Inter-patient variations in relative biological effectiveness for cranio-spinal irradiation with protons

Dosimetric analysis of six whole-breast irradiation techniques in supine and prone positions

In breast cancer radiation therapy, minimizing radiation-related risks and toxicity is vital for improving life expectancy. Tailoring radiotherapy techniques and treatment positions can reduce radiation doses to normal organs and mitigate treatment-related toxicity. This study entailed a dosimetric comparison of six different external beam whole-breast irradiation techniques in both supine and prone positions. We selected fourteen breast cancer patients, generating six treatment plans in both positions per patient. We assessed target coverage and organs at risk (OAR) doses to evaluate the impact of treatment techniques and positions. Excess absolute risk was calculated to estimate potential secondary cancer risk in the contralateral breast, ipsilateral lung, and contralateral lung. Additionally, we analyzed the distance between the target volume and OARs (heart and ipsilateral lung) while considering the treatment position. The results indicate that prone positioning lowers lung exposure in X-ray radiotherapy. However, particle beam therapies (PBTs) significantly reduce the dose to the heart and ipsilateral lung regardless of the patient's position. Notably, negligible differences were observed between arc-delivery and static-delivery PBTs in terms of target conformity and OAR sparing. This study provides critical dosimetric evidence to facilitate informed decision-making regarding treatment techniques and positions.

Quantification of biological range uncertainties in patients treated at the Krakow proton therapy centre

BACKGROUND

Variable relative biological effectiveness (vRBE) in proton therapy might significantly modify the prediction of RBE-weighted dose delivered to a patient during proton therapy. In this study we will present a method to quantify the biological range extension of the proton beam, which results from the application of vRBE approach in RBE-weighted dose calculation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The treatment plans of 95 patients (brain and skull base patients) were used for RBE-weighted dose calculation with constant and the McNamara RBE model. For this purpose the Monte Carlo tool FRED was used. The RBE-weighted dose distributions were analysed using indices from dose-volume histograms. We used the volumes receiving at least 95% of the prescribed dose (V95) to estimate the biological range extension resulting from vRBE approach.

RESULTS

The vRBE model shows higher median value of relative deposited dose and D95 in the planning target volume by around 1% for brain patients and 4% for skull base patients. The maximum doses in organs at risk calculated with vRBE was up to 14 Gy above dose limit. The mean biological range extension was greater than 0.4 cm.

DISCUSSION

Our method of estimation of biological range extension is insensitive for dose inhomogeneities and can be easily used for different proton plans with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) optimization. Using volumes instead of dose profiles, which is the common method, is more universal. However it was tested only for IMPT plans on fields arranged around the tumor area.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting a vRBE model results in an increase in dose and an extension of the beam range, which is especially disadvantageous in cancers close to organs at risk. Our results support the need to re-optimization of proton treatment plans when considering vRBE.

Mechanisms and Review of Clinical Evidence of Variations in Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy

Proton therapy is increasingly being used as a radiation therapy modality. There is uncertainty about the biological effectiveness of protons relative to photon therapies as it depends on several physical and biological parameters. Radiation oncology currently applies a constant and generic value for the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1, which was chosen conservatively to ensure tumor coverage. The use of a constant value has been challenged particularly when considering normal tissue constraints. Potential variations in RBE have been assessed in several published reviews but have mostly focused on data from clonogenic cell survival experiments with unclear relevance for clinical proton therapy. The goal of this review is to put in vitro findings in relation to clinical observations. Relevant in vivo pathways determining RBE for tumors and normal tissues are outlined, including not only damage to tumor cells and parenchyma but also vascular damage and immune response. Furthermore, the current clinical evidence of varying RBE is reviewed. The assessment can serve as guidance for treatment planning, personalized dose prescriptions, and outcome analysis.

A Critical Review of LET-Based Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Plan Evaluation and Optimization for Head and Neck Cancer Management

In this review article, we review the 3 important aspects of linear-energy-transfer (LET) in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for head and neck (H&N) cancer management. Accurate LET calculation methods are essential for LET-guided plan evaluation and optimization, which can be calculated either by analytical methods or by Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Recently, some new 3D analytical approaches to calculate LET accurately and efficiently have been proposed. On the other hand, several fast MC codes have also been developed to speed up the MC simulation by simplifying nonessential physics models and/or using the graphics processor unit (GPU)–acceleration approach. Some concepts related to LET are also briefly summarized including (1) dose-weighted versus fluence-weighted LET; (2) restricted versus unrestricted LET; and (3) microdosimetry versus macrodosimetry. LET-guided plan evaluation has been clinically done in some proton centers. Recently, more and more studies using patient outcomes as the biological endpoint have shown a positive correlation between high LET and adverse events sites, indicating the importance of LET-guided plan evaluation in proton clinics. Various LET-guided plan optimization methods have been proposed to generate proton plans to achieve biologically optimized IMPT plans. Different optimization frameworks were used, including 2-step optimization, 1-step optimization, and worst-case robust optimization. They either indirectly or directly optimize the LET distribution in patients while trying to maintain the same dose distribution and plan robustness. It is important to consider the impact of uncertainties in LET-guided optimization (ie, LET-guided robust optimization) in IMPT, since IMPT is sensitive to uncertainties including both the dose and LET distributions. We believe that the advancement of the LET-guided plan evaluation and optimization will help us exploit the unique biological characteristics of proton beams to improve the therapeutic ratio of IMPT to treat H&N and other cancers.

A systematic review on the usage of averaged LET in radiation biology for particle therapy

Linear Energy Transfer (LET) is widely used to express the radiation quality of ion beams, when characterizing the biological effectiveness. However, averaged LET may be defined in multiple ways, and the chosen definition may impact the resulting reported value. We review averaged LET definitions found in the literature, and quantify which impact using these various definitions have for different reference setups. We recorded the averaged LET definitions used in 354 publications quantifying the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of hadronic beams, and investigated how these various definitions impact the reported averaged LET using a Monte Carlo particle transport code. We find that the kind of averaged LET being applied is, generally, poorly defined. Some definitions of averaged LET may influence the reported averaged LET values up to an order of magnitude. For publications involving protons, most applied dose averaged LET when reporting RBE. The absence of what target medium is used and what secondary particles are included further contributes to an ill-defined averaged LET. We also found evidence of inconsistent usage of averaged LET definitions when deriving LET-based RBE models. To conclude, due to commonly ill-defined averaged LET and to the inherent problems of LET-based RBE models, averaged LET may only be used as a coarse indicator of radiation quality. We propose a more rigorous way of reporting LET values, and suggest that ideally the entire particle fluence spectra should be recorded and provided for future RBE studies, from which any type of averaged LET (or other quantities) may be inferred.

Variation in relative biological effectiveness for cognitive structures in proton therapy of pediatric brain tumors

BACKGROUND

Clinically, a constant value of 1.1 is used for the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons, whereas in vitro the RBE has been shown to vary depending on physical dose, tissue type, and linear energy transfer (LET). As the LET increases at the distal end of the proton beam, concerns exist for an elevated RBE in normal tissues. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the heterogeneity of RBE to brain structures associated with cognition (BSCs) in pediatric suprasellar tumors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans for 10 pediatric craniopharyngioma patients were re-calculated using 11 phenomenological and two plan-based variable RBE models. Based on LET, tissue dependence and number of data points used to fit the models, the three RBE models considered the most relevant for the studied endpoint were selected. Thirty BSCs were investigated in terms of RBE and dose/volume parameters.

RESULTS

For a representative patient, the median (range) dose-weighted mean RBE (RBE_d) across all BSCs from the plan-based models was among the lowest (1.09 (1.02-1.52) vs. the phenomenological models at 1.21 (0.78-2.24)). Omitting tissue dependency resulted in RBE_d at 1.21 (1.04-2.24). Across all patients, the narrower RBE model selection gave median RBE_d values from 1.22 to 1.30.

CONCLUSION

For all BSCs, there was a systematic model-dependent variation in RBE_d, mirroring the uncertainty in biological effects of protons. According to a refined selection of in vitro models, the RBE variation across BSCs was in effect underestimated when using a fixed RBE of 1.1.

Incorporation of the LETd-weighted biological dose in the evaluation of breast intensity-modulated proton therapy plans

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.