1
|
Rao AD, Sun K, Zhu M, Mossahebi S, Sabouri P, Houser T, Jatczak J, Zakhary M, Regine WF, Miller RC, Bentzen S, Mishra MV. Plan quality effects of maximum monitor unit constraints in pencil beam scanning proton therapy for central nervous system and skull base tumors. Radiother Oncol 2021; 160:18-24. [PMID: 33753157 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.03.016] [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: 10/14/2020] [Revised: 02/08/2021] [Accepted: 03/10/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) With reports of CNS toxicity in patients treated with proton therapy at doses lower than would be expected based on photon data, it has been proposed that heavy monitor unit (MU) weighting of pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy spots may potentially increase the risk of toxicity. We evaluated the impact of maximum MU weighting per spot (maxMU/spot) restrictions on PBS plan quality, prior to implementing clinic-wide maxMU/spot restrictions. MATERIALS/METHODS PBS plans of 11 patients, of which 3 plans included boosts, for a total of 14 PBS sample cases were included. Per sample case, a single dosimetrist created 4 test plans, gradually reducing the maxMU/spot in the plan. Test Plan 1, unrestricted in maxMU/spot, was the reference for all restricted plan comparisons (comparison sets 2 vs. 1; 3 vs. 1; and 4 vs. 1). The impact of MU/spot restrictions on plan quality metrics were analyzed with Wilcoxon signed rank test analyses. Treatment delivery time was modeled for a representative case. RESULTS A total of 14 PBS sample cases, 7 (50%) single-field optimized, 7 (50%) multi-field optimized, 9 (64%) delivering > 3500 cGy, 9 (64%) with 3 beams, and 7 (50%) without a range shifter were included. There were no differences in plan quality metrics of target coverage (V95% and V100% prescription), conformality and gradient indices, hot spot volume (V105% prescription), and dose to normal brain (V10%/30%/50%/70%/90%/100% prescription) with reductions of allowable maxMU/spot across all comparison sets (p > 0.05). Max MU/spot restrictions did not increase treatment delivery time when analyzed for a representative case. CONCLUSION MaxMU/spot restrictions within the thresholds evaluated in this study did not degrade overall plan quality metrics. Future studies should evaluate spot weighting with linear energy transfer/relative biologic effectiveness-informed planning to determine if spot weighting manipulation impacts clinical outcomes and mitigates toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Avani Dholakia Rao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| | - Kai Sun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA; Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| | - Mingyao Zhu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| | - Sina Mossahebi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| | - Pouya Sabouri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| | - Thomas Houser
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| | - Jenna Jatczak
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| | - Mark Zakhary
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| | - William F Regine
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
| | - Robert C Miller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| | - Søren Bentzen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA; Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| | - Mark V Mishra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wong SL, Alshaikhi J, Grimes H, Amos RA, Poynter A, Rompokos V, Gulliford S, Royle G, Liao Z, Sharma RA, Mendes R. Retrospective Planning Study of Patients with Superior Sulcus Tumours Comparing Pencil Beam Scanning Protons to Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2021; 33:e118-e131. [PMID: 32798157 PMCID: PMC7883303 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2020.07.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2020] [Revised: 05/30/2020] [Accepted: 07/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
AIMS Twenty per cent of patients with non-small cell lung cancer present with stage III locally advanced disease. Precision radiotherapy with pencil beam scanning (PBS) protons may improve outcomes. However, stage III is a heterogeneous group and accounting for complex tumour motion is challenging. As yet, it remains unclear as to whom will benefit. In our retrospective planning study, we explored if patients with superior sulcus tumours (SSTs) are a select cohort who might benefit from this treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with SSTs treated with radical radiotherapy using four-dimensional planning computed tomography between 2010 and 2015 were identified. Tumour motion was assessed and excluded if greater than 5 mm. Photon volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and PBS proton single-field optimisation plans, with and without inhomogeneity corrections, were generated retrospectively. Robustness analysis was assessed for VMAT and PBS plans involving: (i) 5 mm geometric uncertainty, with an additional 3.5% range uncertainty for proton plans; (ii) verification plans at maximal inhalation and exhalation. Comparative dosimetric and robustness analyses were carried out. RESULTS Ten patients were suitable. The mean clinical target volume D95 was 98.1% ± 0.4 (97.5-98.8) and 98.4% ± 0.2 (98.1-98.9) for PBS and VMAT plans, respectively. All normal tissue tolerances were achieved. The same four PBS and VMAT plans failed robustness assessment. Inhomogeneity corrections minimally impacted proton plan robustness and made it worse in one case. The most important factor affecting target coverage and robustness was the clinical target volume entering the spinal canal. Proton plans significantly reduced the mean lung dose (by 21.9%), lung V5, V10, V20 (by 47.9%, 36.4%, 12.1%, respectively), mean heart dose (by 21.4%) and thoracic vertebra dose (by 29.2%) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS In this planning study, robust PBS plans were achievable in carefully selected patients. Considerable dose reductions to the lung, heart and thoracic vertebra were possible without compromising target coverage. Sparing these lymphopenia-related organs may be particularly important in this era of immunotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S-L Wong
- University College London Cancer Institute, London, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
| | - J Alshaikhi
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Saudi Particle Therapy Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - H Grimes
- Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - R A Amos
- Department of Clinical Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - A Poynter
- Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - V Rompokos
- Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - S Gulliford
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK; Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - G Royle
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
| | - Z Liao
- Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - R A Sharma
- University College London Cancer Institute, London, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
| | - R Mendes
- Department of Clinical Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Liu C, Zheng D, Bradley JA, Mailhot Vega RB, Zhang Y, Indelicato DJ, Mendenhall N, Liang X. Incorporation of the LETd-weighted biological dose in the evaluation of breast intensity-modulated proton therapy plans. Acta Oncol 2021; 60:252-259. [PMID: 33063569 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2020.1834141] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the LETd-weighted biological dose to OARs in proton therapy for breast cancer and to study the relationship of the LETd-weighted biological dose relative to the standard dose (RBE = 1.1) and thereby to provide estimations of the biological dose uncertainties with the standard dose calculations (RBE = 1.1) commonly used in clinical practice. METHOD This study included 20 patients who received IMPT treatment to the whole breast/chest wall and regional lymph nodes. The LETd distributions were calculated along with the physical dose using an open-source Monte Carlo simulation package, MCsquare. Using the McMahon linear model, the LETd-weighted biological dose was computed from the physical dose and LETd. OAR doses were compared between the Dose (RBE = 1.1) and the LETd-weighted biological dose, on brachial plexus, rib, heart, esophagus, and Ipsilateral lung. RESULTS On average, the LETd-weighted biological dose compared to the Dose (RBE = 1.1) was higher by 8% for the brachial plexus D0.1 cc, 13% for the ribs D0.5 cc, 24% for mean heart dose, and 10% for the esophagus D0.1 cc, respectively. The LETd-weighted doses to the Ipsilateral lung V5, V10, and V20 were comparable to the Dose (RBE = 1.1). No statistically significant difference in biological dose enhancement to OARs was observed between the intact breast group and the CW group, with the exception of the ribs: the CW group experienced slightly greater biological dose enhancement (13% vs. 12%, p = 0.04) to the ribs than the intact breast group. CONCLUSION Enhanced biological dose was observed compared to standard dose with assumed RBE of 1.1 for the heart, ribs, esophagus, and brachial plexus in breast/CW and regional nodal IMPT plans. Variable RBE models should be considered in the evaluation of the IMPT breast plans, especially for OARs located near the end of range of a proton beam. Clinical outcome studies are needed to validate model predictions for clinical toxicities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chunbo Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
- School of Physical Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
| | - Dandan Zheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
| | - Julie A. Bradley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Raymond B. Mailhot Vega
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Yawei Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Daniel J. Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Nancy Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Xiaoying Liang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Radiosensitizing Pancreatic Cancer with PARP Inhibitor and Gemcitabine: An In Vivo and a Whole-Transcriptome Analysis after Proton or Photon Irradiation. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13030527. [PMID: 33573176 PMCID: PMC7866541 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13030527] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2020] [Revised: 01/26/2021] [Accepted: 01/27/2021] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is a devastating disease. Using modern technique of radiotherapy, such as proton therapy, may simultaneously enhance dose to the tumor and decrease dose to surrounding organ, thus limiting toxicity. Moreover, associating drugs to radiotherapy also increases its effectiveness on tumor. The aim of our study was to show the benefit of proton therapy compared to standard radiotherapy with photon, and the benefit of associating different drugs with those particles in vivo. Thus, our results displayed a higher effectiveness of associating proton therapy, gemcitabine and olaparib. Finally, we pointed out that treatment induced significant transcriptomic alterations. Abstract Over the past few years, studies have focused on the development of targeted radiosensitizers such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. We performed an in vivo study and a whole-transcriptome analysis to determine whether PARP inhibition enhanced gemcitabine-based chemoradiosensitization of pancreatic cancer xenografts, combined with either proton or photon irradiation. NMRI mice bearing MIA PaCa-2 xenografts were treated with olaparib and/or gemcitabine and irradiated with 10 Gy photon or proton. First, a significant growth inhibition was obtained after 10 Gy proton irradiation compared to 10 Gy photon irradiation (p = 0.046). Moreover, the combination of olaparib, gemcitabine and proton therapy significantly sensitized tumor xenografts, compared to gemcitabine (p = 0.05), olaparib (p = 0.034) or proton therapy (p < 0.0001) alone or to the association of olaparib, gemcitabine and radiotherapy (p = 0.024). Simultaneously, whole RNA sequencing profiling showed differentially expressed genes implicated in categories such as DNA repair, type I interferon signaling and cell cycle. Moreover, a large amount of lncRNA was dysregulated after proton therapy, gemcitabine and olaparib. This is the first study showing that addition of olaparib to gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy improved significantly local control in vivo, especially after proton therapy. RNA sequencing profiling analysis presented dynamic alteration of transcriptome after chemoradiation and identified a classifier of gemcitabine response.
Collapse
|
5
|
Vogel J, Grewal A, O’Reilly S, Lustig R, Kurtz G, Minturn JE, Shah AC, Waanders AJ, Belasco JB, Cole KA, Fisher MJ, Phillips PC, Balamuth NJ, Storm PB, Hill-Kayser CE. Risk of brainstem necrosis in pediatric patients with central nervous system malignancies after pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Acta Oncol 2019; 58:1752-1756. [PMID: 31512931 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2019.1659996] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
Background: Radiation therapy (RT) plays an important role in management of pediatric central nervous system (CNS) malignancies. Centers are increasingly utilizing pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBS-PT). However, the risk of brainstem necrosis has not yet been reported. In this study, we evaluate the rate of brainstem necrosis in pediatric patients with CNS malignancies treated with PBS-PT.Material and methods: Pediatric patients with non-hematologic CNS malignancies treated with PBS-PT who received dose to the brainstem were included. All procedures were approved by the institutional review board. Brainstem necrosis was defined as symptomatic toxicity. The actuarial rate was analyzed by the Kaplan Meier method.Results: One hundred and sixty-six consecutive patients were reviewed. Median age was 10 years (range 0.5-21 years). Four patients (2.4%) had prior radiation. Median maximum brainstem dose in the treated course was 55.4 Gy[RBE] (range 0.15-61.4 Gy[RBE]). In patients with prior RT, cumulative median maximum brainstem dose was 98.0 Gy [RBE] (range 17.0-111.0 Gy [RBE]). Median follow up was 19.6 months (range, 2.0-63.0). One patient who had previously been treated with twice-daily radiation therapy and intrathecal (IT) methotrexate experienced brainstem necrosis. The actuarial incidence of brainstem necrosis was 0.7% at 24 months (95% CI 0.1-5.1%).Conclusion: The rate of symptomatic brainstem necrosis was extremely low after treatment with PBS-PT in this study. Further work to clarify clinical and dosimetric parameters associated with risk of brainstem necrosis after PBS-PT is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. Vogel
- Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - A. Grewal
- Radiation Oncology, The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - S. O’Reilly
- Radiation Oncology, The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - R. Lustig
- Radiation Oncology, The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - G. Kurtz
- Radiation Oncology, The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - J. E. Minturn
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - A. C. Shah
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - A. J. Waanders
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - J. B. Belasco
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - K. A. Cole
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - M. J. Fisher
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - P. C. Phillips
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - N. J. Balamuth
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - P. B. Storm
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - C. E. Hill-Kayser
- Radiation Oncology, The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Division of Oncology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Mutter RW, Jethwa KR, Gonuguntla K, Remmes NB, Whitaker TJ, Hieken TJ, Ruddy KJ, McGee LA, Corbin KS, Park SS. 3 fraction pencil-beam scanning proton accelerated partial breast irradiation: early provider and patient reported outcomes of a novel regimen. Radiat Oncol 2019; 14:211. [PMID: 31752934 PMCID: PMC6873533 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-019-1417-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2019] [Accepted: 11/07/2019] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose To report dosimetry and early adverse effects, aesthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of a prospective study of 3-fraction pencil-beam scanning (PBS) proton accelerated partial irradiation (APBI). Materials and methods Eligibility included women age ≥ 50 years with estrogen receptor positive (ER+), sentinel lymph node negative invasive or in-situ breast cancer measuring ≤2.5 cm. The prescription was 21.9 Gy (RBE 1.1) in 3 daily fractions to the post-operative tumor bed with a 1 cm expansion. Toxicities were collected using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0, 10-point Linear Analog Scale Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the CTCAE, and the Harvard Breast Cosmesis Scale. Results Seventy-six women were treated between 2015 and 2017. The median breast volume receiving 50% of prescription or more was 28%. Median mean heart, mean ipsilateral lung, and maximum skin dose were 0 Gy, 0.1 Gy, and 20.6 Gy, respectively. With a median follow-up of 12 months, no treatment-related toxicity grade ≥ 2 has been observed. Most common grade 1 adverse events were dermatitis (68%) and skin hyperpigmentation (18%). At 12 months, the only persistent toxicities were one patient with grade 1 breast edema and one patient with a grade 1 seroma. 90% of patients reported quality of life as ≥7 out of 10 (0 indicating “as bad as it can be” and 10 indicating “as good as it can be”) and 98% of patients reported excellent or good cosmesis. Conclusion 3-fraction PBS proton APBI is well tolerated with low rates of physician and patient reported early adverse effects. Follow-up is ongoing to assess late toxicities and disease control outcomes. Further investigation of this novel adjuvant treatment strategy is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
| | - Krishan R Jethwa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Karthik Gonuguntla
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Nicholas B Remmes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Thomas J Whitaker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Tina J Hieken
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Kathryn J Ruddy
- Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Lisa A McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Kimberly S Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Mutter RW, Jethwa KR, Wan Chan Tseung HS, Wick SM, Kahila MMH, Viehman JK, Shumway DA, Corbin KS, Park SS, Remmes NB, Whitaker TJ, Beltran CJ. Incorporation of Biologic Response Variance Modeling Into the Clinic: Limiting Risk of Brachial Plexopathy and Other Late Effects of Breast Cancer Proton Beam Therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol 2019; 10:e71-e81. [PMID: 31494289 PMCID: PMC7734652 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.08.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2019] [Revised: 07/30/2019] [Accepted: 08/29/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Purpose: The relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) rises with increasing linear energy transfer toward the end of proton tracks. Presently, there is no consensus on how RBE heterogeneity should be accounted for in breast cancer proton therapy treatment planning. Our purpose was to determine the dosimetric consequences of incorporating a brachial plexus (BP) biologic dose constraint and to describe other clinical implications of biologic planning. Methods and Materials: We instituted a biologic dose constraint for the BP in the context of MC1631, a randomized trial of conventional versus hypofractionated postmastectomy intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). IMPT plans of 13 patients treated before the implementation of the biologic dose constraint (cohort A) were compared with IMPT plans of 38 patients treated on MC1631 after its implementation (cohort B) using (1) a commercially available Eclipse treatment planning system (RBE = 1.1); (2) an in-house graphic processor unit-based Monte Carlo physical dose simulation (RBE = 1.1); and (3) an in-house Monte Carlo biologic dose (MCBD) simulation that assumes a linear relationship between RBE and dose-averaged linear energy transfer (product of RBE and physical dose = biologic dose). Results: Before implementation of a BP biologic dose constraint, the Eclipse mean BP D0.01 cm3 was 107%, and the MCBD estimate was 128% (ie, 64 Gy [RBE = biologic dose] in 25 fractions for a 50-Gy [RBE = 1.1] prescription), compared with 100.0% and 116.0%, respectively, after the implementation of the constraint. Implementation of the BP biologic dose constraint did not significantly affect clinical target volume coverage. MCBD plans predicted greater internal mammary node coverage and higher heart dose than Eclipse plans. Conclusions: Institution of a BP biologic dose constraint may reduce brachial plexopathy risk without compromising target coverage. MCBD plan evaluation provides valuable information to physicians that may assist in making clinical judgments regarding relative priority of target coverage versus normal tissue sparing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| | - Krishan R Jethwa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Stephanie M Wick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Jason K Viehman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | - Chris J Beltran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Choi C, Son A, Lee GH, Shin SW, Park S, Ahn SH, Chung Y, Yu JI, Park HC. Targeting DNA-dependent protein kinase sensitizes hepatocellular carcinoma cells to proton beam irradiation through apoptosis induction. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0218049. [PMID: 31194786 PMCID: PMC6563991 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218049] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2019] [Accepted: 05/24/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Recent studies have highlighted the implications of genetic variations in the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of proton beam irradiation over conventional X-ray irradiation. Proton beam radiotherapy is a reasonable radiotherapy option for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the impact of genetic difference on the HCC RBE remains unknown. Here, we determined proton RBE in human HCC cells by exposing them to various doses of either 6-MV X-rays or 230-MeV proton beams. Clonogenic survival assay revealed variable radiosensitivity of human HCC cell lines with survival fraction at 2 Gy ranging from 0.38 to 0.83 and variable proton RBEs with 37% survival fraction ranging from 1.00 to 1.48. HCC cells appeared more sensitive to proton irradiation than X-rays, with more persistent activation of DNA damage repair proteins over time. Depletion of a DNA damage repair gene, DNA-PKcs, by siRNA dramatically increased the sensitivity of HCC cells to proton beams with a decrease in colony survival and an increase in apoptosis. Our findings suggest that there are large variations in proton RBE in HCC cells despite the use of a constant RBE of 1.1 in the clinic and targeting DNA-PKcs in combination with proton beam therapy may be a promising regimen for treating HCC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Changhoon Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Arang Son
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Ga-Haeng Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Sung-Won Shin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
- Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Sohee Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Sang Hee Ahn
- Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Yoonsun Chung
- Department of Nuclear Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Jeong Il Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Hee Chul Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
- Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Smith NL, Jethwa KR, Viehman JK, Harmsen WS, Gonuguntla K, Elswick SM, Grauberger JN, Amundson AC, Whitaker TJ, Remmes NB, Harless CA, Boughey JC, Nguyen MDT, Park SS, Corbin KS, Mutter RW. Post-mastectomy intensity modulated proton therapy after immediate breast reconstruction: Initial report of reconstruction outcomes and predictors of complications. Radiother Oncol 2019; 140:76-83. [PMID: 31185327 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.05.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2019] [Revised: 05/16/2019] [Accepted: 05/20/2019] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To report reconstructive outcomes of patients treated with post-mastectomy intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) following immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). MATERIALS AND METHODS Consecutive women with breast cancer who underwent implant-based IBR and post-mastectomy IMPT were included. Clinical characteristics, dosimetry, and acute toxicity were collected prospectively and reconstruction complications retrospectively. RESULTS Fifty-one women were treated between 2015 and 2017. Forty-two had bilateral reconstruction with unilateral IMPT. The non-irradiated contralateral breasts served as controls. Conventional fractionation (median 50 Gy/25 fractions) was administered in 37 (73%) and hypofractionation (median 40.5 Gy/15 fractions) in 14 (27%) patients. Median mean heart, ipsilateral lung V20Gy, and CTV-IMN V95% were 0.6 Gy, 13.9%, and 97.4%. Maximal acute dermatitis grade was 1 in 32 (63%), 2 in 17 (33%), and 3 in 2 (4%) patients. Surgical site infection (hazard ratio [HR] 13.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.67-104.03, p = 0.0012), and unplanned surgical intervention (HR 9.86, 95% CI 1.24-78.67, p = 0.0068) were more common in irradiated breasts. Eight of 51 irradiated breasts and 2 of 42 non-irradiated breasts had reconstruction failure (HR 3.59, 95% CI 0.78-16.41, p = 0.084). Among irradiated breasts, hypofractionation was significantly associated with reconstruction failure (HR 4.99, 95% CI 1.24-20.05, p = 0.024), as was older patient age (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05-1.24, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS IMPT following IBR spared underlying organs and had low rates of acute toxicity. Reconstruction complications are more common in irradiated breasts, and reconstructive outcomes appear comparable with photon literature. Hypofractionation was associated with higher reconstruction failure rates. Further investigation of optimal dose-fractionation after IBR is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Na L Smith
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | | | - Jason K Viehman
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | - William S Harmsen
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | | | | | | | - Adam C Amundson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA
| | | | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Constanzo J, Vanstalle M, Finck C, Brasse D, Rousseau M. Dosimetry and characterization of a 25-MeV proton beam line for preclinical radiobiology research. Med Phys 2019; 46:2356-2362. [PMID: 30924942 DOI: 10.1002/mp.13512] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2018] [Revised: 02/26/2019] [Accepted: 03/21/2019] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE With the increase in proton therapy centers, there is a growing need to make progress in preclinical proton radiation biology to give accessible data to medical physicists and practicing radiation oncologists. METHODS A cyclotron usually producing radioisotopes with a proton beam at an energy of about 25 MeV after acceleration, was used for radiobiology studies. Depleted silicon surface barrier detectors were used for the beam energy measurement. A complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensor and a plastic scintillator detector were used for fluence measurement, and compared to Geant4 and an in-house analytical dose modeling developed for this purpose. Also, from the energy measurement of each attenuated beam, the dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd ) was calculated with Geant4. RESULTS The measured proton beam energy was 24.85 ± 0.14 MeV with an energy straggling of 127 ± 22 keV before scattering and extraction in air. The measured flatness was within ± 2.1% over 9 mm in diameter. A wide range of LETd is achievable: constant between the entrance and the exit of the cancer cell sample ranging from 2.2 to 8 keV/μm, beyond 20 keV/μm, and an average of 2-5 keV/μm in a scattering spread-out Bragg peak calculated for an example of a 6-mm-thick xenograft tumor. CONCLUSION The dosimetry and the characterization of a 25-MeV proton beam line for preclinical radiobiology research was performed by measurements and modeling, demonstrating the feasibility of delivering a proton beam for preclinical in vivo and in vitro studies with LETd of clinical interest.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie Constanzo
- Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC, UMR 7178, F-67000, Strasbourg, France
| | - Marie Vanstalle
- Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC, UMR 7178, F-67000, Strasbourg, France
| | - Christian Finck
- Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC, UMR 7178, F-67000, Strasbourg, France
| | - David Brasse
- Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC, UMR 7178, F-67000, Strasbourg, France
| | - Marc Rousseau
- Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC, UMR 7178, F-67000, Strasbourg, France
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Haas-Kogan D, Indelicato D, Paganetti H, Esiashvili N, Mahajan A, Yock T, Flampouri S, MacDonald S, Fouladi M, Stephen K, Kalapurakal J, Terezakis S, Kooy H, Grosshans D, Makrigiorgos M, Mishra K, Poussaint TY, Cohen K, Fitzgerald T, Gondi V, Liu A, Michalski J, Mirkovic D, Mohan R, Perkins S, Wong K, Vikram B, Buchsbaum J, Kun L. National Cancer Institute Workshop on Proton Therapy for Children: Considerations Regarding Brainstem Injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 101:152-168. [PMID: 29619963 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.01.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 117] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2017] [Revised: 12/21/2017] [Accepted: 01/01/2018] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Proton therapy can allow for superior avoidance of normal tissues. A widespread consensus has been reached that proton therapy should be used for patients with curable pediatric brain tumor to avoid critical central nervous system structures. Brainstem necrosis is a potentially devastating, but rare, complication of radiation. Recent reports of brainstem necrosis after proton therapy have raised concerns over the potential biological differences among radiation modalities. We have summarized findings from the National Cancer Institute Workshop on Proton Therapy for Children convened in May 2016 to examine brainstem injury. METHODS AND MATERIALS Twenty-seven physicians, physicists, and researchers from 17 institutions with expertise met to discuss this issue. The definition of brainstem injury, imaging of this entity, clinical experience with photons and photons, and potential biological differences among these radiation modalities were thoroughly discussed and reviewed. The 3 largest US pediatric proton therapy centers collectively summarized the incidence of symptomatic brainstem injury and physics details (planning, dosimetry, delivery) for 671 children with focal posterior fossa tumors treated with protons from 2006 to 2016. RESULTS The average rate of symptomatic brainstem toxicity from the 3 largest US pediatric proton centers was 2.38%. The actuarial rate of grade ≥2 brainstem toxicity was successfully reduced from 12.7% to 0% at 1 center after adopting modified radiation guidelines. Guidelines for treatment planning and current consensus brainstem constraints for proton therapy are presented. The current knowledge regarding linear energy transfer (LET) and its relationship to relative biological effectiveness (RBE) are defined. We review the current state of LET-based planning. CONCLUSIONS Brainstem injury is a rare complication of radiation therapy for both photons and protons. Substantial dosimetric data have been collected for brainstem injury after proton therapy, and established guidelines to allow for safe delivery of proton radiation have been defined. Increased capability exists to incorporate LET optimization; however, further research is needed to fully explore the capabilities of LET- and RBE-based planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daphne Haas-Kogan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Daniel Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Natia Esiashvili
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Anita Mahajan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Torunn Yock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Stella Flampouri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Shannon MacDonald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Maryam Fouladi
- Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Kry Stephen
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - John Kalapurakal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Stephanie Terezakis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institute, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Hanne Kooy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - David Grosshans
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mike Makrigiorgos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Kavita Mishra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Tina Young Poussaint
- Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Kenneth Cohen
- Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins Medical Institute, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Thomas Fitzgerald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts
| | - Vinai Gondi
- Northwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Arthur Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Jeff Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Dragan Mirkovic
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Radhe Mohan
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Stephanie Perkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Kenneth Wong
- Children's Hospital of Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angles, California
| | - Bhadrasain Vikram
- Radiation Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Jeff Buchsbaum
- Radiation Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Larry Kun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Vanstalle M, Constanzo J, Finck C. Investigation of Optimal Physical Parameters for Precise Proton Irradiation of Orthotopic Tumors in Small Animals. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 103:1241-1250. [PMID: 30513379 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.11.044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2017] [Revised: 11/12/2018] [Accepted: 11/26/2018] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The lack of evidence of biomarkers identifying patients who would benefit from proton therapy has driven the emergence of preclinical proton irradiation platforms using advanced small-animal models to mimic clinical therapeutic conditions. This study aimed to determine the optimal physical parameters of the proton beam with a high radiation targeting accuracy, considering small-animal tumors can reach millimetric dimensions at a maximum depth of about 2 cm. METHODS AND MATERIALS Several treatment plans, simulated using Geant4, were generated with different proton beam features to assess the optimal physical parameters for small-volume irradiations. The quality of each treatment plan was estimated by dose-volume histograms and gamma index maps. RESULTS Because of its low-energy straggling, low-energy proton (<50 MeV) single-field irradiation can generate homogeneous spread-out Bragg peaks to deliver a uniform dose in millimeter-sized tumors, while sparing healthy tissues located within or near the target volume. However, multifield irradiation can limit the dose delivered in critical structures surrounding the target for attenuated high-energy beams (E > 160 MeV). CONCLUSION Low-energy proton beam platforms are suitable for precision irradiation for translational radiobiology studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marie Vanstalle
- Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, 67000 Strasbourg, France.
| | - Julie Constanzo
- Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, 67000 Strasbourg, France
| | - Christian Finck
- Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, 67000 Strasbourg, France
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Finck C, Karakaya Y, Reithinger V, Rescigno R, Baudot J, Constanzo J, Juliani D, Krimmer J, Rinaldi I, Rousseau M, Testa E, Vanstalle M, Ray C. Study for online range monitoring with the interaction vertex imaging method. Phys Med Biol 2017; 62:9220-9239. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa954e] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
14
|
Zietman AL. Particle Therapy at the "Tipping Point": An Introduction to the Red Journal's Special Edition. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 95:1-3. [PMID: 27084615 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.02.056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2016] [Accepted: 03/03/2016] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony L Zietman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
| |
Collapse
|