1
|
Groenendijk CF, Rovituso M, Lathouwers D, Brown JMC. A Geant4 based simulation platform of the HollandPTC R&D proton beamline for radiobiological studies. Phys Med 2023; 112:102643. [PMID: 37523926 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102643] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2023] [Revised: 06/01/2023] [Accepted: 07/05/2023] [Indexed: 08/02/2023] Open
Abstract
A Geant4 based simulation platform of the Holland Proton Therapy Centre (HollandPTC, Netherlands) R&D beamline (G4HPTC-R&D) was developed to enable the planning, optimisation and advanced dosimetry for radiobiological studies. It implemented a six parameter non-symmetrical Gaussian pencil beam surrogate model to simulate the R&D beamline in both a pencil beam and passively scattered field configuration. Three different experimental proton datasets (70 MeV, 150 MeV, and 240 MeV) of the pencil beam envelope evolution in free air and depth-dose profiles in water were used to develop a set of individual parameter surrogate functions to enable the modelling of the non-symmetrical Gaussian pencil beam properties with only the ProBeam isochronous cyclotron mean extraction proton energy as input. This refined beam model was then benchmarked with respect to three independent experimental datasets of the R&D beamline operating in both a pencil beam configuration at 120 and 200 MeV, and passively scattered field configuration at 150 MeV. It was shown that the G4HPTC-R&D simulation platform can reproduce the pencil beam envelope evolution in free air and depth-dose profiles to within an accuracy on the order of ±5% for all tested energies, and that it was able to reproduce the 150 MeV passively scattered field to the specifications need for clinical and radiobiological applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Marta Rovituso
- Research and Development, Holland Proton Therapy Centre, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Danny Lathouwers
- Radiation Science & Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Jeremy M C Brown
- Radiation Science & Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands; Optical Sciences Centre, Department of Physics and Astronomy, School of Science, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gaito S, Marvaso G, Ortiz R, Crellin A, Aznar MC, Indelicato DJ, Pan S, Whitfield G, Alongi F, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Burnet N, Li MP, Rothwell B, Smith E, Colaco RJ. Proton Beam Therapy in the Oligometastatic/Oligorecurrent Setting: Is There a Role? A Literature Review. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15092489. [PMID: 37173955 PMCID: PMC10177340 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15092489] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2023] [Revised: 04/21/2023] [Accepted: 04/25/2023] [Indexed: 05/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with conventional photon radiotherapy (XRT) are well-established treatment options for selected patients with oligometastatic/oligorecurrent disease. The use of PBT for SABR-SRS is attractive given the property of a lack of exit dose. The aim of this review is to evaluate the role and current utilisation of PBT in the oligometastatic/oligorecurrent setting. METHODS Using Medline and Embase, a comprehensive literature review was conducted following the PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) criteria, which returned 83 records. After screening, 16 records were deemed to be relevant and included in the review. RESULTS Six of the sixteen records analysed originated in Japan, six in the USA, and four in Europe. The focus was oligometastatic disease in 12, oligorecurrence in 3, and both in 1. Most of the studies analysed (12/16) were retrospective cohorts or case reports, two were phase II clinical trials, one was a literature review, and one study discussed the pros and cons of PBT in these settings. The studies presented in this review included a total of 925 patients. The metastatic sites analysed in these articles were the liver (4/16), lungs (3/16), thoracic lymph nodes (2/16), bone (2/16), brain (1/16), pelvis (1/16), and various sites in 2/16. CONCLUSIONS PBT could represent an option for the treatment of oligometastatic/oligorecurrent disease in patients with a low metastatic burden. Nevertheless, due to its limited availability, PBT has traditionally been funded for selected tumour indications that are defined as curable. The availability of new systemic therapies has widened this definition. This, together with the exponential growth of PBT capacity worldwide, will potentially redefine its commissioning to include selected patients with oligometastatic/oligorecurrent disease. To date, PBT has been used with encouraging results for the treatment of liver metastases. However, PBT could be an option in those cases in which the reduced radiation exposure to normal tissues leads to a clinically significant reduction in treatment-related toxicities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simona Gaito
- Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
- Division of Clinical Cancer Science, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Giulia Marvaso
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20126 Milan, Italy
| | - Ramon Ortiz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94720, USA
| | - Adrian Crellin
- National Lead Proton Beam Therapy NHSe, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| | - Marianne C Aznar
- Division of Clinical Cancer Science, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Daniel J Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32206, USA
| | - Shermaine Pan
- Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester M20 3DA, UK
| | - Gillian Whitfield
- Division of Clinical Cancer Science, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester M20 3DA, UK
| | - Filippo Alongi
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore don Calabria, 37024 Verona, Italy
- Division of Radiology and Radiotherapy, University of Brescia, 25121 Brescia, Italy
| | - Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20126 Milan, Italy
| | - Neil Burnet
- Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester M20 3DA, UK
| | - Michelle P Li
- Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester M20 3DA, UK
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Bethany Rothwell
- Division of Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA
| | - Ed Smith
- Proton Clinical Outcomes Unit, The Christie NHS Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
- Division of Clinical Cancer Science, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester M20 3DA, UK
| | - Rovel J Colaco
- Department of Proton Beam Therapy, The Christie Proton Beam Therapy Centre, Manchester M20 3DA, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kato T, Ono T, Narita Y, Komori S, Murakami M. Dose-volume comparison of intensity modulated proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for cervical esophageal cancer. Med Dosim 2022; 47:216-221. [PMID: 35346554 DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2022.02.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2021] [Revised: 02/18/2022] [Accepted: 02/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
Proton therapy for cervical esophageal cancer has many issues to be considered, such as the physiological curvature of the spine and the large range change from the neck to the trunk. We clarified the dosimetric characteristics of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for cervical esophageal cancer by comparing with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Ten patients with cervical esophageal cancer were retrospectively planned for VMAT, 2-field IMPT (2F-IMPT), and 3-field IMPT (3F-IMPT). All plans were optimized to reach clinically acceptable levels. For planning target volume (PTV) coverage, 95% of the PTV should be covered by 95% of the prescription dose, unless the spinal cord limit is violated. The organs at risk included the lung, spinal cord, larynx, skin, and whole body. The prescription dose was 60 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in 30 fractions to the PTV. We compared the results according to dose-volume metrics. Significant dose reductions were achieved at lung doses, especially at low dose volumes of 20 Gy RBE or less in IMPT plans compared with VMAT plans (p < 0.05). Although the spinal cord PRV was below the tolerance level, the results were also significantly higher in VMAT plans than in IMPT plans (p < 0.001). Spinal cord PRV Dmean was significantly higher in 3F-IMPT than in 2F-IMPT (p < 0.001). In addition, it was confirmed that the integral whole body dose can be dramatically reduced in IMPT plans compared with VMAT plans. Both of 2F-IMPT and 3F-IMPT could effectively reduce spinal cord dose, as well as low integral whole body dose to a certain extent, while maintaining similar target coverage compared to VMAT. IMPT could be a promising treatment technique for patients with cervical esophageal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takahiro Kato
- Department of Radiation Physics and Technology, Southern Tohoku Proton Therapy Center, Fukushima, Japan; Department of Radiological Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan.
| | - Takashi Ono
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Yamagata University, Yamagata, Japan
| | - Yuki Narita
- Department of Radiation Physics and Technology, Southern Tohoku Proton Therapy Center, Fukushima, Japan
| | - Shinya Komori
- Department of Radiation Physics and Technology, Southern Tohoku Proton Therapy Center, Fukushima, Japan
| | - Masao Murakami
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Southern Tohoku Proton Therapy Center, Fukushima, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Narita Y, Kato T, Takemasa K, Sato H, Ikeda T, Harada T, Oyama S, Murakami M. Dosimetric impact of simulated changes in large bowel content during proton therapy with simultaneous integrated boost for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2021; 22:90-98. [PMID: 34599856 PMCID: PMC8598140 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13429] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2021] [Revised: 07/31/2021] [Accepted: 09/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To investigate the dosimetric impact of changes in the large bowel content during proton therapy (PT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Materials and methods Fifteen patients with LAPC were included in this study. The SIB method was performed using five fields according to our standard protocol. A total dose of 67.5 Gy(relative biological effectiveness [RBE]) was prescribed in 25 fractions using the SIB method. A dose of 45 Gy(RBE) was prescribed for the entire planning target volume (PTV) by using four main fields. The remaining 22.5 Gy(RBE) was prescribed to the PTV excluding for the gastrointestinal tract using one subfield. Five simulated doses were obtained by the forward dose calculations with the Hounsfield units (HU) override to the large bowel to 50, 0, −100, −500, and −1000, respectively. The dose‐volume indices in each plan were compared using the 50 HU plan as a reference. Results At D98 of the clinical target volume (CTV) and spinal cord‐D2cc, when the density of the large bowel was close to that of gas, there were significant differences compared to the reference plan (p < 0.05). By contrast, no significant difference was observed in stomach‐D2cc duodenum‐D2cc, small bowel‐D2cc, kidneys‐V18, and liver‐Dmean under any of the conditions. There were no cases in which the dose constraint of organs at risk, specified by our institution, was exceeded. Conclusion Density change in the large bowel was revealed to significantly affect the doses of the CTV and spinal cord during PT with SIB for LAPC. For beam arrangement, it is important to select a gantry angle that prevents the large bowel from passing as much as possible. If this is unavoidable, it is important to carefully observe the gas image on the beam path during daily image guidance and to provide adaptive re‐planning as needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuki Narita
- Department of Radiation Physics and Technology, Southern Tohoku Proton Therapy Center, Fukushima, Japan
| | - Takahiro Kato
- Department of Radiation Physics and Technology, Southern Tohoku Proton Therapy Center, Fukushima, Japan.,School of Health Sciences, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan
| | - Kimihiro Takemasa
- Department of Radiation Physics and Technology, Southern Tohoku Proton Therapy Center, Fukushima, Japan
| | - Hiroki Sato
- Department of Radiation Physics and Technology, Southern Tohoku Proton Therapy Center, Fukushima, Japan
| | - Tomohiro Ikeda
- Department of Radiation Physics and Technology, Southern Tohoku Proton Therapy Center, Fukushima, Japan
| | - Takaomi Harada
- Department of Radiation Physics and Technology, Southern Tohoku Proton Therapy Center, Fukushima, Japan
| | - Sho Oyama
- Department of Radiation Physics and Technology, Southern Tohoku Proton Therapy Center, Fukushima, Japan
| | - Masao Murakami
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Southern Tohoku Proton Therapy Center, Fukushima, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Suckert T, Nexhipi S, Dietrich A, Koch R, Kunz-Schughart LA, Bahn E, Beyreuther E. Models for Translational Proton Radiobiology-From Bench to Bedside and Back. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:4216. [PMID: 34439370 PMCID: PMC8395028 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13164216] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2021] [Revised: 08/09/2021] [Accepted: 08/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
The number of proton therapy centers worldwide are increasing steadily, with more than two million cancer patients treated so far. Despite this development, pending questions on proton radiobiology still call for basic and translational preclinical research. Open issues are the on-going discussion on an energy-dependent varying proton RBE (relative biological effectiveness), a better characterization of normal tissue side effects and combination treatments with drugs originally developed for photon therapy. At the same time, novel possibilities arise, such as radioimmunotherapy, and new proton therapy schemata, such as FLASH irradiation and proton mini-beams. The study of those aspects demands for radiobiological models at different stages along the translational chain, allowing the investigation of mechanisms from the molecular level to whole organisms. Focusing on the challenges and specifics of proton research, this review summarizes the different available models, ranging from in vitro systems to animal studies of increasing complexity as well as complementing in silico approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Theresa Suckert
- OncoRay—National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, 01309 Dresden, Germany; (T.S.); (S.N.); (A.D.); (L.A.K.-S.)
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Sindi Nexhipi
- OncoRay—National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, 01309 Dresden, Germany; (T.S.); (S.N.); (A.D.); (L.A.K.-S.)
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, 01309 Dresden, Germany
| | - Antje Dietrich
- OncoRay—National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, 01309 Dresden, Germany; (T.S.); (S.N.); (A.D.); (L.A.K.-S.)
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Robin Koch
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (R.K.); (E.B.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Leoni A. Kunz-Schughart
- OncoRay—National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, 01309 Dresden, Germany; (T.S.); (S.N.); (A.D.); (L.A.K.-S.)
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany
| | - Emanuel Bahn
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; (R.K.); (E.B.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Elke Beyreuther
- OncoRay—National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, 01309 Dresden, Germany; (T.S.); (S.N.); (A.D.); (L.A.K.-S.)
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden—Rossendorf, Institute of Radiation Physics, 01328 Dresden, Germany
| |
Collapse
|