1
|
Quarz A, Volz L, Antink CH, Durante M, Graeff C. Deep learning-based voxel sampling for particle therapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:155014. [PMID: 38917844 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad5bba] [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: 02/10/2024] [Accepted: 06/25/2024] [Indexed: 06/27/2024]
Abstract
Objective.Scanned particle therapy often requires complex treatment plans, robust optimization, as well as treatment adaptation. Plan optimization is especially complicated for heavy ions due to the variable relative biological effectiveness. We present a novel deep-learning model to select a subset of voxels in the planning process thus reducing the planning problem size for improved computational efficiency.Approach.Using only a subset of the voxels in target and organs at risk (OARs) we produced high-quality treatment plans, but heuristic selection strategies require manual input. We designed a deep-learning model based onP-Net to obtain an optimal voxel sampling without relying on patient-specific user input. A cohort of 70 head and neck patients that received carbon ion therapy was used for model training (50), validation (10) and testing (10). For training, a total of 12 500 carbon ion plans were optimized, using a highly efficient artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure implemented into a research treatment planning platform. A custom loss function increased sampling density in underdosed regions, while aiming to reduce the total number of voxels.Main results.On the test dataset, the number of voxels in the optimization could be reduced by 84.8% (median) at <1% median loss in plan quality. When the model was trained to reduce sampling in the target only while keeping all voxels in OARs, a median reduction up to 71.6% was achieved, with 0.5% loss in the plan quality. The optimization time was reduced by a factor of 7.5 for the total AI selection model and a factor of 3.7 for the model with only target selection.Significance.The novel deep-learning voxel sampling technique achieves a significant reduction in computational time with a negligible loss in the plan quality. The reduction in optimization time can be especially useful for future real-time adaptation strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Quarz
- Biophysics Department, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
- Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - L Volz
- Biophysics Department, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - C Hoog Antink
- Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - M Durante
- Biophysics Department, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
- Department of Condensed Matter Physics, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
- Department of Physics 'Ettore Pancini', University Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - C Graeff
- Biophysics Department, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
- Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
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, Moreno JMP, Schreuder N, Soukup M, Tanaka S, Tessonnier T, Volz L, Zhao L, Ding X. Particle arc therapy: Status and potential. Radiother Oncol 2024:110434. [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; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), 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
|
3
|
Holtzman AL, Mohammadi H, Furutani KM, Koffler DM, McGee LA, Lester SC, Gamez ME, Routman DM, Beltran CJ, Liang X. Impact of Relative Biologic Effectiveness for Proton Therapy for Head and Neck and Skull-Base Tumors: A Technical and Clinical Review. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:1947. [PMID: 38893068 PMCID: PMC11171304 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16111947] [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: 05/02/2024] [Revised: 05/17/2024] [Accepted: 05/18/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024] Open
Abstract
Proton therapy has emerged as a crucial tool in the treatment of head and neck and skull-base cancers, offering advantages over photon therapy in terms of decreasing integral dose and reducing acute and late toxicities, such as dysgeusia, feeding tube dependence, xerostomia, secondary malignancies, and neurocognitive dysfunction. Despite its benefits in dose distribution and biological effectiveness, the application of proton therapy is challenged by uncertainties in its relative biological effectiveness (RBE). Overcoming the challenges related to RBE is key to fully realizing proton therapy's potential, which extends beyond its physical dosimetric properties when compared with photon-based therapies. In this paper, we discuss the clinical significance of RBE within treatment volumes and adjacent serial organs at risk in the management of head and neck and skull-base tumors. We review proton RBE uncertainties and its modeling and explore clinical outcomes. Additionally, we highlight technological advancements and innovations in plan optimization and treatment delivery, including linear energy transfer/RBE optimizations and the development of spot-scanning proton arc therapy. These advancements show promise in harnessing the full capabilities of proton therapy from an academic standpoint, further technological innovations and clinical outcome studies, however, are needed for their integration into routine clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adam L. Holtzman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - Homan Mohammadi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - Keith M. Furutani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - Daniel M. Koffler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - Lisa A. McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA
| | - Scott C. Lester
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Mauricio E. Gamez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - David M. Routman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Chris J. Beltran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - Xiaoying Liang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Wase V, Wuyckens S, Lee JA, Saint-Guillain M. The proton arc therapy treatment planning problem is NP-Hard. Comput Biol Med 2024; 171:108139. [PMID: 38394800 DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108139] [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: 10/27/2023] [Revised: 01/12/2024] [Accepted: 02/12/2024] [Indexed: 02/25/2024]
Abstract
Proton arc therapy (PAT) is an advanced radiotherapy technique using charged particles in which the radiation device rotates continuously around the patient while irradiating the tumor. Compared to conventional, fixed-angle beam delivery mode, proton arc therapy has the potential to further improve the quality of cancer treatment by delivering accurate radiation dose to tumors while minimizing damage to surrounding healthy tissues. However, the computational complexity of treatment planning in PAT raises challenges as to its effective implementation. In this paper, we demonstrate that designing a PAT plan through algorithmic methods is a NP-hard problem (in fact, NP-complete), where the problem size is determined by the number of discrete irradiation angles from which the radiation can be delivered. This finding highlights the inherent complexity of PAT treatment planning and emphasizes the need for efficient algorithms and heuristics to address the challenges associated with optimizing the delivery of radiation doses in this context.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Viktor Wase
- RaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
| | - Sophie Wuyckens
- UCLouvain, Molecular Imaging, Radiotherapy and Oncology (MIRO), Brussels, Belgium
| | - John A Lee
- UCLouvain, Molecular Imaging, Radiotherapy and Oncology (MIRO), Brussels, Belgium
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sokol O, Durante M. Carbon Ions for Hypoxic Tumors: Are We Making the Most of Them? Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:4494. [PMID: 37760464 PMCID: PMC10526811 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15184494] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2023] [Revised: 09/07/2023] [Accepted: 09/07/2023] [Indexed: 09/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Hypoxia, which is associated with abnormal vessel growth, is a characteristic feature of many solid tumors that increases their metastatic potential and resistance to radiotherapy. Carbon-ion radiation therapy, either alone or in combination with other treatments, is one of the most promising treatments for hypoxic tumors because the oxygen enhancement ratio decreases with increasing particle LET. Nevertheless, current clinical practice does not yet fully benefit from the use of carbon ions to tackle hypoxia. Here, we provide an overview of the existing experimental and clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of C-ion radiotherapy in overcoming hypoxia-induced radioresistance, followed by a discussion of the strategies proposed to enhance it, including different approaches to maximize LET in the tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olga Sokol
- Biophysics Department, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforchung, Planckstraße 1, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany;
| | - Marco Durante
- Biophysics Department, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforchung, Planckstraße 1, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany;
- Institute for Condensed Matter Physics, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Hochschulstraße 8, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
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
|
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
|
Mein S, Kopp B, Tessonnier T, Liermann J, Abdollahi A, Debus J, Haberer T, Mairani A. Spot-scanning hadron arc (SHArc) therapy: A proof of concept using single and multi-ion strategies with helium, carbon, oxygen and neon ions. Med Phys 2022; 49:6082-6097. [PMID: 35717613 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15800] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2022] [Revised: 06/03/2022] [Accepted: 06/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To present particle arc therapy treatments using single and multi-ion therapy optimization strategies with helium (4 He), carbon (12 C), oxygen (16 O) and neon (20 Ne) ion beams. METHODS AND MATERIALS An optimization procedure and workflow were devised for spot-scanning hadron arc therapy (SHArc) treatment planning in the PRECISE (PaRticle thErapy using single and Combined Ion optimization StratEgies) treatment planning system (TPS). Physical and biological beam models were developed for helium, carbon, oxygen and neon ions via FLUKA MC simulation. SHArc treatments were optimized using both single ion (12 C, 16 O, or 20 Ne) and multi-ion therapy (16 O+4 He or 20 Ne+4 He) applying variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) modeling using a modified microdosimetric kinetic model (mMKM) with (α/β)x values of 2Gy, 5Gy and 3.1Gy respectively, for glioblastoma, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and prostate adenocarcinoma patient cases. Dose, effective dose, linear energy transfer (LET) and RBE were computed with the GPU-accelerated dose engine FRoG and dosimetric/biophysical attributes were evaluated in the context of conventional particle and photon-based therapies (e.g., volumetric modulated arc therapy [VMAT]). RESULTS All SHArc plans met the target optimization goals (3GyRBE) and demonstrated increased target conformity and substantially lower low-dose bath to surrounding normal tissues than VMAT. SHArc plans using a single ion species (12 C, 16 O, or 20 Ne) exhibited favorable LET distributions with the highest-LET components centralized in the target volume, with values ranging from ∼80-170keV/μm, ∼130-220keV/μm and ∼180-350keV/μm, for 12 C, 16 O, or 20 Ne, respectively, exceeding mean target LET of conventional particle therapy (12 C:∼60, 16 O:∼78 20 Ne:∼100 keV/μm). Multi-ion therapy with SHArc delivery (SHArcMIT ) provided a similar level of target LET enhancement as SHArc compared to conventional planning, however, with additional benefits of homogenous physical dose and RBE distributions. CONCLUSION Here, we demonstrate that arc delivery of light and heavy ion beams, using either a single ion species (12 C, 16 O, or 20 Ne) or combining two ions in a single fraction (16 O+4 He or 20 Ne+4 He), affords enhanced physical and biological distributions (e.g., LET) compared with conventional delivery with photons or particle beams. SHArc marks the first single and multi-ion arc therapy treatment optimization approach using light and heavy ions. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stewart Mein
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany
| | - Benedikt Kopp
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany
| | - Jakob Liermann
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany
| | - Amir Abdollahi
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany
| | - Thomas Haberer
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Medical Physics, Pavia, 27100, Italy
| |
Collapse
|