1
|
Vens C, van Luijk P, Vogelius RI, El Naqa I, Humbert-Vidan L, von Neubeck C, Gomez-Roman N, Bahn E, Brualla L, Böhlen TT, Ecker S, Koch R, Handeland A, Pereira S, Possenti L, Rancati T, Todor D, Vanderstraeten B, Van Heerden M, Ullrich W, Jackson M, Alber M, Marignol L. A joint physics and radiobiology DREAM team vision - Towards better response prediction models to advance radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2024; 196:110277. [PMID: 38670264 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110277] [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: 01/17/2024] [Revised: 03/21/2024] [Accepted: 04/11/2024] [Indexed: 04/28/2024]
Abstract
Radiotherapy developed empirically through experience balancing tumour control and normal tissue toxicities. Early simple mathematical models formalized this practical knowledge and enabled effective cancer treatment to date. Remarkable advances in technology, computing, and experimental biology now create opportunities to incorporate this knowledge into enhanced computational models. The ESTRO DREAM (Dose Response, Experiment, Analysis, Modelling) workshop brought together experts across disciplines to pursue the vision of personalized radiotherapy for optimal outcomes through advanced modelling. The ultimate vision is leveraging quantitative models dynamically during therapy to ultimately achieve truly adaptive and biologically guided radiotherapy at the population as well as individual patient-based levels. This requires the generation of models that inform response-based adaptations, individually optimized delivery and enable biological monitoring to provide decision support to clinicians. The goal is expanding to models that can drive the realization of personalized therapy for optimal outcomes. This position paper provides their propositions that describe how innovations in biology, physics, mathematics, and data science including AI could inform models and improve predictions. It consolidates the DREAM team's consensus on scientific priorities and organizational requirements. Scientifically, it stresses the need for rigorous, multifaceted model development, comprehensive validation and clinical applicability and significance. Organizationally, it reinforces the prerequisites of interdisciplinary research and collaboration between physicians, medical physicists, radiobiologists, and computational scientists throughout model development. Solely by a shared understanding of clinical needs, biological mechanisms, and computational methods, more informed models can be created. Future research environment and support must facilitate this integrative method of operation across multiple disciplines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Vens
- School of Cancer Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK; Department of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - P van Luijk
- Department of Biomedical Sciences of Cells and Systems, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | - R I Vogelius
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | - I El Naqa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48103, United States.
| | - L Humbert-Vidan
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Centre, Houston, TX, United States; Department of MedicalPhysics, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, King's College London, London, UK
| | - C von Neubeck
- Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen 45147, Germany
| | - N Gomez-Roman
- Strathclyde Institute of Phrmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
| | - E Bahn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany; Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - L Brualla
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), Essen, Germany; Faculty of Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
| | - T T Böhlen
- Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and Lausanne University, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - S Ecker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Wien, Austria
| | - R Koch
- Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen 45147, Germany
| | - A Handeland
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - S Pereira
- Neolys Diagnostics, 7 Allée de l'Europe, 67960 Entzheim, France
| | - L Possenti
- Data Science Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - T Rancati
- Data Science Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - D Todor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, United States
| | - B Vanderstraeten
- Department of Radiotherapy-Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Gent, Belgium; Department of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium
| | - M Van Heerden
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | | | - M Jackson
- School of Cancer Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - M Alber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - L Marignol
- Applied Radiation Therapy Trinity (ARTT), Discipline of Radiation Therapy, School of Medicine, Trinity St. James's Cancer Institute, Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dalmasso C, Alapetite C, Bolle S, Goudjil F, Lusque A, Desrousseaux J, Claude L, Doyen J, Bernier-Chastagner V, Ducassou A, Sevely A, Roques M, Tensaouti F, Laprie A. Brainstem toxicity after proton or photon therapy in children and young adults with localized intracranial ependymoma: A French retrospective study. Radiother Oncol 2024; 194:110157. [PMID: 38367939 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110157] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2023] [Revised: 02/06/2024] [Accepted: 02/10/2024] [Indexed: 02/19/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Ependymoma is the third most frequent childhood braintumor. Standard treatment is surgery followed by radiation therapy including proton therapy (PBT). Retrospective studies have reported higher rates of brainstem injury after PBT than after photon therapy (XRT). We report a national multicenter study of the incidence of brainstem injury after XRT versus PBT, and their correlations with dosimetric data. MATERIAL AND METHODS We included all patients aged < 25 years who were treated with PBT or XRT for intracranial ependymoma at five French pediatric oncology reference centers between 2007 and 2020. We reviewed pre-irradiation MRI, follow-up MRIs over the 12 months post-treatment and clinical data. RESULTS Of the 83 patients, 42 were treated with PBT, 37 with XRT, and 4 with both (median dose: 59.4 Gy, range: 53‑60). No new or progressive symptomatic brainstem injury was found. Four patients presented asymptomatic radiographic changes (punctiform brainstem enhancement and FLAIR hypersignal), with median onset at 3.5 months (range: 3.0‑9.4) after radiation therapy, and median offset at 7.6 months (range: 3.7‑7.9). Two had been treated with PBT, one with XRT, and one with mixed XRT-PBT. Prescribed doses were 59.4, 55.8, 59.4 and 54 Gy. CONCLUSION Asymptomatic radiographic changes occurred in 4.8% of patients with ependymoma in a large national series. There was no correlation with dose or technique. No symptomatic brainstem injury was identified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Céline Dalmasso
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse- Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| | - Claire Alapetite
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Institut Curie, Paris, France; Institut Curie - Centre de Protontherapie d', Orsay, Orsay, France
| | - Stéphanie Bolle
- Institut Curie - Centre de Protontherapie d', Orsay, Orsay, France; Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Farid Goudjil
- Institut Curie - Centre de Protontherapie d', Orsay, Orsay, France
| | - Amélie Lusque
- Department of Biostatistics, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse- Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| | - Jacques Desrousseaux
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse- Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| | - Line Claude
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | - Jérome Doyen
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France
| | | | - Anne Ducassou
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse- Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| | - Annick Sevely
- Department of Radiology, CHU de Toulouse, Toulouse, France
| | - Margaux Roques
- Department of Radiology, CHU de Toulouse, Toulouse, France
| | - Fatima Tensaouti
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse- Oncopole, Toulouse, France; ToNIC, Toulouse NeuroImaging Center, INSERM, UPS, Toulouse, France
| | - Anne Laprie
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Institut Claudius Regaud, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse- Oncopole, Toulouse, France; ToNIC, Toulouse NeuroImaging Center, INSERM, UPS, Toulouse, France.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Gaikwad U, Bajpai J, Jalali R. Combinatorial approach of immuno-proton therapy in cancer: Rationale and potential impact. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2024; 20:188-197. [PMID: 37194387 DOI: 10.1111/ajco.13966] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2021] [Revised: 02/23/2022] [Accepted: 04/02/2023] [Indexed: 05/18/2023]
Abstract
Cancer management is an expansive, growing, and evolving field. In the last decade or so, immunotherapy (IT) and particle beam therapy have made a tremendous impact in this domain. IT has already established itself as the fourth pillar of oncology. Recent emphasis has been centred around combination therapy, postulating additive or multiplicative effects of combining IT with one or more of the three conventional "pillars," that is, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Radio-IT is being increasingly explored and has shown promising outcomes in both preclinical and clinical settings. Particle beam therapy such as protons, when used as the radiotherapeutic modality in conjunction with IT, can potentially limit toxicities and improve this synergism further. Modern proton therapy has demonstrated a reduction in integral dose of radiation and radiation-induced lymphopenia in various sites. Protons, by virtue of their inherent clinically desirable physical and biological characteristics, namely, high linear energy transfer, relative biological effectiveness of range 1.1-1.6, and proven anti-metastatic and immunogenic potential in preclinical studies, might have a superior immunogenic profile than photons. Proton-IT combination is being studied currently by various groups in lung , head neck and brain tumors, and should be evaluated further in other subsites to replicate preclinical outcomes in a clinical setting. In this review, we summarize the currently available evidence for combinatorial approaches and feasibility of proton and IT combination, and thereafter highlight the emerging challenges for practical application of the same in clinics, while also proposing plausible solutions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Utpal Gaikwad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Center, Chennai, India
| | - Jyoti Bajpai
- Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India
| | - Rakesh Jalali
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Apollo Proton Cancer Center, Chennai, India
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Heuchel L, Hahn C, Ödén J, Traneus E, Wulff J, Timmermann B, Bäumer C, Lühr A. The dirty and clean dose concept: Towards creating proton therapy treatment plans with a photon-like dose response. Med Phys 2024; 51:622-636. [PMID: 37877574 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16809] [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: 07/03/2023] [Revised: 10/11/2023] [Accepted: 10/11/2023] [Indexed: 10/26/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Applying tolerance doses for organs at risk (OAR) from photon therapy introduces uncertainties in proton therapy when assuming a constant relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1. PURPOSE This work introduces the novel dirty and clean dose concept, which allows for creating treatment plans with a more photon-like dose response for OAR and, thus, less uncertainties when applying photon-based tolerance doses. METHODS The concept divides the 1.1-weighted dose distribution into two parts: the clean and the dirty dose. The clean and dirty dose are deposited by protons with a linear energy transfer (LET) below and above a set LET threshold, respectively. For the former, a photon-like dose response is assumed, while for the latter, the RBE might exceed 1.1. To reduce the dirty dose in OAR, a MaxDirtyDose objective was added in treatment plan optimization. It requires setting two parameters: LET threshold and max dirty dose level. A simple geometry consisting of one target volume and one OAR in water was used to study the reduction in dirty dose in the OAR depending on the choice of the two MaxDirtyDose objective parameters during plan optimization. The best performing parameter combinations were used to create multiple dirty dose optimized (DDopt) treatment plans for two cranial patient cases. For each DDopt plan, 1.1-weighted dose, variable RBE-weighted dose using the Wedenberg RBE model and dose-average LETd distributions as well as resulting normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) values were calculated and compared to the reference plan (RefPlan) without MaxDirtyDose objectives. RESULTS In the water phantom studies, LET thresholds between 1.5 and 2.5 keV/µm yielded the best plans and were subsequently used. For the patient cases, nearly all DDopt plans led to a reduced Wedenberg dose in critical OAR. This reduction resulted from an LET reduction and translated into an NTCP reduction of up to 19 percentage points compared to the RefPlan. The 1.1-weighted dose in the OARs was slightly increased (patient 1: 0.45 Gy(RBE), patient 2: 0.08 Gy(RBE)), but never exceeded clinical tolerance doses. Additionally, slightly increased 1.1-weighted dose in healthy brain tissue was observed (patient 1: 0.81 Gy(RBE), patient 2: 0.53 Gy(RBE)). The variation of NTCP values due to variation of α/β from 2 to 3 Gy was much smaller for DDopt (2 percentage points (pp)) than for RefPlans (5 pp). CONCLUSIONS The novel dirty and clean dose concept allows for creating biologically more robust proton treatment plans with a more photon-like dose response. The reduced uncertainties in RBE can, therefore, mitigate uncertainties introduced by using photon-based tolerance doses for OAR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lena Heuchel
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
| | - Christian Hahn
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
- OncoRay-National Center of Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Jakob Ödén
- RaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - Jörg Wulff
- West German Proton Therapy Center Essen, Essen, Germany
- West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Beate Timmermann
- West German Proton Therapy Center Essen, Essen, Germany
- West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
- Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Essen, Germany
| | - Christian Bäumer
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
- West German Proton Therapy Center Essen, Essen, Germany
- West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Essen, Germany
| | - Armin Lühr
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Tjelta J, Fjæra LF, Ytre-Hauge KS, Boer CG, Stokkevåg CH. A systematic approach for calibrating a Monte Carlo code to a treatment planning system for obtaining dose, LET, variable proton RBE and out-of-field dose. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68:225010. [PMID: 37820690 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad0281] [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: 03/21/2023] [Accepted: 10/11/2023] [Indexed: 10/13/2023]
Abstract
Objective. While integration of variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) has not reached full clinical implementation, the importance of having the ability to recalculate proton treatment plans in a flexible, dedicated Monte Carlo (MC) code cannot be understated . Here we provide a step-wise method for calibrating dose from a MC code to a treatment planning system (TPS), to obtain required parameters for calculating linear energy transfer (LET), variable RBE and in general enabling clinical realistic research studies beyond the capabilities of a TPS.Approach. Initially, Pristine Bragg peaks (PBP) were calculated in both the Eclipse TPS and the FLUKA MC code. A rearranged Bortfeld energy-range relation was applied to the initial energy of the beam to fine-tune the range of the MC code at 80% dose level distal to the PBP. The energy spread was adapted by dividing the TPS range by the MC range for dose level 80%-20% distal to the PBP. Density and relative proton stopping power were adjusted by comparing the TPS and MC for different Hounsfield units. To find the relationship of dose per primary particle from the MC to dose per monitor unit in the TPS, integration was applied to the area of the Bragg curve. The calibration was validated for spread-out Bragg peaks (SOBP) in water and patient treatment plans. Following the validation, variable RBE were calculated using established models.Main results.The PBPs ranges were within ±0.3mm threshold, and a maximum of 5.5% difference for the SOBPs was observed. The patient validation showed excellent dose agreement between the TPS and MC, with the greatest differences for the lung tumor patient.Significance. Aprocedure for calibrating a MC code to a TPS was developed and validated. The procedure enables MC-based calculation of dose, LET, variable RBE, advanced (secondary) particle tracking and more from treatment plans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Johannes Tjelta
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Lars Fredrik Fjæra
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | | | | | - Camilla Hanquist Stokkevåg
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Dell'Oro M, Wilson P, Short M, Peukert D, Bezak E. Modelling the influence of radiosensitivity on development of second primary cancer in out-of-field organs following proton therapy for paediatric cranial cancer. Br J Radiol 2023; 96:20230161. [PMID: 37660473 PMCID: PMC10546440 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20230161] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2023] [Revised: 06/16/2023] [Accepted: 07/19/2023] [Indexed: 09/05/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Radiobiological modelling the risks of second primary cancer (SPC) after proton therapy (PT) for childhood cranial cancer remains largely unknown. Organ-specific dose-response risk factors such as radiosensitivity require exploration. This study compared the influence of radiosensitivity data (slope of βEAR) on children's lifetime attributable risks (LAR) of SPC development in out-of-field organs following cranial scattering and scanning PT. METHODS Out-of-field radiosensitivity parameter estimates for organs (α/β and βEAR) were sourced from literature. Physical distances for 13 out-of-field organs were measured and input into Schneider's SPC model. Sensitivity analyses were performed as a function of radiosensitivity (α/β of 1-10 Gy) and initial slope (βEAR) from Japanese/UK data to estimate the influence on the risk of radiation-induced SPC following scattering and scanning PT. RESULTS Models showed similar LAR of SPC estimates for age and sex-matched paediatric phantoms, however, for breast there was a significant increase using Japanese βEAR data. For most organs, scattering PT demonstrated a larger risk of LAR for SPC which increased with α/β. CONCLUSION Breast tissue exhibited the highest susceptibility in calculated LAR risk, demonstrating the importance for accurate data input when estimating LAR of SPC. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE The findings of this study demonstrated younger female patients undergoing cranial proton therapy have a higher risk of developing second primary cancer of the breast tissue. Long-term multicenter registries are important to improve predictive radiobiological modelling studies of side effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Michala Short
- Cancer Research Institute, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Dylan Peukert
- ARC Training Centre for Integrated Operations for Complex Resources, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Henjum H, Tjelta J, Fjæra LF, Pilskog S, Stokkevåg CH, Lyngholm E, Handeland AH, Ytre-Hauge KS. Influence of beam pruning techniques on LET and RBE in proton arc therapy. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1155310. [PMID: 37731633 PMCID: PMC10508957 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1155310] [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: 01/31/2023] [Accepted: 08/15/2023] [Indexed: 09/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction Proton arc therapy (PAT) is an emerging treatment modality that holds promise to improve target volume coverage and reduce linear energy transfer (LET) in organs at risk. We aimed to investigate if pruning the highest energy layers in each beam direction could increase the LET in the target and reduce LET in tissue and organs at risk (OAR) surrounding the target volume, thus reducing the relative biological effectiveness (RBE)-weighted dose and sparing healthy tissue. Methods PAT plans for a germinoma, an ependymoma and a rhabdomyosarcoma patient were created in the Eclipse treatment planning system with a prescribed dose of 54 Gy(RBE) using a constant RBE of 1.1 (RBE1.1). The PAT plans was pruned for high energy spots, creating several PAT plans with different amounts of pruning while maintaining tumor coverage, denoted PX-PAT plans, where X represents the amount of pruning. All plans were recalculated in the FLUKA Monte Carlo software, and the LET, physical dose, and variable RBE-weighted dose from the phenomenological Rørvik (ROR) model and an LET weighted dose (LWD) model were evaluated. Results and discussion For the germinoma case, all plans but the P6-PAT reduced the mean RBE-weighted dose to the surrounding healthy tissue compared to the PAT plan. The LET was increasingly higher within the PTV for each pruning iteration, where the mean LET from the P6-PAT plan was 1.5 keV / μm higher than for the PAT plan, while the P4- and P5-PAT plans provided an increase of 0.4 and 0.7 keV / μm , respectively. The other plans increased the LET by a smaller margin compared to the PAT plan. Likewise, the LET values to the healthy tissue were reduced for each degree of pruning. Similar results were found for the ependymoma and the rhabdomyosarcoma case. We demonstrated a PAT pruning technique that can increase both LET and RBE in the target volume and at the same time decreased values in healthy tissue, without affecting the target volume dose coverage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helge Henjum
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Johannes Tjelta
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Lars Fredrik Fjæra
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Sara Pilskog
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Camilla H. Stokkevåg
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Erlend Lyngholm
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Andreas H. Handeland
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Merchant TE, Hoehn ME, Khan RB, Sabin ND, Klimo P, Boop FA, Wu S, Li Y, Burghen EA, Jurbergs N, Sandler ES, Aldana PR, Indelicato DJ, Conklin HM. Proton therapy and limited surgery for paediatric and adolescent patients with craniopharyngioma (RT2CR): a single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2023; 24:523-534. [PMID: 37084748 PMCID: PMC10408380 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(23)00146-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2023] [Revised: 03/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/22/2023] [Indexed: 04/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Compared with photon therapy, proton therapy reduces exposure of normal brain tissue in patients with craniopharyngioma, which might reduce cognitive deficits associated with radiotherapy. Because there are known physical differences between the two methods of radiotherapy, we aimed to estimate progression-free survival and overall survival distributions for paediatric and adolescent patients with craniopharyngioma treated with limited surgery and proton therapy, while monitoring for excessive CNS toxicity. METHODS In this single-arm, phase 2 study, patients with craniopharyngioma at St Jude Children's Research Hospital (Memphis TN, USA) and University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute (Jacksonville, FL, USA) were recruited. Patients were eligible if they were aged 0-21 years at the time of enrolment and had not been treated with previous radiotherapeutic or intracystic therapies. Eligible patients were treated using passively scattered proton beams, 54 Gy (relative biological effect), and a 0·5 cm clinical target volume margin. Surgical treatment was individualised before proton therapy and included no surgery, single procedures with catheter and Ommaya reservoir placement through a burr hole or craniotomy, endoscopic resection, trans-sphenoidal resection, craniotomy, or multiple procedure types. After completing treatment, patients were evaluated clinically and by neuroimaging for tumour progression and evidence of necrosis, vasculopathy, permanent neurological deficits, vision loss, and endocrinopathy. Neurocognitive tests were administered at baseline and once a year for 5 years. Outcomes were compared with a historical cohort treated with surgery and photon therapy. The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. Progression was defined as an increase in tumour dimensions on successive imaging evaluations more than 2 years after treatment. Survival and safety were also assessed in all patients who received photon therapy and limited surgery. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01419067. FINDINGS Between Aug 22, 2011, and Jan 19, 2016, 94 patients were enrolled and treated with surgery and proton therapy, of whom 49 (52%) were female, 45 (48%) were male, 62 (66%) were White, 16 (17%) were Black, two (2%) were Asian, and 14 (15%) were other races, and median age was 9·39 years (IQR 6·39-13·38) at the time of radiotherapy. As of data cutoff (Feb 2, 2022), median follow-up was 7·52 years (IQR 6·28-8·53) for patients who did not have progression and 7·62 years (IQR 6·48-8·54) for the full cohort of 94 patients. 3-year progression-free survival was 96·8% (95% CI 90·4-99·0; p=0·89), with progression occurring in three of 94 patients. No deaths occurred at 3 years, such that overall survival was 100%. At 5 years, necrosis had occurred in two (2%) of 94 patients, severe vasculopathy in four (4%), and permanent neurological conditions in three (3%); decline in vision from normal to abnormal occurred in four (7%) of 54 patients with normal vision at baseline. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were headache (six [6%] of 94 patients), seizure (five [5%]), and vascular disorders (six [6%]). No deaths occurred as of data cutoff. INTERPRETATION Proton therapy did not improve survival outcomes in paediatric and adolescent patients with craniopharyngioma compared with a historical cohort, and severe complication rates were similar. However, cognitive outcomes with proton therapy were improved over photon therapy. Children and adolescents treated for craniopharyngioma using limited surgery and post-operative proton therapy have a high rate of tumour control and low rate of severe complications. The outcomes achieved with this treatment represent a new benchmark to which other regimens can be compared. FUNDING American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities, American Cancer Society, the US National Cancer Institute, and Research to Prevent Blindness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas E Merchant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA.
| | - Mary Ellen Hoehn
- Department of Surgery, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Raja B Khan
- Department of Pediatric Medicine, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Noah D Sabin
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Paul Klimo
- Department of Surgery, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Frederick A Boop
- Department of Surgery, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Shengjie Wu
- Department of Biostatistics, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Yimei Li
- Department of Biostatistics, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Elizabeth A Burghen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | - Niki Jurbergs
- Department of Psychology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| | | | - Philipp R Aldana
- Department of Neurosurgery, 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
| | - Heather M Conklin
- Department of Psychology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Tommasino F, Cartechini G, Righetto R, Farace P, Cianchetti M. Does variable RBE affect toxicity risks for mediastinal lymphoma patients? NTCP-based evaluation after proton therapy treatment. Phys Med 2023; 108:102569. [PMID: 36989976 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102569] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2022] [Revised: 02/04/2023] [Accepted: 03/18/2023] [Indexed: 03/29/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Mediastinal lymphoma (ML) is a solid malignancy affecting young patients. Modern combined treatments allow obtaining good survival probability, together with a long life expectancy, and therefore with the need to minimize treatment-related toxicities. We quantified the expected toxicity risk for different organs and endpoints in ML patients treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) at our centre, accounting also for uncertainties related to variable RBE. METHODS Treatment plans for ten ML patients were recalculated with a TOPAS-based Monte Carlo code, thus retrieving information on LET and allowing the estimation of variable RBE. Published NTCP models were adopted to calculate the toxicity risk for hypothyroidism, heart valve defects, coronary heart disease and lung fibrosis. NTCP was calculated assuming both constant (i.e. 1.1) and variable RBE. The uncertainty associated with individual radiosensitivity was estimated by random sampling α/β values before RBE evaluation. RESULTS Variable RBE had a minor impact on hypothyroidism risk for 7 patients, while it led to significant increase for the remaining three (+24% risk maximum increase). Lung fibrosis was slightly affected by variable RBE, with a maximum increase of ≅ 1%. This was similar for heart valve dysfunction, with the exception of one patient showing an about 10% risk increase, which could be explained by means of large heart volume and D1 increase. DISCUSSION The use of NTCP models allows for identifying those patients associated with a higher toxicity risk. For those patients, it might be worth including variable RBE in plan evaluation.
Collapse
|
10
|
Engeseth GM. Achievements and challenges in normal tissue response modelling for proton therapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2022; 24:118-120. [PMID: 36405562 PMCID: PMC9667307 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2022.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
|
11
|
The Mayo Clinic Florida Microdosimetric Kinetic Model of Clonogenic Survival: Application to Various Repair-Competent Rodent and Human Cell Lines. Int J Mol Sci 2022; 23:ijms232012491. [PMID: 36293348 PMCID: PMC9604502 DOI: 10.3390/ijms232012491] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2022] [Revised: 10/04/2022] [Accepted: 10/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) calculations used during the planning of ion therapy treatments are generally based on the microdosimetric kinetic model (MKM) and the local effect model (LEM). The Mayo Clinic Florida MKM (MCF MKM) was recently developed to overcome the limitations of previous MKMs in reproducing the biological data and to eliminate the need for ion-exposed in vitro data as input for the model calculations. Since we are considering to implement the MCF MKM in clinic, this article presents (a) an extensive benchmark of the MCF MKM predictions against corresponding in vitro clonogenic survival data for 4 rodent and 10 cell lines exposed to ions from 1H to 238U, and (b) a systematic comparison with published results of the latest version of the LEM (LEM IV). Additionally, we introduce a novel approach to derive an approximate value of the MCF MKM model parameters by knowing only the animal species and the mean number of chromosomes. The overall good agreement between MCF MKM predictions and in vitro data suggests the MCF MKM can be reliably used for the RBE calculations. In most cases, a reasonable agreement was found between the MCF MKM and the LEM IV.
Collapse
|
12
|
Volpe S, Piperno G, Colombo F, Biffi A, Comi S, Mastroleo F, Maria Camarda A, Casbarra A, Cattani F, Corrao G, de Marinis F, Spaggiari L, Guckenberger M, Orecchia R, Alterio D, Alicja Jereczek-Fossa B. Hypofractionated proton therapy for non-small cell lung cancer: Ready for prime time? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev 2022; 110:102464. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2022.102464] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2022] [Revised: 09/02/2022] [Accepted: 09/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/02/2022]
|
13
|
Mairani A, Mein S, Blakely E, Debus J, Durante M, Ferrari A, Fuchs H, Georg D, Grosshans DR, Guan F, Haberer T, Harrabi S, Horst F, Inaniwa T, Karger CP, Mohan R, Paganetti H, Parodi K, Sala P, Schuy C, Tessonnier T, Titt U, Weber U. Roadmap: helium ion therapy. Phys Med Biol 2022; 67. [PMID: 35395649 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac65d3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2021] [Accepted: 04/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Helium ion beam therapy for the treatment of cancer was one of several developed and studied particle treatments in the 1950s, leading to clinical trials beginning in 1975 at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The trial shutdown was followed by decades of research and clinical silence on the topic while proton and carbon ion therapy made debuts at research facilities and academic hospitals worldwide. The lack of progression in understanding the principle facets of helium ion beam therapy in terms of physics, biological and clinical findings persists today, mainly attributable to its highly limited availability. Despite this major setback, there is an increasing focus on evaluating and establishing clinical and research programs using helium ion beams, with both therapy and imaging initiatives to supplement the clinical palette of radiotherapy in the treatment of aggressive disease and sensitive clinical cases. Moreover, due its intermediate physical and radio-biological properties between proton and carbon ion beams, helium ions may provide a streamlined economic steppingstone towards an era of widespread use of different particle species in light and heavy ion therapy. With respect to the clinical proton beams, helium ions exhibit superior physical properties such as reduced lateral scattering and range straggling with higher relative biological effectiveness (RBE) and dose-weighted linear energy transfer (LETd) ranging from ∼4 keVμm-1to ∼40 keVμm-1. In the frame of heavy ion therapy using carbon, oxygen or neon ions, where LETdincreases beyond 100 keVμm-1, helium ions exhibit similar physical attributes such as a sharp lateral penumbra, however, with reduced radio-biological uncertainties and without potentially spoiling dose distributions due to excess fragmentation of heavier ion beams, particularly for higher penetration depths. This roadmap presents an overview of the current state-of-the-art and future directions of helium ion therapy: understanding physics and improving modeling, understanding biology and improving modeling, imaging techniques using helium ions and refining and establishing clinical approaches and aims from learned experience with protons. These topics are organized and presented into three main sections, outlining current and future tasks in establishing clinical and research programs using helium ion beams-A. Physics B. Biological and C. Clinical Perspectives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Mairani
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Medical Physics, Pavia, Italy.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stewart Mein
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Eleanor Blakely
- Biological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, United States of America
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Marco Durante
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany.,Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institut für Physik Kondensierter Materie, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Alfredo Ferrari
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Hermann Fuchs
- Division of Medical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.,MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Dietmar Georg
- Division of Medical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.,MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - David R Grosshans
- The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Fada Guan
- The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.,Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 06510, United States of America
| | - Thomas Haberer
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Semi Harrabi
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Felix Horst
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Taku Inaniwa
- Department of Accelerator and Medical Physics, Institute for Quantum Medical Science, QST, 4-9-1 Anagawa, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8555, Japan.,Medical Physics Laboratory, Division of Health Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, 1-7 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan
| | - Christian P Karger
- National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Radhe Mohan
- The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States of America.,Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States of America
| | - Katia Parodi
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Department of Experimental Physics-Medical Physics, Munich, Germany
| | - Paola Sala
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Department of Experimental Physics-Medical Physics, Munich, Germany
| | - Christoph Schuy
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Uwe Titt
- The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Ulrich Weber
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Parisi A, Furutani KM, Beltran CJ. On the calculation of the relative biological effectiveness of ion radiation therapy using a biological weighting function, the microdosimetric kinetic model (MKM) and subsequent corrections (non-Poisson MKM and modified MKM). Phys Med Biol 2022; 67. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac5fdf] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2021] [Accepted: 03/22/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Objective. To investigate similarities and differences in the formalism, processing, and the results of relative biological effectiveness (RBE) calculations with a biological weighting function (BWF), the microdosimetric kinetic model (MKM) and subsequent modifications (non-Poisson MKM, modified MKM). This includes: (a) the extension of the V79-RBE10% BWF to model the RBE for other clonogenic survival levels; (b) a novel implementation of MKMs as weighting functions; (c) a benchmark against Chinese Hamster lung fibroblast (V79) in vitro data; (d) a study on the effect of pre- or post- processing the average biophysical quantities used for the RBE calculations; (e) a possible modification of the modified MKM parameters to improve the model accuracy at high linear energy transfer (LET). Methodology. Lineal energy spectra were simulated for two spherical targets (diameter = 0.464 or 1.0 μm) using PHITS for 1H, 4He, 12C, 20Ne, 40Ar, 56Fe and 132Xe ions. The results of the in silico calculations were compared with published in vitro data. Main results. All models appear to underestimate the RBE
α
of hydrogen ions. All MKMs generally overestimate the RBE50%, RBE10% and RBE1% for ions with an LET greater than ∼200 keV μm−1. This overestimation is greater for small surviving fractions and is likely due to the assumption of a radiation-independent quadratic term of clonogenic survival (ß). The overall RBE trends seem to be best described by the novel ‘post-processing average’ implementation of the non-Poisson MKM. In case of calculations with the non-Poisson MKM, pre- or post- processing the average biophysical quantities affects the computed RBE values significantly. Significance. This study presents a systematic analysis of the formalism and results of widely used microdosimetric models of clonogenic survival for ions relevant for cancer particle therapy and space radiation protection. Points for improvements were highlighted and will contribute to the development of upgraded biophysical models.
Collapse
|
15
|
Garbacz M, Gajewski J, Durante M, Kisielewicz K, Krah N, Kopeć R, Olko P, Patera V, Rinaldi I, Rydygier M, Schiavi A, Scifoni E, Skóra T, Skrzypek A, Tommasino F, Rucinski A. Quantification of biological range uncertainties in patients treated at the Krakow proton therapy centre. Radiat Oncol 2022; 17:50. [PMID: 35264184 PMCID: PMC8905899 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-022-02022-5] [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: 08/03/2021] [Accepted: 02/28/2022] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-022-02022-5.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Magdalena Garbacz
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, 31342, Kraków, Poland.
| | - Jan Gajewski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, 31342, Kraków, Poland
| | - Marco Durante
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum fur Schwerionenforschung, 64291, Darmstadt, Germany.,The Technical University of Darmstadt, 64289, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Kamil Kisielewicz
- National Oncology Institute, National Research Institute, Krakow Branch, 31115, Kraków, Poland
| | - Nils Krah
- University of Lyon, CREATIS, CNRS UMR5220, Inserm U1044, INSA-Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Centre Léon Bérard, France.,University of Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IP2I Lyon, UMR 5822, Villeurbanne, France
| | - Renata Kopeć
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, 31342, Kraków, Poland
| | - Paweł Olko
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, 31342, Kraków, Poland
| | - Vincenzo Patera
- INFN - Section of Rome, 00185, Rome, Italy.,Department of Basic and Applied Sciences for Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Marzena Rydygier
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, 31342, Kraków, Poland
| | | | - Emanuele Scifoni
- Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Applications, TIFPA-INFN, 38123, Povo, Trento, Italy
| | - Tomasz Skóra
- National Oncology Institute, National Research Institute, Krakow Branch, 31115, Kraków, Poland
| | | | - Francesco Tommasino
- Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Applications, TIFPA-INFN, 38123, Povo, Trento, Italy.,Department of Physics, University of Trento, 38123, Povo, Trento, Italy
| | - Antoni Rucinski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, 31342, Kraków, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Dell'Oro M, Wilson P, Short M, Hua CH, Merchant TE, Bezak E. Normal tissue complication probability modeling to guide individual treatment planning in pediatric cranial proton and photon radiotherapy. Med Phys 2021; 49:742-755. [PMID: 34796509 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15360] [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: 07/05/2021] [Revised: 11/05/2021] [Accepted: 11/09/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Proton therapy (PT) is broadly accepted as the gold standard of care for pediatric patients with cranial cancer. The superior dose distribution of PT compared to photon radiotherapy reduces normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for organs at risk. As NTCPs for pediatric organs are not well understood, clinics generally base radiation response on adult data. However, there is evidence that radiation response strongly depends on the age and even sex of a patient. Furthermore, questions surround the influence of individual intrinsic radiosensitivity (α/β ratio) on pediatric NTCP. While the clinical pediatric NTCP data is scarce, radiobiological modeling and sensitivity analyses can be used to investigate the NTCP trends and its dependence on individual modeling parameters. The purpose of this study was to perform sensitivity analyses of NTCP models to ascertain the dependence of radiosensitivity, sex, and age of a child and predict cranial side-effects following intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS Previously, six sex-matched pediatric cranial datasets (5, 9, and 13 years old) were planned in Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (13.7). Up to 108 scanning beam IMPT plans and 108 IMRT plans were retrospectively optimized for a range of simulated target volumes and locations. In this work, dose-volume histograms were extracted and imported into BioSuite Software for radiobiological modeling. Relative-Seriality and Lyman-Kutcher-Burman models were used to calculate NTCP values for toxicity endpoints, where TD50, (based on reported adult clinical data) was varied to simulate sex dependence of NTCP. Plausible parameter ranges, based on published literature for adults, were used in modeling. In addition to sensitivity analyses, a 20% difference in TD50 was used to represent the radiosensitivity between the sexes (with females considered more radiosensitive) for ease of data comparison as a function of parameters such as α/β ratio. RESULTS IMPT plans resulted in lower NTCP compared to IMRT across all models (p < 0.0001). For medulloblastoma treatment, the risk of brainstem necrosis (> 10%) and cochlea tinnitus (> 20%) among females could potentially be underestimated considering a lower TD50 value for females. Sensitivity analyses show that the difference in NTCP between sexes was significant (p < 0.0001). Similarly, both brainstem necrosis and cochlea tinnitus NTCP varied significantly (p < 0.0001) across tested α/β as a function of TD50 values (assumption being that TD50 values are 20% lower in females). If the true α/β of these pediatric tissues is higher than expected (α/β ∼ 3), the risk of tinnitus for IMRT can significantly increase (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION Due to the scarcity of pediatric NTCP data available, sensitivity analyses were performed using plausible ranges based on published adult data. In the clinical scenario where, if female pediatric patients were 20% more radiosensitive (lower TD50 value), they could be up to twice as likely to experience side-effects of brainstem necrosis and cochlea tinnitus compared to males, highlighting the need for considering the sex in NTCP models. Based on our sensitivity analyses, age and sex of a pediatric patient could significantly affect the resultant NTCP from cranial radiotherapy, especially at higher α/β values.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mikaela Dell'Oro
- Cancer Research Institute, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Puthenparampil Wilson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.,UniSA STEM, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Michala Short
- Cancer Research Institute, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Chia-Ho Hua
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
| | - Thomas E Merchant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
| | - Eva Bezak
- Cancer Research Institute, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.,Department of Physics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Cognitive Functions of Pediatric Brain Tumor Survivors Treated With Proton Beam Therapy: A Case Series. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2021; 43:e1205-e1209. [PMID: 33235149 DOI: 10.1097/mph.0000000000002011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2020] [Accepted: 10/16/2020] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
Pediatric brain tumor survivors who received proton beam therapy at the University of Tsukuba Hospital from 2004 to 2011 were retrospectively evaluated for cognitive function. Five patients were included. The median age of diagnosis was 5.4 years (range: 1.5 to 12.5 y) and the median follow-up time was 5.8 years (range: 3.1 to 8.1 y). IQ scores at follow-up were decreased in 2 of 5 patients; 1 underwent whole-brain irradiation and the other was examined just after surgical removal of recurrent tumors. Local proton beam therapy may preserve cognitive function in survivors of pediatric brain tumors.
Collapse
|
18
|
Postsurgical geometrical variations of tumor bed and brainstem during photon and proton therapy for pediatric tumors of the posterior fossa: dosimetric impact and predictive factors. Strahlenther Onkol 2021; 197:1113-1123. [PMID: 34351450 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-021-01828-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2021] [Accepted: 07/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Brainstem radionecrosis is an important issue during the irradiation of tumors of the posterior fossa. The aim of the present study is to analyze postsurgical geometrical variations of tumor bed (TB) and brainstem (BS) and their impact on dosimetry. METHODS Retrospective collection of data from pediatric patients treated at a single institution. Availability of presurgical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was verified; availability of at least two postsurgical MRIs was considered a further inclusion criterion. The following metrics were analyzed: total volume, Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), and Haudsdorff distances (HD). RESULTS Fourteen patients were available for the quantification of major postsurgical geometrical variations of TB. DSC, HD max, and HD average values were 0.47 (range: 0.08;0.76), 11.3 mm (7.7;24.5), and 2.6 mm (0.7;6.7) between the first and the second postoperative MRI, respectively. Postsurgical geometrical variations of the BS were also observed. Coverage to the TB was reduced in one patient (D95: -2.9 Gy), while D2 to the BS was increased for the majority of patients. Overall, predictive factors for significant geometrical changes were presurgical gross tumor volume (GTV) > 33 mL, hydrocephaly at diagnosis, Luschka foramen involvement, and younger age (≤ 8 years). CONCLUSION Major volume changes were observed in this cohort, with some dosimetric impact. The use of a recent co-registration MRI is advised. The 2-3 mm HD average observed should be considered in the planning target volume/planning organ at risk volume (PTV/PRV) margin and/or robust optimization planning. Results from wider efforts are needed to verify our findings.
Collapse
|
19
|
Paganetti H, Beltran C, Both S, Dong L, Flanz J, Furutani K, Grassberger C, Grosshans DR, Knopf AC, Langendijk JA, Nystrom H, Parodi K, Raaymakers BW, Richter C, Sawakuchi GO, Schippers M, Shaitelman SF, Teo BKK, Unkelbach J, Wohlfahrt P, Lomax T. Roadmap: proton therapy physics and biology. Phys Med Biol 2021; 66. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/abcd16] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2020] [Accepted: 11/23/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
|
20
|
Clinical Progress in Proton Radiotherapy: Biological Unknowns. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13040604. [PMID: 33546432 PMCID: PMC7913745 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13040604] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2020] [Revised: 01/27/2021] [Accepted: 02/01/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Proton radiation therapy is a more recent type of radiotherapy that uses proton beams instead of classical photon or X-rays beams. The clinical benefit of proton therapy is that it allows to treat tumors more precisely. As a result, proton radiotherapy induces less toxicity to healthy tissue near the tumor site. Despite the experience in the clinical use of protons, the response of cells to proton radiation, the radiobiology, is less understood. In this review, we describe the current knowledge about proton radiobiology. Abstract Clinical use of proton radiation has massively increased over the past years. The main reason for this is the beneficial depth-dose distribution of protons that allows to reduce toxicity to normal tissues surrounding the tumor. Despite the experience in the clinical use of protons, the radiobiology after proton irradiation compared to photon irradiation remains to be completely elucidated. Proton radiation may lead to differential damages and activation of biological processes. Here, we will review the current knowledge of proton radiobiology in terms of induction of reactive oxygen species, hypoxia, DNA damage response, as well as cell death after proton irradiation and radioresistance.
Collapse
|
21
|
Niemierko A, Schuemann J, Niyazi M, Giantsoudi D, Maquilan G, Shih HA, Paganetti H. Brain Necrosis in Adult Patients After Proton Therapy: Is There Evidence for Dependency on Linear Energy Transfer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 109:109-119. [PMID: 32911019 PMCID: PMC7736370 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.08.058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/03/2020] [Revised: 08/26/2020] [Accepted: 08/27/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate if radiographic imaging changes defined as necrosis correlate with regions in the brain with elevated linear energy transfer (LET) for proton radiation therapy treatments with partial brain involvement in central nervous system and patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Fifty patients with head and neck, skull base, or intracranial tumors who underwent proton therapy between 2004 to 2016 with a minimum prescription dose of 59.4 Gy (relative biological effectiveness) and with magnetic resonance imaging changes indicative of brain necrosis after radiation therapy were retrospectively reviewed. Each treatment plan was recalculated using Monte Carlo simulations to provide accurate dose distributions as well as 3-dimensional distributions of LET. To assess the effect of LET on radiographic imaging changes several voxel-based analyses were performed. RESULTS In this patient cohort, LET adjusted for dose was not found to be associated with risk of brain necrosis. CONCLUSIONS A voxel-based analysis of brain necrosis as an endpoint is difficult owing to uncertainties in the origin of necrosis, timing of imaging, variability in patient specific radiosensitivity, and the simultaneous effect of dose and LET. Even though it is expected that the LET and thus relative biological effectiveness increases at the end of range, effects in patients might be small compared with interpatient variability of radiosensitivity and might be obscured by other confounding factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrzej Niemierko
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
| | - Jan Schuemann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Maximilian Niyazi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany; German Cancer Consortium, partner site Munich, Heidelberg, Germany; German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Drosoula Giantsoudi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Genevieve Maquilan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Helen A Shih
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Technical challenges for FLASH proton therapy. Phys Med 2020; 78:71-82. [PMID: 32947086 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2020] [Revised: 08/03/2020] [Accepted: 08/04/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
There is growing interest in the radiotherapy community in the application of FLASH radiotherapy, wherein the dose is delivered to the entire treatment volume in less than a second. Early pre-clinical evidence suggests that these extremely high dose rates provide significant sparing of healthy tissue compared to conventional radiotherapy without reducing the damage to cancerous cells. This interest has been reflected in the proton therapy community, with early tests indicating that the FLASH effect is also present with high dose rate proton irradiation. In order to deliver clinically relevant doses at FLASH dose rates significant technical hurdles must be overcome in the accelerator technology before FLASH proton therapy can be realised. Of these challenges, increasing the average current from the present clinical range of 1-10 nA to in excess of 100 nA is at least feasible with existing technology, while the necessity for rapid energy adjustment on the order of a few milliseconds is much more challenging, particularly for synchrotron-based systems. However, the greatest challenge is to implement full pencil beam scanning, where scanning speeds 2 orders of magnitude faster than the existing state-of-the-art will be necessary, along with similar improvements in the speed and accuracy of associated dosimetry. Hybrid systems utilising 3D-printed patient specific range modulators present the most likely route to clinical delivery. However, to correctly adapt and develop existing technology to meet the challenges of FLASH, more pre-clinical studies are needed to properly establish the beam parameters that are necessary to produce the FLASH effect.
Collapse
|
23
|
De Marzi L, Patriarca A, Scher N, Thariat J, Vidal M. Exploiting the full potential of proton therapy: An update on the specifics and innovations towards spatial or temporal optimisation of dose delivery. Cancer Radiother 2020; 24:691-698. [PMID: 32753235 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2020.06.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2020] [Revised: 06/07/2020] [Accepted: 06/09/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Prescription and delivery of protons are somewhat different compared to photons and may influence outcomes (tumour control and toxicity). These differences should be taken into account to fully exploit the clinical potential of proton therapy. Innovations in proton therapy treatment are also required to widen the therapeutic window and determine appropriate populations of patients that would benefit from new treatments. Therefore, strategies are now being developed to reduce side effects to critical normal tissues using alternative treatment configurations and new spatial or temporal-driven optimisation approaches. Indeed, spatiotemporal optimisation (based on flash, proton minibeam radiation therapy or hypofractionated delivery methods) has been gaining some attention in proton therapy as a mean of improving (biological and physical) dose distribution. In this short review, the main differences in planning and delivery between protons and photons, as well as some of the latest developments and methodological issues (in silico modelling) related to providing scientific evidence for these new techniques will be discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L De Marzi
- Institut Curie, centre de protonthérapie d'Orsay, campus universitaire, bâtiment 101, 91898 Orsay, France; Université PSL (Paris Sciences & Lettres), 60, rue Mazarine, 75006 Paris, France; Université Paris-Saclay, route de l'Orme-aux-Merisiers, RD 128, 91190 Saint-Aubin, France; Inserm U1021, centre universitaire, bâtiment 110, rue Henri-Becquerel, 91405 Orsay cedex, France; CNRS, UMR 3347, centre universitaire, bâtiment 110, rue Henri-Becquerel, 91405 Orsay cedex, France.
| | - A Patriarca
- Institut Curie, centre de protonthérapie d'Orsay, campus universitaire, bâtiment 101, 91898 Orsay, France; Université PSL (Paris Sciences & Lettres), 60, rue Mazarine, 75006 Paris, France
| | - N Scher
- Institut Curie, centre de protonthérapie d'Orsay, campus universitaire, bâtiment 101, 91898 Orsay, France; Université PSL (Paris Sciences & Lettres), 60, rue Mazarine, 75006 Paris, France
| | - J Thariat
- Service de radiothérapie oncologique, centre François-Baclesse, 3, avenue General-Harris, 14000 Caen, France; Laboratoire de physique corpusculaire de Caen, 6, boulevard du Maréchal-Juin, 14050 Caen cedex, France; Institut national de physique nucléaire et physique des particules (IN2P3), 6, boulevard du Maréchal-Juin, 14050 Caen cedex, France; EnsiCaen, 6, boulevard du Maréchal-Juin, 14050 Caen cedex, France; CNRS, UMR6534, 6, boulevard du Maréchal-Juin, 14050 Caen cedex, France; Unicaen, 6, boulevard du Maréchal-Juin, 14050 Caen cedex, France; Normandie Université, 6, boulevard du Maréchal-Juin, 14050 Caen cedex, France
| | - M Vidal
- Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, 33, avenue Valombrose, 06000 Nice, France
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Raturi VP, Hojo H, Hotta K, Baba H, Takahashi R, Rachi T, Nakamura N, Zenda S, Motegi A, Tachibana H, Ariji T, Motegi K, Nakamura M, Okumura M, Hirano Y, Akimoto T. Radiobiological model-based approach to determine the potential of dose-escalated robust intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy in reducing gastrointestinal toxicity in the treatment of locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer of the head. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15:157. [PMID: 32571379 PMCID: PMC7310413 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-020-01592-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2020] [Accepted: 06/03/2020] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The purpose of this study was to determine the potential of escalated dose radiation (EDR) robust intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy (ro-IMPT) in reducing GI toxicity risk in locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer (LAUPC) of the head in term of normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) predictive model. Methods For 9 patients, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) was compared with ro-IMPT. For all plans, the prescription dose was 59.4GyE (Gray equivalent) in 33 fractions with an equivalent organ at risk (OAR) constraints. Physical dose distribution was evaluated. GI toxicity risk for different endpoints was estimated using published NTCP Lyman Kutcher Burman (LKB) models for stomach, duodenum, small bowel, and combine stomach and duodenum (Stoduo). A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for dosimetry parameters and NTCP values comparison. Result The dosimetric results have shown that, with similar target coverage, ro-IMPT achieves a significant dose-volume reduction in the stomach, small bowel, and stoduo in low to high dose range in comparison to IMRT. NTCP evaluation for the endpoint gastric bleeding of stomach (10.55% vs. 13.97%, P = 0.007), duodenum (1.87% vs. 5.02%, P = 0.004), and stoduo (5.67% vs. 7.81%, P = 0.008) suggest reduced toxicity by ro-IMPT compared to IMRT. ∆NTCP IMRT – ro-IMPT (using parameter from Pan et al. for gastric bleed) of ≥5 to < 10% was seen in 3 patients (33%) for stomach and 2 patients (22%) for stoduo. An overall GI toxicity relative risk (NTCPro-IMPT/NTCPIMRT) reduction was noted (0.16–0.81) for all GI-OARs except for duodenum (> 1) with endpoint grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity (using parameters from Holyoake et al.). Conclusion With similar target coverage and better conformity, ro-IMPT has the potential to substantially reduce the risk of GI toxicity compared to IMRT in EDR of LAUPC of the head. This result needs to be further evaluated in future clinical studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vijay P Raturi
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan.,Course of Advanced Clinical Research of Cancer, Graduate school of Medicine, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hidehiro Hojo
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Kenji Hotta
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Hiromi Baba
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Ryo Takahashi
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Toshiya Rachi
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Naoki Nakamura
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Sadamoto Zenda
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Atsushi Motegi
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Hidenobu Tachibana
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Takaki Ariji
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Kana Motegi
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Masaki Nakamura
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Masayuki Okumura
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Yasuhiro Hirano
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan
| | - Tetsuo Akimoto
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 chome, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba-ken, 277-8577, Japan. .,Course of Advanced Clinical Research of Cancer, Graduate school of Medicine, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan.
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Mara E, Clausen M, Khachonkham S, Deycmar S, Pessy C, Dörr W, Kuess P, Georg D, Gruber S. Investigating the impact of alpha/beta and LET d on relative biological effectiveness in scanned proton beams: An in vitro study based on human cell lines. Med Phys 2020; 47:3691-3702. [PMID: 32347564 PMCID: PMC7496287 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14212] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2019] [Revised: 04/03/2020] [Accepted: 04/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE A relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1 is commonly used in clinical proton therapy, irrespective of tissue type and depth. This in vitro study was conducted to quantify the RBE of scanned protons as a function of the dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd ) and the sensitivity factor (α/ß)X . Additionally, three phenomenological models (McNamara, Rørvik, and Jones) and one mechanistic model (repair-misrepair-fixation, RMF) were applied to the experimentally derived data. METHODS Four human cell lines (FaDu, HaCat, Du145, SKMel) with differential (α/ß)X ratios were irradiated in a custom-designed irradiation setup with doses between 0 and 6 Gy at proximal, central, and distal positions of a 80 mm spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) centered at 80 mm (setup A: proton energies 66.5-135.6 MeV) and 155 mm (setup B: proton energies 127.2-185.9 MeV) depth, respectively. LETd values at the respective cell positions were derived from Monte Carlo simulations performed with the treatment planning system (TPS, RayStation). Dosimetric measurements were conducted to verify dose homogeneity and dose delivery accuracy. RBE values were derived for doses that resulted in 90 % (RBE90 ) and 10 % (RBE10 ) of cell survival, and survival after a 0.5 Gy dose (RBE0.5Gy ), 2 Gy dose (RBE2Gy ), and 6 Gy dose (RBE6Gy ). RESULTS LETd values at sample positions were 1.9, 2.1, 2.5, 2.8, 4.1, and 4.5 keV/µm. For the cell lines with high (α/ß)X ratios (FaDu, HaCat), the LETd did not impact on the RBE. For low (α/ß)X cell lines (Du145, SKMel), LQ-derived survival curves indicated a clear correlation of LETd and RBE. RBE90 values up to 2.9 and RBE10 values between 1.4 and 1.8 were obtained. Model-derived RBE predictions slightly overestimated the RBE for the high (α/ß)X cell lines, although all models except the Jones model provided RBE values within the experimental uncertainty. For low (α/ß)X cell lines, no agreement was found between experiments and model predictions, that is, all models underestimated the measured RBE. CONCLUSIONS The sensitivity parameter (α/ß)X was observed to be a major influencing factor for the RBE of protons and its sensitivity toward LETd changes. RBE prediction models are applicable for high (α/ß)X cell lines but do not estimate RBE values with sufficient accuracy in low (α/ß)X cell lines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elisabeth Mara
- Department of Radiation Oncology/Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,University of Applied Science, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Monika Clausen
- Department of Radiation Oncology/Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Suphalak Khachonkham
- Department of Radiation Oncology/Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,Division of Radiation Therapy, Department of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Simon Deycmar
- Laboratory of Applied Radiobiology, Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Clara Pessy
- Department of Radiation Oncology/Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Wolfgang Dörr
- Department of Radiation Oncology/Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Peter Kuess
- Department of Radiation Oncology/Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,EBG MedAustron GmbH, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Dietmar Georg
- Department of Radiation Oncology/Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,EBG MedAustron GmbH, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Sylvia Gruber
- Department of Radiation Oncology/Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.,EBG MedAustron GmbH, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Raturi VP, Tochinai T, Hojo H, Rachi T, Hotta K, Nakamura N, Zenda S, Motegi A, Ariji T, Hirano Y, Baba H, Ohyoshi H, Nakamura M, Okumura M, Bei Y, Akimoto T. Dose-Volume and Radiobiological Model-Based Comparative Evaluation of the Gastrointestinal Toxicity Risk of Photon and Proton Irradiation Plans in Localized Pancreatic Cancer Without Distant Metastasis. Front Oncol 2020; 10:517061. [PMID: 33194580 PMCID: PMC7645056 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.517061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2019] [Accepted: 09/01/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Radiobiological model-based studies of photon-modulated radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer have reported reduced gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, although the risk is still high. The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential of 3D-passive scattering proton beam therapy (3D-PSPBT) in limiting GI organ at risk (OAR) toxicity in localized pancreatic cancer based on dosimetric data and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model. Methods: The data of 24 pancreatic cancer patients were retrospectively analyzed, and these patients were planned with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and 3D-PSPBT. The tumor was targeted without elective nodal coverage. All generated plans consisted of a 50.4-GyE (Gray equivalent) dose in 28 fractions with equivalent OAR constraints, and they were normalized to cover 50% of the planning treatment volume (PTV) with 100% of the prescription dose. Physical dose distributions were evaluated. GI-OAR toxicity risk for different endpoints was estimated by using published NTCP Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) models. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare the dosimetric data, and ΔNTCPIMRT-PSPBT and ΔNTCPVMAT-PSPBT were also computed. Results: Similar homogeneity and conformity for the clinical target volume (CTV) and PTV were exhibited by all three planning techniques (P > 0.05). 3D-PSPBT resulted in a significant dose reduction for GI-OARs in both the low-intermediate dose range (below 30 GyE) and the highest dose region (D max and V 50 GyE) in comparison with IMRT and VMAT (P < 0.05). Based on the NTCP evaluation, the NTCP reduction for GI-OARs by 3D-PSPBT was minimal in comparison with IMRT and VMAT. Conclusion: 3D-PSPBT results in minimal NTCP reduction and has less potential to substantially reduce the toxicity risk of upper GI bleeding, ulceration, obstruction, and perforation endpoints compared to IMRT and VMAT. 3D-PSPBT may have the potential to reduce acute dose-limiting toxicity in the form of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea by reducing the GI-OAR treated volume in the low-to-intermediate dose range. However, this result needs to be further evaluated in future clinical studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vijay P. Raturi
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
- Course of Advanced Clinical Research of Cancer, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan
- *Correspondence: Vijay P. Raturi
| | - Taku Tochinai
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Hidehiro Hojo
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Toshiya Rachi
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Kenji Hotta
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Naoki Nakamura
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Sadamoto Zenda
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Atsushi Motegi
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Takaki Ariji
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Yasuhiro Hirano
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Hiromi Baba
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Hajime Ohyoshi
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Masaki Nakamura
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Masayuki Okumura
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Yanping Bei
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| | - Tetsuo Akimoto
- Division of Radiation Oncology and Particle Therapy, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
- Course of Advanced Clinical Research of Cancer, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Affiliation(s)
- Jens Overgaard
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Ludvig Paul Muren
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Morten Høyer
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Cai Grau
- Department of Oncology and Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Sánchez‐Parcerisa D, López‐Aguirre M, Dolcet Llerena A, Udías JM. MultiRBE: Treatment planning for protons with selective radiobiological effectiveness. Med Phys 2019; 46:4276-4284. [DOI: 10.1002/mp.13718] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2018] [Revised: 06/19/2019] [Accepted: 07/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Sánchez‐Parcerisa
- Grupo de Física Nuclear & IPARCOS, Departamento de Estructura de la Materia, Física Térmica y Electrónica CEI Moncloa Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28040Madrid Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC) Madrid Spain
| | - Miguel López‐Aguirre
- Grupo de Física Nuclear & IPARCOS, Departamento de Estructura de la Materia, Física Térmica y Electrónica CEI Moncloa Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28040Madrid Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC) Madrid Spain
| | | | - José Manuel Udías
- Grupo de Física Nuclear & IPARCOS, Departamento de Estructura de la Materia, Física Térmica y Electrónica CEI Moncloa Universidad Complutense de Madrid 28040Madrid Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC) Madrid Spain
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Rana S, Greco K, Samuel EJJ, Bennouna J. Radiobiological and dosimetric impact of RayStation pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms on intensity-modulated proton therapy breast cancer plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2019; 20:36-46. [PMID: 31343826 PMCID: PMC6698765 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12676] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2019] [Revised: 05/07/2019] [Accepted: 06/11/2019] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE RayStation treatment planning system employs pencil beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms for proton dose calculations. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the radiobiological and dosimetric impact of RayStation PB and MC algorithms on the intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) breast plans. METHODS The current study included ten breast cancer patients, and each patient was treated with 1-2 proton beams to the whole breast/chestwall (CW) and regional lymph nodes in 28 fractions for a total dose of 50.4 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE). A total clinical target volume (CTV_Total) was generated by combining individual CTVs: AxI, AxII, AxIII, CW, IMN, and SCVN. All beams in the study were treated with a range shifter (7.5 cm water equivalent thickness). For each patient, three sets of plans were generated: (a) PB optimization followed by PB dose calculation (PB-PB), (b) PB optimization followed by MC dose calculation (PB-MC), and (c) MC optimization followed by MC dose calculation (MC-MC). For a given patient, each plan was robustly optimized on the CTVs with same parameters and objectives. Treatment plans were evaluated using dosimetric and radiobiological indices (equivalent uniform dose (EUD), tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP)). RESULTS The results are averaged over ten breast cancer patients. In comparison to PB-PB plans, PB-MC plans showed a reduction in CTV target dose by 5.3% for D99% and 4.1% for D95% , as well as a reduction in TCP by 1.5-2.1%. Similarly, PB overestimated the EUD of target volumes by 1.8─3.2 Gy(RBE). In contrast, MC-MC plans achieved similar dosimetric and radiobiological (EUD and TCP) results as the ones in PB-PB plans. A selection of one dose calculation algorithm over another did not produce any noticeable differences in the NTCP of the heart, lung, and skin. CONCLUSION If MC is more accurate than PB as reported in the literature, dosimetric and radiobiological results from the current study suggest that PB overestimates the target dose, EUD, and TCP for IMPT breast cancer treatment. The overestimation of dosimetric and radiobiological results of the target volume by PB needs to be further interpreted in terms of clinical outcome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suresh Rana
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA.,Department of Physics, School of Advanced Sciences, Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT) University, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Kevin Greco
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - E James Jebaseelan Samuel
- Department of Physics, School of Advanced Sciences, Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT) University, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
| | - Jaafar Bennouna
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Marteinsdottir M, Paganetti H. Applying a variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) might affect the analysis of clinical trials comparing photon and proton therapy for prostate cancer. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2019; 64:115027. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab2144] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
|
31
|
Takei H, Inaniwa T. Effect of Irradiation Time on Biological Effectiveness and Tumor Control Probability in Proton Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 105:222-229. [PMID: 31085286 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.05.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2018] [Revised: 03/16/2019] [Accepted: 05/01/2019] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The biological effectiveness of proton beams may decrease with irradiation time because of sublethal damage repair (SLDR). The purpose of this study is to systematically evaluate this effect in hypofractionated proton therapy for various target sizes, depths, and prescribed doses per fraction. METHODS AND MATERIALS Plans with a single spread-out Bragg peak beam were created using a constant relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1 to cover targets of 6 different sizes located at 3 different depths in water. Biological doses of 2, 3, 5, 10, and 20 Gy (RBE) were prescribed to the targets. First, to investigate the depth variation of the biological effectiveness, the biological dose in instantaneous irradiation was recalculated based on the microdosimetric kinetic model. SLDR was then taken into account in the microdosimetric kinetic model during treatments to obtain the irradiation time-dependent biological effectiveness for irradiation time T of 5 to 60 minutes and beam interruption time τ of 0 to 60 minutes. The tumor control probabilities were calculated for single-fraction proton therapy fields of different Ts and τs, and the curative doses were evaluated at a tumor control probability of 90%. RESULTS The biological effectiveness decreased with longer T and τ and higher prescribed dose. The maximum decrease in the biological effectiveness was 21% with a 20 Gy (RBE) prescribed dose. In single-fraction proton therapy, the curative dose increased linearly by approximately 33% to 35% with the increase of T from 0 to 60 minutes. CONCLUSIONS The biological effectiveness varies largely with T and τ because of SLDR during treatments. This effect was pronounced for high prescribed doses per fraction. Thus, the effect of SLDR needs to be considered in hypofractionated and single-fraction proton therapies in relation to size and depth of the target.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hideyuki Takei
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
| | - Taku Inaniwa
- Department of Accelerator and Medical Physics, National Institute of Radiological Sciences, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, Chiba, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
McMahon SJ, Paganetti H, Prise KM. LET-weighted doses effectively reduce biological variability in proton radiotherapy planning. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2018; 63:225009. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aae8a5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
|
33
|
Chen Y, Grassberger C, Li J, Hong TS, Paganetti H. Impact of potentially variable RBE in liver proton therapy. Phys Med Biol 2018; 63:195001. [PMID: 30183674 PMCID: PMC6207451 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aadf24] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Currently, the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) is assumed to be constant with a value of 1.1 in proton therapy. Although trends of RBE variations are well known, absolute values in patients are associated with considerable uncertainties. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a variable proton RBE in proton therapy liver trials using different fractionation schemes. Sixteen liver cancer cases were evaluated assuming two clinical schedules of 40 Gy/5 fractions and 58.05 Gy/15 fractions. The linear energy transfer (LET) and physical dose distribution in patients were simulated using Monte Carlo. The variable RBE distribution was calculated using a phenomenological model, considering the influence of the LET, fraction size and α/β value. Further, models to predict normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and tumor control probability (TCP) were used to investigate potential RBE effects on outcome predictions. Applying the variable RBE model to the 5 and 15 fractions schedules results in an increase in mean fraction-size equivalent dose (FED) to the normal liver of 5.0% and 9.6% respectively. For patients with a mean FED to the normal liver larger than 29.8 Gy, this results in a non-negligible increase in the predicted NTCP of the normal liver averaging 11.6%, ranging from 2.7% to 25.6%. On the other hand, decrease in TCP was less than 5% for both fractionation regimens for all patients when assuming a variable RBE instead of constant. Consequently, the difference in TCP between the two fractionation schedules did not change significantly assuming a variable RBE while the impact on the NTCP difference was highly case specific. In addition, both the NTCP and TCP decrease with increasing α/β value for both fractionation schemes, with the decreases being more pronounced when using a variable RBE compared to using RBE = 1.1. Assuming a constant RBE of 1.1 most likely overestimates the therapeutic ratio in proton therapy for liver cancer, predominantly due to underestimation of the RBE-weighted dose to the normal liver. The impact of applying a variable RBE (as compared to RBE = 1.1) on the NTCP difference of the two fractionation regimens is case dependent. A variable RBE results in a slight increase in TCP difference. Variations in patient radiosensitivity increase when using a variable RBE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yizheng Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States of America. Department of Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, People's Republic of China. Key Laboratory of Particle & Radiation Imaging, Tsinghua University, Ministry of Education, Beijing 100084, People's Republic of China
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Paganetti H. Proton Relative Biological Effectiveness - Uncertainties and Opportunities. Int J Part Ther 2018; 5:2-14. [PMID: 30370315 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-18-00011.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton therapy treatments are prescribed using a biological effectiveness relative to photon therapy of 1.1, that is, proton beams are considered to be 10% more biologically effective. Debate is ongoing as to whether this practice needs to be revised. This short review summarizes current knowledge on relative biological effectiveness variations and uncertainties in vitro and in vivo. Clinical relevance is discussed and strategies toward biologically guided treatment planning are presented.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Underwood TS, McMahon SJ. Proton relative biological effectiveness (RBE): a multiscale problem. Br J Radiol 2018; 92:20180004. [PMID: 29975153 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20180004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton radiotherapy is undergoing rapid expansion both within the UK and internationally, but significant challenges still need to be overcome if maximum benefit is to be realised from this technique. One major limitation is the persistent uncertainty in proton relative biological effectiveness (RBE). While RBE values are needed to link proton radiotherapy to our existing experience with photon radiotherapy, RBE remains poorly understood and is typically incorporated as a constant dose scaling factor of 1.1 in clinical plans. This is in contrast to extensive experimental evidence indicating that RBE is a function of dose, tissue type, and proton linear energy transfer, among other parameters. In this article, we discuss the challenges associated with obtaining clinically relevant values for proton RBE through commonly-used assays, and highlight the wide range of other experimental end points which can inform our understanding of RBE. We propose that accurate and robust optimization of proton radiotherapy ultimately requires a multiscale understanding of RBE, integrating subcellular, cellular, and patient-level processes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tracy Sa Underwood
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
| | - Stephen J McMahon
- Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Science, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Chaikh A, Calugaru V, Bondiau PY, Thariat J, Balosso J. Impact of the NTCP modeling on medical decision to select eligible patient for proton therapy: the usefulness of EUD as an indicator to rank modern photon vs proton treatment plans. Int J Radiat Biol 2018; 94:789-797. [DOI: 10.1080/09553002.2018.1486516] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Abdulhamid Chaikh
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital (CHUGA), Grenoble, France
- France HADRON National Research Infrastructure, IPNL, Lyon, France
- Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire IN2P3/ENSICAEN—UMR6534—Unicaen—Normandy University, Caen, France
| | | | | | - Juliette Thariat
- Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire IN2P3/ENSICAEN—UMR6534—Unicaen—Normandy University, Caen, France
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, France
| | - Jacques Balosso
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital (CHUGA), Grenoble, France
- France HADRON National Research Infrastructure, IPNL, Lyon, France
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, France
- University Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Relative Biological Effectiveness Uncertainties and Implications for Beam Arrangements and Dose Constraints in Proton Therapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 2018; 28:256-263. [DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2018.02.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
|
38
|
Lühr A, von Neubeck C, Krause M, Troost EGC. Relative biological effectiveness in proton beam therapy - Current knowledge and future challenges. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2018; 9:35-41. [PMID: 29594249 PMCID: PMC5862688 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2018.01.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 82] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2018] [Revised: 01/25/2018] [Accepted: 01/27/2018] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Armin Lühr
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany.,Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Cläre von Neubeck
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Mechthild Krause
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.,Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Esther G C Troost
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz Association/Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany.,Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Grau C, Høyer M, Poulsen PR, Muren LP, Korreman SS, Tanderup K, Lindegaard JC, Alsner J, Overgaard J. Rethink radiotherapy - BIGART 2017. Acta Oncol 2017; 56:1341-1352. [PMID: 29148908 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2017.1371326] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Cai Grau
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Morten Høyer
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Ludvig Paul Muren
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Kari Tanderup
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Jan Alsner
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Jens Overgaard
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|