1
|
Parisi A, Furutani KM, Sato T, Beltran CJ. LET-based approximation of the microdosimetric kinetic model for proton radiotherapy. Med Phys 2024. [PMID: 39153222 DOI: 10.1002/mp.17337] [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: 04/26/2024] [Revised: 07/19/2024] [Accepted: 07/19/2024] [Indexed: 08/19/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Phenomenological relative biological effectiveness (RBE) models for proton therapy, based on the dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LET), have been developed to address the apparent RBE increase towards the end of the proton range. The results of these phenomenological models substantially differ due to varying empirical assumptions and fitting functions. In contrast, more theory-based approaches are used in carbon ion radiotherapy, such as the microdosimetric kinetic model (MKM). However, implementing microdosimetry-based models in LET-based proton therapy treatment planning systems poses challenges. PURPOSE This work presents a LET-based version of the MKM that is practical for clinical use in proton radiotherapy. METHODS At first, we derived an approximation of the Mayo Clinic Florida (MCF) MKM for relatively-sparsely ionizing radiation such as protons. The mathematical formalism of the proposed model is equivalent to the original MKM, but it maintains some key features of the MCF MKM, such as the determination of model parameters from measurable cell characteristics. Subsequently, we carried out Monte Carlo calculations with PHITS in different simulated scenarios to establish a heuristic correlation between microdosimetric quantities and the dose averaged LET of protons. RESULTS A simple allometric function was found able to describe the relationship between the dose-averaged LET of protons and the dose-mean lineal energy, which includes the contributions of secondary particles. The LET-based MKM was used to model the in vitro clonogenic survival RBE of five human and rodent cell lines (A549, AG01522, CHO, T98G, and U87) exposed to pristine and spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) proton beams. The results of the LET-based MKM agree well with the biological data in a comparable or better way with respect to the other models included in the study. A sensitivity analysis on the model results was also performed. CONCLUSIONS The LET-based MKM integrates the predictive theoretical framework of the MCF MKM with a straightforward mathematical description of the RBE based on the dose-averaged LET, a physical quantity readily available in modern treatment planning systems for proton therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessio Parisi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Keith M Furutani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| | - Tatsuhiko Sato
- Nuclear Science and Engineering Center, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Tokai, Ibaraki, Japan
- Research Center for Nuclear Physics, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan
| | - Chris J Beltran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tang X, Wan Chan Tseung H, Moseley D, Zverovitch A, Hughes CO, George J, Johnson JE, Breen WG, Qian J. Deep learning based linear energy transfer calculation for proton therapy. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:115058. [PMID: 38714191 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad4844] [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: 11/01/2023] [Accepted: 05/07/2024] [Indexed: 05/09/2024]
Abstract
Objective.This study aims to address the limitations of traditional methods for calculating linear energy transfer (LET), a critical component in assessing relative biological effectiveness (RBE). Currently, Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, the gold-standard for accuracy, is resource-intensive and slow for dose optimization, while the speedier analytical approximation has compromised accuracy. Our objective was to prototype a deep-learning-based model for calculating dose-averaged LET (LETd) using patient anatomy and dose-to-water (DW) data, facilitating real-time biological dose evaluation and LET optimization within proton treatment planning systems.Approach. 275 4-field prostate proton Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy plans were analyzed, rendering a total of 1100 fields. Those were randomly split into 880, 110, and 110 fields for training, validation, and testing. A 3D Cascaded UNet model, along with data processing and inference pipelines, was developed to generate patient-specific LETddistributions from CT images and DW. The accuracy of the LETdof the test dataset was evaluated against MC-generated ground truth through voxel-based mean absolute error (MAE) and gamma analysis.Main results.The proposed model accurately inferred LETddistributions for each proton field in the test dataset. A single-field LETdcalculation took around 100 ms with trained models running on a NVidia A100 GPU. The selected model yielded an average MAE of 0.94 ± 0.14 MeV cm-1and a gamma passing rate of 97.4% ± 1.3% when applied to the test dataset, with the largest discrepancy at the edge of fields where the dose gradient was the largest and counting statistics was the lowest.Significance.This study demonstrates that deep-learning-based models can efficiently calculate LETdwith high accuracy as a fast-forward approach. The model shows great potential to be utilized for optimizing the RBE of proton treatment plans. Future efforts will focus on enhancing the model's performance and evaluating its adaptability to different clinical scenarios.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xueyan Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, United States of America
| | - Hok Wan Chan Tseung
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, United States of America
| | - Douglas Moseley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, United States of America
| | | | - Cian O Hughes
- Google Inc, Mountain View, CA, United States of America
| | - Jon George
- Google Inc, Mountain View, CA, United States of America
| | - Jedediah E Johnson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, United States of America
| | - William G Breen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, United States of America
| | - Jing Qian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Chirilă ME, Kraja F, Marta GN, Neves Junior WFP, de Arruda GV, Gouveia AG, Franco P, Poortmans P, Ratosa I. Organ-sparing techniques and dose-volume constrains used in breast cancer radiation therapy - Results from European and Latin American surveys. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2024; 46:100752. [PMID: 38425691 PMCID: PMC10900109 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100752] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/31/2023] [Revised: 02/12/2024] [Accepted: 02/17/2024] [Indexed: 03/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Advances in local and systemic therapies have improved the outcomes of patients with breast cancer (BC), leading to a possible increased risk for postoperative radiation therapy (RT) late adverse events. The most adequate technologies and dose constraints for organs at risk (OAR) in BC RT have yet to be defined. Methods An online survey was distributed to radiation oncologists (ROs) practicing in Europe and Latin America including the Caribbean (LAC) through personal contacts, RO and BC professional groups' networks. Demographic data and clinical practice information were collected. Results The study included 585 responses from ROs practicing in 57 different countries. The most frequently contoured OAR by European and LAC participants were the whole heart (96.6 % and 97.7 %), the ipsilateral (84.3 % and 90.8 %), and contralateral lung (71.3 % and 77.4 %), whole lung (69.8 % and 72.9 %), and the contralateral breast (66.4 % and. 83.2 %). ESTRO guidelines were preferred in Europe (33.3 %) and the RTOG contouring guideline was the most popular in LAC (62.2 %), while some participants used both recommendations (13.2 % and 19.2 %). IMRT (68.6 % and 59.1 %) and VMAT (65.6 % and 60.2 %) were the preferred modalities used in heart sparing strategies, followed by deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) (54.8 % and 37.4 %) and partial breast irradiation (PBI) (41.6 % and 24.6 %). Only a small percentage of all ROs reported the dose-volume constraints for OAR used in routine clinical practice. A mean heart dose (Heart-Dmean) between 4 and 5 Gy was the most frequently reported parameter (17.2 % and 39.3 %). Conclusion The delineation approaches and sparing techniques for OAR in BC RT vary between ROs worldwide. The low response rate to the dose constraints subset of queries reflects the uncertainty surrounding this topic and supports the need for detailed consensus recommendations in the clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Monica-Emila Chirilă
- Radiation Oncology Department, Amethyst Radiotherapy Centre, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
- Department of Clinical Development, MVision AI, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Fatjona Kraja
- Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine Tirana, Albania
- Department of Oncology, University Hospital Centre Mother Teresa, Tirana, Albania
| | - Gustavo Nader Marta
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Sirio Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil
- Post-Graduation Program, Radiology and Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Wellington Furtado Pimenta Neves Junior
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Sirio Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil
- Post-Graduation Program, Radiology and Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Gustavo Viani de Arruda
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre, Brazil
- Department of Medical Imaging, Hematology and Oncology, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo (FMRP-USP), Ribeirão Preto, Brazil
| | - André Guimarães Gouveia
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre, Brazil
- Department of Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Pierfrancesco Franco
- Department of Translational Sciences (DIMET), University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy
| | - Philip Poortmans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Iridium Netwerk, Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Ivica Ratosa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
- Medical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Choi JI, McCormick B, Park P, Millar M, Walker K, Tung CC, Huang S, Florio P, Chen CC, Lozano A, Hanlon AL, Fox J, Xu AJ, Zinovoy M, Mueller B, Bakst R, LaPlant Q, Braunstein LZ, Khan AJ, Powell SN, Cahlon O. Comparative Evaluation of Proton Therapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Brachial Plexus Sparing in the Comprehensive Reirradiation of High-Risk Recurrent Breast Cancer. Adv Radiat Oncol 2024; 9:101355. [PMID: 38405315 PMCID: PMC10885571 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101355] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Accepted: 08/07/2023] [Indexed: 02/27/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose Recurrent or new primary breast cancer requiring comprehensive regional nodal irradiation after prior radiation therapy (RT) to the supraclavicular area and upper axilla is challenging due to cumulative brachial plexus (BP) dose tolerance. We assessed BP dose sparing achieved with pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBS-PT) and photon volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Methods and Materials In an institutional review board-approved planning study, all patients with ipsilateral recurrent breast cancer treated with PBS-PT re-RT (PBT1) with at least partial BP overlap from prior photon RT were identified. Comparative VMAT plans (XRT1) using matched BP dose constraints were developed. A second pair of proton (PBT2) and VMAT (XRT2) plans using standardized target volumes were created, applying uniform prescription dose of 50.4 per 1.8 Gy and a maximum BP constraint <25 Gy. Incidence of brachial plexopathy was also assessed. Results Ten consecutive patients were identified. Median time between RT courses was 48 months (15-276). Median first, second, and cumulative RT doses were 50.4 Gy (range, 42.6-60.0), 50.4 Gy relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) (45.0-64.4), and 102.4 Gy (RBE) (95.0-120.0), respectively. Median follow-up was 15 months (5-33) and 18 months for living patients (11-33) Mean BP max was 37.5 Gy (RBE) for PBT1 and 36.9 Gy for XRT1. Target volume coverage of V85% (volume receiving 85% of prescription dose), V90%, and V95% were numerically lower for XRT1 versus PBT1. Similarly, axilla I-III and supraclavicular area coverage were significantly higher for PBT2 than XRT2 at dose levels of V55%, V65%, V75%, V85%, and V95%. Only axilla I V55% did not reach significance (P = .06) favoring PBS-PT. Two patients with high cumulative BPmax (95.2 Gy [RBE], 101.6 Gy [RBE]) developed brachial plexopathy symptoms with ulnar nerve distribution neuropathy without pain or weakness (1 of 2 had symptom resolution after 6 months without intervention). Conclusions PBS-PT improved BP sparing and target volume coverage versus VMAT. For patients requiring comprehensive re-RT for high-risk, nonmetastatic breast cancer recurrence with BP overlap and reasonable expectation for prolonged life expectancy, PBT may be the preferred treatment modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. Isabelle Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
- New York Proton Center, New York, New York
| | - Beryl McCormick
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Peter Park
- New York Proton Center, New York, New York
| | | | - Katherine Walker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | | | | - Peter Florio
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | | - Alicia Lozano
- Center for Biostatistics and Health Data Science, Department of Statistics, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, Virginia
| | - Alexandra L. Hanlon
- Center for Biostatistics and Health Data Science, Department of Statistics, Virginia Tech, Roanoke, Virginia
| | - Jana Fox
- New York Proton Center, New York, New York
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical Center
| | - Amy J. Xu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Melissa Zinovoy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Boris Mueller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Richard Bakst
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mt. Sinai Health System, New York, New York
| | - Quincey LaPlant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Lior Z. Braunstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Atif J. Khan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Simon N. Powell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Chakraborty MA, Khan AJ, Cahlon O, Xu AJ, Braunstein LZ, Powell SN, Choi JI. Proton Reirradiation for High-Risk Recurrent or New Primary Breast Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:5722. [PMID: 38136268 PMCID: PMC10742022 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15245722] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2023] [Revised: 12/01/2023] [Accepted: 12/04/2023] [Indexed: 12/24/2023] Open
Abstract
Radiotherapy is an integral component of multidisciplinary breast cancer care. Given how commonly radiotherapy is used in the treatment of breast cancer, many patients with recurrences have received previous radiotherapy. Patients with new primary breast cancer may also have received previous radiotherapy to the thoracic region. Curative doses and comprehensive field photon reirradiation (reRT) have often been avoided in these patients due to concerns for severe toxicities to organs-at-risk (OARs), such as the heart, lungs, brachial plexus, and soft tissue. However, many patients may benefit from definitive-intent reRT, such as patients with high-risk disease features such as lymph node involvement and dermal/epidermal invasion. Proton therapy is a potentially advantageous treatment option for delivery of reRT due to its lack of exit dose and greater conformality that allow for enhanced non-target tissue sparing of previously irradiated tissues. In this review, we discuss the clinical applications of proton therapy for patients with breast cancer requiring reRT, the currently available literature and how it compares to historical photon reRT outcomes, treatment planning considerations, and questions in this area warranting further study. Given the dosimetric advantages of protons and the data reported to date, proton therapy is a promising option for patients who would benefit from the added locoregional disease control provided by reRT for recurrent or new primary breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Molly A. Chakraborty
- Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ 07103, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Atif J. Khan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York University, New York, NY 10016, USA
| | - Amy J. Xu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Lior Z. Braunstein
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Simon N. Powell
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - J. Isabelle Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
- New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Gao RW, Mullikin TC, Aziz KA, Afzal A, Smith NL, Routman DM, Gergelis KR, Harmsen WS, Remmes NB, Tseung HSWC, Shiraishi SS, Boughey JC, Ruddy KJ, Harless CA, Garda AE, Waddle MR, Park SS, Shumway DA, Corbin KS, Mutter RW. Postmastectomy Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy: 5-Year Oncologic and Patient-Reported Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 117:846-856. [PMID: 37244627 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.05.036] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2023] [Revised: 05/10/2023] [Accepted: 05/19/2023] [Indexed: 05/29/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To report oncologic, physician-assessed, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for a group of women homogeneously treated with modern, skin-sparing multifield optimized pencil-beam scanning proton (intensity modulated proton therapy [IMPT]) postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS We reviewed consecutive patients who received unilateral, curative-intent, conventionally fractionated IMPT PMRT between 2015 and 2019. Strict constraints were applied to limit the dose to the skin and other organs at risk. Five-year oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated as part of a prospective registry at baseline, completion of PMRT, and 3 and 12 months after PMRT. RESULTS A total of 127 patients were included. One hundred nine (86%) received chemotherapy, among whom 82 (65%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The median follow-up was 4.1 years. Five-year locoregional control was 98.4% (95% CI, 93.6-99.6), and overall survival was 87.9% (95% CI, 78.7-96.5). Acute grade 2 and 3 dermatitis was seen in 45% and 4% of patients, respectively. Three patients (2%) experienced acute grade 3 infection, all of whom had breast reconstruction. Three late grade 3 adverse events occurred: morphea (n = 1), infection (n = 1), and seroma (n = 1). There were no cardiac or pulmonary adverse events. Among the 73 patients at risk for PMRT-associated reconstruction complications, 7 (10%) experienced reconstruction failure. Ninety-five patients (75%) enrolled in the prospective PRO registry. The only metrics to increase by >1 point were skin color (mean change: 5) and itchiness (2) at treatment completion and tightness/pulling/stretching (2) and skin color (2) at 12 months. There was no significant change in the following PROs: bleeding/leaking fluid, blistering, telangiectasia, lifting, arm extension, or bending/straightening the arm. CONCLUSIONS With strict dose constraints to skin and organs at risk, postmastectomy IMPT was associated with excellent oncologic outcomes and PROs. Rates of skin, chest wall, and reconstruction complications compared favorably to previous proton and photon series. Postmastectomy IMPT warrants further investigation in a multi-institutional setting with careful attention to planning techniques.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Trey C Mullikin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Khaled A Aziz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Arslan Afzal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Na L Smith
- Sanford Cancer Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota
| | - David M Routman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - William S Harmsen
- Department of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | | | - Judy C Boughey
- Division of Breast and Melanoma Surgical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Kathryn J Ruddy
- Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Allison E Garda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Mark R Waddle
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Yang Y, Gergelis KR, Shen J, Afzal A, Mullikin TC, Gao RW, Aziz K, Shumway DA, Corbin KS, Liu W, Mutter RW. Study of linear energy transfer effect on rib fracture in breast patients receiving pencil-beamscanning proton therapy. ARXIV 2023:arXiv:2310.20527v1. [PMID: 37961731 PMCID: PMC10635309] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2023]
Abstract
Purpose To study the effect of proton linear energy transfer (LET) on rib fracture in breast cancer patients treated with pencil-beam scanning proton therapy (PBS) using a novel tool of dose-LET volume histogram (DLVH). Methods From a prospective registry of patients treated with post-mastectomy proton therapy to the chest wall and regional lymph nodes for breast cancer between 2015 and 2020, we retrospectively identified rib fracture cases detected after completing treatment. Contemporaneously treated control patients that did not develop rib fracture were matched to patients 2:1 considering prescription dose, boost location, reconstruction status, laterality, chest wall thickness, and treatment year.The DLVH index, V(d, l), defined as volume(V) of the structure with at least dose(d) and LET(l), was calculated. DLVH plots between the fracture and control group were compared. Conditional logistic regression (CLR) model was used to establish the relation of V(d, l) and the observed fracture at each combination of d and l. The p-value derived from CLR model shows the statistical difference between fracture patients and the matched control group. Using the 2D p-value map derived from CLR model, the DLVH features associated with the patient outcomes were extracted. Results Seven rib fracture patients were identified, and fourteen matched patients were selected for the control group. The median time from the completion of proton therapy to rib fracture diagnosis was 12 months (range 5 to 14 months). Two patients had grade 2 symptomatic rib fracture while the remaining 5 were grade 1 incidentally detected on imaging. The derived p-value map demonstrated larger V(0-36Gy[RBE], 4.0-5.0 keV/μm) in patients experiencing fracture (p<0.1). For example, the p value for V(30 Gy[RBE], 4.0 keV/um) was 0.069. Conclusions In breast cancer patients receiving PBS, a larger volume of chest wall receiving moderate dose and high LET may result in increased risk of rib fracture.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yunze Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA
| | - Kimberly R Gergelis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY 14642, USA
| | - Jiajian Shen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA
| | - Arslan Afzal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Trey C Mullikin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC 27710
| | - Robert W Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Khaled Aziz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Kimberly S Corbin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Wei Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA
| | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
- Department of Pharmacology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Abbasi MA, Bruno G, Di Stefano C, Garcia Bello L, Laack NN, Corbin KS, Whitaker TJ, Pellikka PA, Mutter RW, Villarraga HR. Detection of Early Myocardial Dysfunction by Imaging Biomarkers in Cancer Patients Undergoing Photon Beam vs. Proton Beam Radiotherapy: A Prospective Study. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis 2023; 10:418. [PMID: 37887865 PMCID: PMC10607871 DOI: 10.3390/jcdd10100418] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2023] [Revised: 09/30/2023] [Accepted: 10/02/2023] [Indexed: 10/28/2023] Open
Abstract
1. Background: We sought to determine acute and subacute changes in cardiac function after proton beam (PBT) and photon beam (PhT) radiotherapy (RT) using conventional and two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) in patients with malignant breast and thoracic tumors. 2. Methods: Between March 2016 and March 2017, 70 patients with breast or thoracic cancer were prospectively enrolled and underwent transthoracic echocardiography with comprehensive strain analysis at pretreatment, mid-treatment, end of treatment, and 3 months after RT. 3. Results: PBT was used to treat 44 patients; PhT 26 patients. Mean ± SD age was 55 ± 12 years; most patients (93%) were women. The median (interquartile range) of the mean heart dose was lower in the PBT than the PhT group (47 [27-79] vs. 217 [120-596] cGy, respectively; p < 0.001). Ejection fraction did not change in either group. Only the PhT group had reduced systolic tissue Doppler velocities at 3 months. 2D-STE showed changes in endocardial and epicardial longitudinal, radial, and circumferential early diastolic strain rate (SRe) in patients undergoing PhT (global longitudinal SRe, pretreatment vs. end of treatment (p = 0.04); global circumferential SRe, pretreatment vs. at 3-month follow-up (p = 0.003); global radial SRe, pretreatment vs. at 3-month follow-up (p = 0.02) for endocardial values). Epicardial strain values decreased significantly only in patients treated with PhT. Patients in the PhT group had a significant decrease in epicardial global longitudinal systolic strain rate (GLSRs) (epicardial GLSRs, at baseline vs. at end of treatment [p = 0.009]) and in GCSRe and GRSRe (epicardial GCSRe, at baseline vs. at 3-month follow-up (p = 0.02); epicardial GRSRe, at baseline vs. at 3-month follow-up (p = 0.03)) during treatment and follow-up. No changes on 2D-STE were detected in the PBT group. 4. Conclusions: Patients who underwent PhT but not PBT had reduced tissue Doppler velocities and SRe values during follow-up, suggesting early myocardial relaxation abnormalities. PBT shows promise as a cardiac-sparing RT technology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Giulia Bruno
- Hypertension Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Torino, 3-10126 Torino, Italy
| | - Cristina Di Stefano
- Hypertension Unit, Department of Medical Sciences, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Torino, 3-10126 Torino, Italy
| | - Laura Garcia Bello
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Nadia N. Laack
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | | | | | | | - Robert W. Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
- Department of Pharmacology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Mutter RW, Giri S, Fruth BF, Remmes NB, Boughey JC, Harless CA, Ruddy KJ, McGee LA, Afzal A, Gao RW, Shumway DA, Vern-Gross TZ, Villarraga HR, Kenison SL, Kang Y, Wong WW, Stish BJ, Merrell KW, Yan ES, Park SS, Corbin KS, Vargas CE. Conventional versus hypofractionated postmastectomy proton radiotherapy in the USA (MC1631): a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2023; 24:1083-1093. [PMID: 37696281 PMCID: PMC10591844 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(23)00388-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2023] [Revised: 07/26/2023] [Accepted: 08/02/2023] [Indexed: 09/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Proton therapy is under investigation in breast cancer as a strategy to reduce radiation exposure to the heart and lungs. So far, studies investigating proton postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) have used conventional fractionation over 25-28 days, but whether hypofractionated proton PMRT is feasible is unclear. We aimed to compare conventional fractionation and hypofractionation in patients with indications for PMRT, including those with immediate breast reconstruction. METHODS We did a randomised phase 2 trial (MC1631) at Mayo Clinic in Rochester (MN, USA) and Mayo Clinic in Arizona (Phoenix, AZ, USA) comparing conventional fractionated (50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy [relative biological effectiveness of 1·1]) and hypofractionated (40·05 Gy in 15 fractions of 2·67 Gy [relative biological effectiveness of 1·1]) proton PMRT. All patients were treated with pencil-beam scanning. Eligibility criteria included age 18 years or older, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and breast cancer resected by mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction with indications for PMRT. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either conventional fractionation or hypofractionation, with presence of immediate reconstruction (yes vs no) as a stratification factor, using a biased-coin minimisation algorithm. Any patient who received at least one fraction of protocol treatment was evaluable for the primary endpoint and safety analyses. The primary endpoint was 24-month complication rate from the date of first radiotherapy, defined as grade 3 or worse adverse events occurring from 90 days after last radiotherapy or unplanned surgical interventions in patients with immediate reconstruction. The inferiority of hypofractionation would not be ruled out if the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference in 24-month complication rate between the two groups was greater than 10%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02783690, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS Between June 2, 2016, and Aug 23, 2018, 88 patients were randomly assigned (44 to each group), of whom 82 received protocol treatment (41 in the conventional fractionation group and 41 in the hypofractionation group; median age of 52 years [IQR 44-64], 79 [96%] patients were White, two [2%] were Black or African American, one [1%] was Asian, and 79 [96%] were not of Hispanic ethnicity). As of data cutoff (Jan 30, 2023), the median follow-up was 39·3 months (IQR 37·5-61·2). The median mean heart dose was 0·54 Gy (IQR 0·30-0·72) for the conventional fractionation group and 0·49 Gy (0·25-0·64) for the hypofractionation group. Within 24 months of first radiotherapy, 14 protocol-defined complications occurred in six (15%) patients in the conventional fractionation group and in eight (20%) patients in the hypofractionation group (absolute difference 4·9% [one-sided 95% CI 18·5], p=0·27). The complications in the conventionally fractionated group were contracture (five [12%] of 41 patients]) and fat necrosis (one [2%] patient) requiring surgical intervention. All eight protocol-defined complications in the hypofractionation group were due to infections, three of which were acute infections that required surgical intervention, and five were late infections, four of which required surgical intervention. All 14 complications were in patients with immediate expander or implant-based reconstruction. INTERPRETATION After a median follow-up of 39·3 months, non-inferiority of the hypofractionation group could not be established. However, given similar tolerability, hypofractionated proton PMRT appears to be worthy of further study in patients with and without immediate reconstruction. FUNDING The Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA, and the US National Cancer Institute.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
| | - Sharmila Giri
- Division of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Briant F Fruth
- Division of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, 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
| | - Arslan Afzal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Robert W Gao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Dean A Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | | | | | - Yixiu Kang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - William W Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Bradley J Stish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Elizabeth S Yan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Sean S Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | | | - Carlos E Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
The Role of Hypofractionation in Proton Therapy. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14092271. [PMID: 35565400 PMCID: PMC9104796 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14092271] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2022] [Revised: 04/22/2022] [Accepted: 04/27/2022] [Indexed: 12/07/2022] Open
Abstract
Hypofractionated radiotherapy is an attractive approach for minimizing patient burden and treatment cost. Technological advancements in external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) delivery and image guidance have resulted in improved targeting and conformality of the absorbed dose to the disease and a reduction in dose to healthy tissue. These advances in EBRT have led to an increasing adoption and interest in hypofractionation. Furthermore, for many treatment sites, proton beam therapy (PBT) provides an improved absorbed dose distribution compared to X-ray (photon) EBRT. In the past 10 years there has been a notable increase in reported clinical data involving hypofractionation with PBT, reflecting the interest in this treatment approach. This review will discuss the reported clinical data and radiobiology of hypofractionated PBT. Over 50 published manuscripts reporting clinical results involving hypofractionation and PBT were included in this review, ~90% of which were published since 2010. The most common treatment regions reported were prostate, lung and liver, making over 70% of the reported results. Many of the reported clinical data indicate that hypofractionated PBT can be well tolerated, however future clinical trials are still needed to determine the optimal fractionation regime.
Collapse
|
11
|
Garda AE, Hunzeker AE, Michel AK, Fattahi S, Shiraishi S, Remmes NB, Schultz HL, Harmsen WS, Shumway DA, Yan ES, Park SS, Mutter RW, Corbin KS. Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Bilateral Breast or Chest Wall and Comprehensive Nodal Irradiation for Synchronous Bilateral Breast Cancer: Initial Clinical Experience and Dosimetric Comparison. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 7:100901. [PMID: 35647397 PMCID: PMC9133394 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.100901] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2021] [Accepted: 01/09/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose Synchronous bilateral breast cancer (SBBC) poses distinct challenges for radiation therapy planning. We report our proton therapy experience in treating patients with SBBC. We also provide a dosimetric comparison of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) versus photon therapy. Methods and Materials Patients with SBBC who received IMPT at our institution were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical target volume (CTV) included the breast or chest wall and comprehensive regional lymph nodes, including axilla, supraclavicular fossa, and the internal mammary chain. Intensity modulated proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated with the goal that 90% of the CTV would recieve at least 90% of the prescription dose (D90>=90%). Comparisons between modalities were made using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Physician-reported acute toxic effects and photography were collected at baseline, end of treatment, and each follow-up visit. Results Between 2015 and 2018, 11 patients with SBBC were treated with IMPT. The prescription was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. The median CTV D90 was 99.9% for IMPT and 97.6% for VMAT (P = .001). The mean heart dose was 0.7 Gy versus 7.2 Gy (P = .001), the total lung mean dose was 7.8 Gy versus 17.3 Gy (P = .001), and the total lung volume recieving 20 Gy was 13.0% versus 27.4% (P = .001). The most common acute toxic effects were dermatitis (mostly grade 1-2 with 1 case of grade 3) and grade 1 to 2 fatigue. The most common toxic effects at the last-follow up (median, 32 months) were grade 1 skin hyperpigmentation, superficial fibrosis, and extremity lymphedema. No nondermatologic or nonfatigue adverse events of grade >1 were recorded. Conclusions Bilateral breast and/or chest wall and comprehensive nodal IMPT is technically feasible and associated with low rates of severe acute toxic effects. Treatment with IMPT offered improved target coverage and normal-tissue sparing compared with photon therapy. Long-term follow-up is ongoing to assess efficacy and toxic effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allison E. Garda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Ann K. Michel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sayeh Fattahi
- Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Satomi Shiraishi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | - W. Scott Harmsen
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Dean A. Shumway
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Elizabeth S. Yan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Sean S. Park
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Robert W. Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Proton therapy for the treatment of inflammatory breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 2022; 171:77-83. [DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.04.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2022] [Revised: 04/07/2022] [Accepted: 04/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
|
13
|
Durante M, Debus J, Loeffler JS. Physics and biomedical challenges of cancer therapy with accelerated heavy ions. NATURE REVIEWS. PHYSICS 2021; 3:777-790. [PMID: 34870097 PMCID: PMC7612063 DOI: 10.1038/s42254-021-00368-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/05/2021] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
Radiotherapy should have low toxicity in the entrance channel (normal tissue) and be very effective in cell killing in the target region (tumour). In this regard, ions heavier than protons have both physical and radiobiological advantages over conventional X-rays. Carbon ions represent an excellent combination of physical and biological advantages. There are a dozen carbon-ion clinical centres in Europe and Asia, and more under construction or at the planning stage, including the first in the USA. Clinical results from Japan and Germany are promising, but a heated debate on the cost-effectiveness is ongoing in the clinical community, owing to the larger footprint and greater expense of heavy ion facilities compared with proton therapy centres. We review here the physical basis and the clinical data with carbon ions and the use of different ions, such as helium and oxygen. Research towards smaller and cheaper machines with more effective beam delivery is necessary to make particle therapy affordable. The potential of heavy ions has not been fully exploited in clinics and, rather than there being a single 'silver bullet', different particles and their combination can provide a breakthrough in radiotherapy treatments in specific cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Durante
- Biophysics Department, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
- Institute of Condensed Matter Physics, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jay S. Loeffler
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Mutter RW, Choi JI, Jimenez RB, Kirova YM, Fagundes M, Haffty BG, Amos RA, Bradley JA, Chen PY, Ding X, Carr AM, Taylor LM, Pankuch M, Vega RBM, Ho AY, Nyström PW, McGee LA, Urbanic JJ, Cahlon O, Maduro JH, MacDonald SM. Proton Therapy for Breast Cancer: A Consensus Statement From the Particle Therapy Cooperative Group Breast Cancer Subcommittee. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 111:337-359. [PMID: 34048815 PMCID: PMC8416711 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.05.110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2020] [Revised: 05/12/2021] [Accepted: 05/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
Radiation therapy plays an important role in the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer. Recent years have seen improvements in breast cancer survival and a greater appreciation of potential long-term morbidity associated with the dose and volume of irradiated organs. Proton therapy reduces the dose to nontarget structures while optimizing target coverage. However, there remain additional financial costs associated with proton therapy, despite reductions over time, and studies have yet to demonstrate that protons improve upon the treatment outcomes achieved with photon radiation therapy. There remains considerable heterogeneity in proton patient selection and techniques, and the rapid technological advances in the field have the potential to affect evidence evaluation, given the long latency period for breast cancer radiation therapy recurrence and late effects. In this consensus statement, we assess the data available to the radiation oncology community of proton therapy for breast cancer, provide expert consensus recommendations on indications and technique, and highlight ongoing trials' cost-effectiveness analyses and key areas for future research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| | - J Isabelle Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Rachel B Jimenez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Youlia M Kirova
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France
| | - Marcio Fagundes
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, Florida
| | - Bruce G Haffty
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Richard A Amos
- Proton and Advanced Radiotherapy Group, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Julie A Bradley
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Peter Y Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Antoinette M Carr
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Leslie M Taylor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Mark Pankuch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern Medicine Proton Center, Warrenville, Illinois
| | | | - Alice Y Ho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Petra Witt Nyström
- The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden and the Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Lisa A McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - James J Urbanic
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, UC San Diego Health, Encinitas, California
| | - Oren Cahlon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - John H Maduro
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Shannon M MacDonald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Zhou Q, Howard ME, Tu X, Zhu Q, Denbeigh JM, Remmes NB, Herman MG, Beltran CJ, Yuan J, Greipp PT, Boughey JC, Wang L, Johnson N, Goetz MP, Sarkaria JN, Lou Z, Mutter RW. Inhibition of ATM Induces Hypersensitivity to Proton Irradiation by Upregulating Toxic End Joining. Cancer Res 2021; 81:3333-3346. [PMID: 33597272 PMCID: PMC8260463 DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-20-2960] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2020] [Revised: 12/30/2020] [Accepted: 02/11/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Proton Bragg peak irradiation has a higher ionizing density than conventional photon irradiation or the entrance of the proton beam profile. Whether targeting the DNA damage response (DDR) could enhance vulnerability to the distinct pattern of damage induced by proton Bragg peak irradiation is currently unknown. Here, we performed genetic or pharmacologic manipulation of key DDR elements and evaluated DNA damage signaling, DNA repair, and tumor control in cell lines and xenografts treated with the same physical dose across a radiotherapy linear energy transfer spectrum. Radiotherapy consisted of 6 MV photons and the entrance beam or Bragg peak of a 76.8 MeV spot scanning proton beam. More complex DNA double-strand breaks (DSB) induced by Bragg peak proton irradiation preferentially underwent resection and engaged homologous recombination (HR) machinery. Unexpectedly, the ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) inhibitor, AZD0156, but not an inhibitor of ATM and Rad3-related, rendered cells hypersensitive to more densely ionizing proton Bragg peak irradiation. ATM inhibition blocked resection and shunted more DSBs to processing by toxic ligation through nonhomologous end-joining, whereas loss of DNA ligation via XRCC4 or Lig4 knockdown rescued resection and abolished the enhanced Bragg peak cell killing. Proton Bragg peak monotherapy selectively sensitized cell lines and tumor xenografts with inherent HR defects, and the repair defect induced by ATM inhibitor coadministration showed enhanced efficacy in HR-proficient models. In summary, inherent defects in HR or administration of an ATM inhibitor in HR-proficient tumors selectively enhances the relative biological effectiveness of proton Bragg peak irradiation. SIGNIFICANCE: Coadministration of an ATM inhibitor rewires DNA repair machinery to render cancer cells uniquely hypersensitive to DNA damage induced by the proton Bragg peak, which is characterized by higher density ionization.See related commentary by Nickoloff, p. 3156.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qin Zhou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Xinyi Tu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Qian Zhu
- Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Janet M Denbeigh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Michael G Herman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Chris J Beltran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Jian Yuan
- Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
- Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Patricia T Greipp
- Division of Laboratory Genetics and Genomics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Judy C Boughey
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Liewei Wang
- Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Neil Johnson
- Molecular Therapeutics Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Matthew P Goetz
- Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Jann N Sarkaria
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Zhenkun Lou
- Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
- Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Robert W Mutter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
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
|
17
|
Tinganelli W, Durante M. Carbon Ion Radiobiology. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:E3022. [PMID: 33080914 PMCID: PMC7603235 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12103022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 110] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2020] [Revised: 10/12/2020] [Accepted: 10/14/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Radiotherapy using accelerated charged particles is rapidly growing worldwide. About 85% of the cancer patients receiving particle therapy are irradiated with protons, which have physical advantages compared to X-rays but a similar biological response. In addition to the ballistic advantages, heavy ions present specific radiobiological features that can make them attractive for treating radioresistant, hypoxic tumors. An ideal heavy ion should have lower toxicity in the entrance channel (normal tissue) and be exquisitely effective in the target region (tumor). Carbon ions have been chosen because they represent the best combination in this direction. Normal tissue toxicities and second cancer risk are similar to those observed in conventional radiotherapy. In the target region, they have increased relative biological effectiveness and a reduced oxygen enhancement ratio compared to X-rays. Some radiobiological properties of densely ionizing carbon ions are so distinct from X-rays and protons that they can be considered as a different "drug" in oncology, and may elicit favorable responses such as an increased immune response and reduced angiogenesis and metastatic potential. The radiobiological properties of carbon ions should guide patient selection and treatment protocols to achieve optimal clinical results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Walter Tinganelli
- Biophysics Department, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforchung, Planckstraße 1, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany;
| | - Marco Durante
- Biophysics Department, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforchung, Planckstraße 1, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany;
- Institut für Festkörperphysik, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Hochschulstraße 8, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|