1
|
Starke S, Kieslich A, Palkowitsch M, Hennings F, G C Troost E, Krause M, Bensberg J, Hahn C, Heinzelmann F, Bäumer C, Lühr A, Timmermann B, Löck S. A deep-learning-based surrogate model for Monte-Carlo simulations of the linear energy transfer in primary brain tumor patients treated with proton-beam radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:165034. [PMID: 39019053 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad64b7] [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: 04/25/2024] [Accepted: 07/17/2024] [Indexed: 07/19/2024]
Abstract
Objective.This study explores the use of neural networks (NNs) as surrogate models for Monte-Carlo (MC) simulations in predicting the dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd) of protons in proton-beam therapy based on the planned dose distribution and patient anatomy in the form of computed tomography (CT) images. As LETdis associated with variability in the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons, we also evaluate the implications of using NN predictions for normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models within a variable-RBE context.Approach.The predictive performance of three-dimensional NN architectures was evaluated using five-fold cross-validation on a cohort of brain tumor patients (n= 151). The best-performing model was identified and externally validated on patients from a different center (n= 107). LETdpredictions were compared to MC-simulated results in clinically relevant regions of interest. We assessed the impact on NTCP models by leveraging LETdpredictions to derive RBE-weighted doses, using the Wedenberg RBE model.Main results.We found NNs based solely on the planned dose distribution, i.e. without additional usage of CT images, can approximate MC-based LETddistributions. Root mean squared errors (RMSE) for the median LETdwithin the brain, brainstem, CTV, chiasm, lacrimal glands (ipsilateral/contralateral) and optic nerves (ipsilateral/contralateral) were 0.36, 0.87, 0.31, 0.73, 0.68, 1.04, 0.69 and 1.24 keV µm-1, respectively. Although model predictions showed statistically significant differences from MC outputs, these did not result in substantial changes in NTCP predictions, with RMSEs of at most 3.2 percentage points.Significance.The ability of NNs to predict LETdbased solely on planned dose distributions suggests a viable alternative to compute-intensive MC simulations in a variable-RBE setting. This is particularly useful in scenarios where MC simulation data are unavailable, facilitating resource-constrained proton therapy treatment planning, retrospective patient data analysis and further investigations on the variability of proton RBE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Starke
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Department of Information Services and Computing, Dresden, Germany
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Aaron Kieslich
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Martina Palkowitsch
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Fabian Hennings
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Esther G C Troost
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases Dresden (NTC/UCC), Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany
| | - Mechthild Krause
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases Dresden (NTC/UCC), Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany
| | - Jona Bensberg
- TU Dortmund University, Department of Physics, Dortmund, Germany
| | - Christian Hahn
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- TU Dortmund University, Department of Physics, Dortmund, Germany
| | - Feline Heinzelmann
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
- Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Christian Bäumer
- TU Dortmund University, Department of Physics, Dortmund, Germany
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Essen/Duesseldorf, Germany
| | - Armin Lühr
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany
- TU Dortmund University, Department of Physics, Dortmund, Germany
| | - Beate Timmermann
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
- Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Essen/Duesseldorf, Germany
| | - Steffen Löck
- OncoRay-National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases Dresden (NTC/UCC), Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hoeltgen L, Tessonnier T, Meixner E, Hoegen P, Kim JY, Deng M, Seidensaal K, Held T, Herfarth K, Debus J, Harrabi S. Proton Therapy for Advanced Juvenile Nasopharyngeal Angiofibroma. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:5022. [PMID: 37894389 PMCID: PMC10605854 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15205022] [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: 09/14/2023] [Revised: 10/12/2023] [Accepted: 10/13/2023] [Indexed: 10/29/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To provide the first report on proton radiotherapy (PRT) in the management of advanced nasopharyngeal angiofibroma (JNA) and evaluate potential benefits compared to conformal photon therapy (XRT). METHODS We retrospectively reviewed 10 consecutive patients undergoing PRT for advanced JNA in a definitive or postoperative setting with a relative biological effectiveness weighted dose of 45 Gy in 25 fractions between 2012 and 2022 at the Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center. Furthermore, dosimetric comparisons and risk estimations for short- and long-term radiation-induced complications between PRT plans and helical XRT plans were conducted. RESULTS PRT was well tolerated, with only low-grade acute toxicities (CTCAE I-II) being reported. The local control rate was 100% after a median follow-up of 27.0 (interquartile range 13.3-58.0) months. PRT resulted in considerable tumor shrinkage, leading to complete remission in five patients and bearing the potential to provide partial or complete symptom relief. Favorable dosimetric outcomes in critical brain substructures by the use of PRT translated into reduced estimated risks for neurocognitive impairment and radiation-induced CNS malignancies compared to XRT. CONCLUSIONS PRT is an effective treatment option for advanced JNA with minimal acute morbidity and the potential for reduced radiation-induced long-term complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Line Hoeltgen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany;
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany;
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Eva Meixner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany;
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Philipp Hoegen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany;
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Ji-Young Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany;
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Maximilian Deng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany;
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Katharina Seidensaal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany;
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Held
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany;
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Klaus Herfarth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany;
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Juergen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany;
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Semi Harrabi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany (S.H.)
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany;
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Pennock M, Wei S, Cheng C, Lin H, Hasan S, Chhabra AM, Choi JI, Bakst RL, Kabarriti R, Simone II CB, Lee NY, Kang M, Press RH. Proton Bragg Peak FLASH Enables Organ Sparing and Ultra-High Dose-Rate Delivery: Proof of Principle in Recurrent Head and Neck Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:3828. [PMID: 37568644 PMCID: PMC10417542 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15153828] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2023] [Revised: 07/21/2023] [Accepted: 07/25/2023] [Indexed: 08/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Proton pencil-beam scanning (PBS) Bragg peak FLASH combines ultra-high dose rate delivery and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing. This proof-of-principle study compared dosimetry and dose rate coverage between PBS Bragg peak FLASH and PBS transmission FLASH in head and neck reirradiation. PBS Bragg peak FLASH plans were created via the highest beam single energy, range shifter, and range compensator, and were compared to PBS transmission FLASH plans for 6 GyE/fraction and 10 GyE/fraction in eight recurrent head and neck patients originally treated with quad shot reirradiation (14.8/3.7 CGE). The 6 GyE/fraction and 10 GyE/fraction plans were also created using conventional-rate intensity-modulated proton therapy techniques. PBS Bragg peak FLASH, PBS transmission FLASH, and conventional plans were compared for OAR sparing, FLASH dose rate coverage, and target coverage. All FLASH OAR V40 Gy/s dose rate coverage was 90-100% at 6 GyE and 10 GyE for both FLASH modalities. PBS Bragg peak FLASH generated dose volume histograms (DVHs) like those of conventional therapy and demonstrated improved OAR dose sparing over PBS transmission FLASH. All the modalities had similar CTV coverage. PBS Bragg peak FLASH can deliver conformal, ultra-high dose rate FLASH with a two-millisecond delivery of the minimum MU per spot. PBS Bragg peak FLASH demonstrated similar dose rate coverage to PBS transmission FLASH with improved OAR dose-sparing, which was more pronounced in the 10 GyE/fraction than in the 6 GyE/fraction. This feasibility study generates hypotheses for the benefits of FLASH in head and neck reirradiation and developing biological models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Pennock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, New York, NY 10461, USA;
| | - Shouyi Wei
- Department of Physics, New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (S.W.); (H.L.); (S.H.); (M.K.)
| | - Chingyun Cheng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA;
| | - Haibo Lin
- Department of Physics, New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (S.W.); (H.L.); (S.H.); (M.K.)
| | - Shaakir Hasan
- Department of Physics, New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (S.W.); (H.L.); (S.H.); (M.K.)
| | - Arpit M. Chhabra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (A.M.C.); (J.I.C.); (C.B.S.II)
| | - J. Isabelle Choi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (A.M.C.); (J.I.C.); (C.B.S.II)
| | - Richard L. Bakst
- Department of Radiation Oncology—Radiation Oncology Associates, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA;
| | - Rafi Kabarriti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, New York, NY 10461, USA;
| | - Charles B. Simone II
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (A.M.C.); (J.I.C.); (C.B.S.II)
| | - Nancy Y. Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA;
| | - Minglei Kang
- Department of Physics, New York Proton Center, New York, NY 10035, USA; (S.W.); (H.L.); (S.H.); (M.K.)
| | - Robert H. Press
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL 33176, USA;
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Iannalfi A, Riva G, Ciccone L, Orlandi E. The role of particle radiotherapy in the treatment of skull base tumors. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1161752. [PMID: 37350949 PMCID: PMC10283010 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1161752] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2023] [Accepted: 05/19/2023] [Indexed: 06/24/2023] Open
Abstract
The skull base is an anatomically and functionally critical area surrounded by vital structures such as the brainstem, the spinal cord, blood vessels, and cranial nerves. Due to this complexity, management of skull base tumors requires a multidisciplinary approach involving a team of specialists such as neurosurgeons, otorhinolaryngologists, radiation oncologists, endocrinologists, and medical oncologists. In the case of pediatric patients, cancer management should be performed by a team of pediatric-trained specialists. Radiation therapy may be used alone or in combination with surgery to treat skull base tumors. There are two main types of radiation therapy: photon therapy and particle therapy. Particle radiotherapy uses charged particles (protons or carbon ions) that, due to their peculiar physical properties, permit precise targeting of the tumor with minimal healthy tissue exposure. These characteristics allow for minimizing the potential long-term effects of radiation exposure in terms of neurocognitive impairments, preserving quality of life, and reducing the risk of radio-induced cancer. For these reasons, in children, adolescents, and young adults, proton therapy should be an elective option when available. In radioresistant tumors such as chordomas and sarcomas and previously irradiated recurrent tumors, particle therapy permits the delivery of high biologically effective doses with low, or however acceptable, toxicity. Carbon ion therapy has peculiar and favorable radiobiological characteristics to overcome radioresistance features. In low-grade tumors, proton therapy should be considered in challenging cases due to tumor volume and involvement of critical neural structures. However, particle radiotherapy is still relatively new, and more research is needed to fully understand its effects. Additionally, the availability of particle therapy is limited as it requires specialized equipment and expertise. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the available literature regarding the role of particle radiotherapy in the treatment of skull base tumors.
Collapse
|
5
|
Luo Y. The characteristic of stem-related genes with pancreatic carcinoma cell after irradiation. Heliyon 2023; 9:e17074. [PMID: 37484310 PMCID: PMC10361223 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17074] [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: 10/11/2022] [Revised: 06/02/2023] [Accepted: 06/06/2023] [Indexed: 07/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose To investigate stem-related differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and their potential mechanism in pancreatic cancer cells (MIAPaCa-2) exposed to x-ray and proton radiation, as well as how these factors affected the prognosis of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PADC). Methods The stem-related DEGs were screened using the online tool Stemchecker after protons and x-rays were used to irradiate MIAPaCa-2 cells. Analysis was done on the probable processes and prognostic significance of the DEGs in PAC patients. Results Four datasets containing 401 DEGs were filtered, and the stem-related DEGs for each irradiation type indicated a variety of radiobiological characteristics. In pancreatic cancer cells, a number of stem-related DEGs may serve as biomarkers of radiation effects. Patients with pancreatic cancer demonstrated predictive significance for GRB7, B2M, and PMAIP1. Conclusions MIAPaCa-2 cells exposed to x-rays and protons repeatedly displayed heterogeneous expression of stem-related DEGs involved in complex radiosensitivity, radio-resistance, and radio-induced mortality pathways. GRB7 and B2M were considered potential radiation sensitivity indicators for pancreatic cancer.
Collapse
|
6
|
Leeuwenberg AM, Reitsma JB, Van den Bosch LGLJ, Hoogland J, van der Schaaf A, Hoebers FJP, Wijers OB, Langendijk JA, Moons KGM, Schuit E. The relation between prediction model performance measures and patient selection outcomes for proton therapy in head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 2023; 179:109449. [PMID: 36566991 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.109449] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2022] [Revised: 12/08/2022] [Accepted: 12/13/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Normal-tissue complication probability (NTCP) models predict complication risk in patients receiving radiotherapy, considering radiation dose to healthy tissues, and are used to select patients for proton therapy, based on their expected reduction in risk after proton therapy versus photon radiotherapy (ΔNTCP). Recommended model evaluation measures include area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), overall calibration (CITL), and calibration slope (CS), whose precise relation to patient selection is still unclear. We investigated how each measure relates to patient selection outcomes. METHODS The model validation and consequent patient selection process was simulated within empirical head and neck cancer patient data. By manipulating performance measures independently via model perturbations, the relation between model performance and patient selection was studied. RESULTS Small reductions in AUC (-0.02) yielded mean changes in ΔNTCP between 0.9-3.2 %, and single-model patient selection differences between 2-19 %. Deviations (-0.2 or +0.2) in CITL or CS yielded mean changes in ΔNTCP between 0.3-1.4 %, and single-model patient selection differences between 1-10 %. CONCLUSIONS Each measure independently impacts ΔNTCP and patient selection and should thus be assessed in a representative sufficiently large external sample. Our suggested practical model selection approach is considering the model with the highest AUC, and recalibrating it if needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Artuur M Leeuwenberg
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
| | - Johannes B Reitsma
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Lisa G L J Van den Bosch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Jeroen Hoogland
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Arjen van der Schaaf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Frank J P Hoebers
- Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Oda B Wijers
- Radiotherapeutic Institute Friesland, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands
| | - Johannes A Langendijk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Karel G M Moons
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Ewoud Schuit
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Uchinami Y, Katoh N, Suzuki R, Kanehira T, Tamura M, Takao S, Matsuura T, Miyamoto N, Fujita Y, Koizumi F, Taguchi H, Yasuda K, Nishioka K, Yokota I, Kobashi K, Aoyama H. A study on predicting cases that would benefit from proton beam therapy in primary liver tumors of less than or equal to 5 cm based on the estimated incidence of hepatic toxicity. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2022; 35:70-75. [PMID: 35633653 PMCID: PMC9130086 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2022.05.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2022] [Revised: 05/02/2022] [Accepted: 05/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
An advantage of PBT is reducing the liver receiving low doses of radiation. The factors predicting the benefit in PBT are different among NTCP models. The tumor size, number, and location are useful in estimating the benefits of PBT.
Background Materials and methods Results Conclusions
Collapse
|
8
|
Burnet NG, Mee T, Gaito S, Kirkby NF, Aitkenhead AH, Anandadas CN, Aznar MC, Barraclough LH, Borst G, Charlwood FC, Clarke M, Colaco RJ, Crellin AM, Defourney NN, Hague CJ, Harris M, Henthorn NT, Hopkins KI, Hwang E, Ingram SP, Kirkby KJ, Lee LW, Lines D, Lingard Z, Lowe M, Mackay RI, McBain CA, Merchant MJ, Noble DJ, Pan S, Price JM, Radhakrishna G, Reboredo-Gil D, Salem A, Sashidharan S, Sitch P, Smith E, Smith EAK, Taylor MJ, Thomson DJ, Thorp NJ, Underwood TSA, Warmenhoven JW, Wylie JP, Whitfield G. Estimating the percentage of patients who might benefit from proton beam therapy instead of X-ray radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2022; 95:20211175. [PMID: 35220723 PMCID: PMC10993980 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20211175] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2021] [Revised: 01/11/2022] [Accepted: 01/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES High-energy Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) commenced in England in 2018 and NHS England commissions PBT for 1.5% of patients receiving radical radiotherapy. We sought expert opinion on the level of provision. METHODS Invitations were sent to 41 colleagues working in PBT, most at one UK centre, to contribute by completing a spreadsheet. 39 responded: 23 (59%) completed the spreadsheet; 16 (41%) declined, arguing that clinical outcome data are lacking, but joined six additional site-specialist oncologists for two consensus meetings. The spreadsheet was pre-populated with incidence data from Cancer Research UK and radiotherapy use data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. 'Mechanisms of Benefit' of reduced growth impairment, reduced toxicity, dose escalation and reduced second cancer risk were examined. RESULTS The most reliable figure for percentage of radical radiotherapy patients likely to benefit from PBT was that agreed by 95% of the 23 respondents at 4.3%, slightly larger than current provision. The median was 15% (range 4-92%) and consensus median 13%. The biggest estimated potential benefit was from reducing toxicity, median benefit to 15% (range 4-92%), followed by dose escalation median 3% (range 0 to 47%); consensus values were 12 and 3%. Reduced growth impairment and reduced second cancer risk were calculated to benefit 0.5% and 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS The most secure estimate of percentage benefit was 4.3% but insufficient clinical outcome data exist for confident estimates. The study supports the NHS approach of using the evidence base and developing it through randomised trials, non-randomised studies and outcomes tracking. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Less is known about the percentage of patients who may benefit from PBT than is generally acknowledged. Expert opinion varies widely. Insufficient clinical outcome data exist to provide robust estimates. Considerable further work is needed to address this, including international collaboration; much is already underway but will take time to provide mature data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Neil G Burnet
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Thomas Mee
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Simona Gaito
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Norman F Kirkby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Adam H Aitkenhead
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Carmel N Anandadas
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Marianne C Aznar
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Lisa H Barraclough
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Gerben Borst
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Frances C Charlwood
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Matthew Clarke
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Rovel J Colaco
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Adrian M Crellin
- NHS England National Clinical Lead Proton Beam Therapy, Leeds
Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds and St James's
Institute of Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett
Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK, Leeds,
United Kingdom
| | - Noemie N Defourney
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Christina J Hague
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Margaret Harris
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Nicholas T Henthorn
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Kirsten I Hopkins
- International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna International
Centre, Vienna,
Austria
| | - E Hwang
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sydney West Radiation
Oncology Network, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre,
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia and
Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney,
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sam P Ingram
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Karen J Kirkby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Lip W Lee
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - David Lines
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Zoe Lingard
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Matthew Lowe
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ranald I Mackay
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Catherine A McBain
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Michael J Merchant
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - David J Noble
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Edinburgh Cancer Centre,
Western General Hospital,
Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Shermaine Pan
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - James M Price
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | | | - David Reboredo-Gil
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ahmed Salem
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | | | - Peter Sitch
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ed Smith
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Foundation
Trust, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Edward AK Smith
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS
Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Michael J Taylor
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - David J Thomson
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - Nicola J Thorp
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Tracy SA Underwood
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - John W Warmenhoven
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| | - James P Wylie
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Gillian Whitfield
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd,
Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester,
Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science
Centre, Manchester, United
Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Byskov CS, Hansen CR, Dahlrot RH, Haldbo-Classen L, Haslund CA, Kjær-Kristoffersen F, Kristensen TO, Lassen-Ramshad Y, Lukacova S, Muhic A, Nyström PW, Weber B, Kallehauge JF. Treatment plan comparison of proton vs photon radiotherapy for lower-grade gliomas. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2021; 20:98-104. [PMID: 34888422 PMCID: PMC8637131 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2021.11.008] [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: 07/09/2021] [Revised: 11/17/2021] [Accepted: 11/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and purpose Patients with lower-grade gliomas are long-term survivors after radiotherapy and may benefit from the reduced dose to normal tissue achievable with proton therapy. Here, we aimed to quantify differences in dose to the uninvolved brain and contralateral hippocampus and compare the risk of radiation-induced secondary cancer for photon and proton plans for lower-grade glioma patients. Materials and methods Twenty-three patients were included in this in-silico planning comparative study and had photon and proton plans calculated (50.4 Gy(RBE = 1.1), 28 Fx) applying similar dose constraints to the target and organs at risk. Automatically calculated photon plans were generated with a 3 mm margin from clinical target volume (CTV) to planning target volume. Manual proton plans were generated using robust optimisation on the CTV. Dose metrics of organs at risk were compared using population mean dose-volume histograms and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Secondary cancer risk per 10,000 persons per year (PPY) was estimated using dose-volume data and a risk model for secondary cancer induction. Results CTV coverage (V95%>98%) was similar for the two treatment modalities. Mean dose (Dmean) to the uninvolved brain was significantly reduced from 21.5 Gy (median, IQR 17.1–24.4 Gy) with photons compared to 10.3 Gy(RBE) (8.1–13.9 Gy(RBE)) with protons. Dmean to the contralateral hippocampus was significantly reduced from 6.5 Gy (5.4–11.7 Gy) with photons to 1.5 Gy(RBE) (0.4–6.8 Gy(RBE)) with protons. The estimated secondary cancer risk was reduced from 6.7 PPY (median, range 3.3–10.4 PPY) with photons to 3.0 PPY (1.3–7.5 PPY) with protons. Conclusion A significant reduction in mean dose to uninvolved brain and contralateral hippocampus was found with proton planning. The estimated secondary cancer risk was reduced with proton therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Camilla S Byskov
- Dept of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.,Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Christian R Hansen
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.,Dept of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,Laboratory of Radiation Physics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | - Rikke H Dahlrot
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.,Dept of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,Inst of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Slávka Lukacova
- Dept of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Aida Muhic
- Dept of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Petra W Nyström
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.,Dept of Oncology, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Britta Weber
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Jesper F Kallehauge
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.,Dept of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|