The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Ulrich Weber
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Biological Dose Optimization for Particle Arc Therapy using Helium and Carbon Ions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 114:334-348. [PMID: 35490991 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.04.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2021] [Revised: 04/11/2022] [Accepted: 04/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To present biological dose optimization for particle arc therapy using helium and carbon ions. METHODS Treatment plan planning and optimization procedures were developed for spot-scanning hadron arc (SHArc) delivery using the RayStation TPS and a GPU-accelerated dose engine (†TPS-XXX). The SHArc optimization algorithm is applicable for charged particle beams and determines angle-dependencies for spot/energy selection with three main initiatives: i) achieve standard clinical optimization goals and constraints for target and OARs, ii) target dose robustness and iii) increasing LET in the target volume. Three patient cases previously treated at the †INSTITUTION-XXX were selected for evaluation of conventional versus arc delivery for the two clinical particle beams (helium [4He] and carbon [12C] ions): glioblastoma, prostate-adenocarcinoma and skull-base chordoma. Biological dose and dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd) distributions for SHArc were evaluated against conventional planning techniques (VMAT and IMPT2F) applying the modified microdosimetric kinetic model (mMKM) for considering bio-effect with (α/β)x=2Gy. Clinical viability and deliverability were assessed via evaluation of plan quality, robustness and irradiation time. RESULTS For all investigated patient cases, SHArc treatment optimizations met planning goals and constraints for target coverage and OARs, exhibiting acceptable target coverage and reduced normal tissue volumes with effective dose >10GyRBE compared to conventional 2F planning. For carbon ions, LETd was increased in the target volume from ∼40-60keV/µm to ∼80-140keV/µm for SHArc compared to conventional treatments. Favorable LETd distributions were possible with the SHArc approach, with maximum LETd in CTV/GTV and potential reductions of high-LET regions in normal tissues and OARs. Compared to VMAT, SHArc affords substantial reductions in normal tissue dose (40-70%). CONCLUSION SHArc therapy offers potential treatment benefits such as increased normal tissue sparing from higher doses >10GyRBE, enhanced target LETd, and potential reduction in high-LET components in OARs. Findings justify further development of robust SHArc treatment planning towards potential clinical translation.
Collapse
|