Applying a variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) might affect the analysis of clinical trials comparing photon and proton therapy for prostate cancer

Photon vs proton hypofractionation in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-level evidence on hypofractionated proton therapy (PT) for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients is currently missing. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic literature review to compare the toxicity and effectiveness of curative radiotherapy with photon therapy (XRT) or PT in PCa.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to April 2022. Men with a diagnosis of PCa who underwent curative hypofractionated RT treatment (PT or XRT) were included. Risk of grade (G) ≥ 2 acute and late genitourinary (GU) OR gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were the primary outcomes of interest. Secondary outcomes were five-year biochemical relapse-free survival (b-RFS), clinical relapse-free, distant metastasis-free, and prostate cancer-specific survival. Heterogeneity between study-specific estimates was assessed using Chi-square statistics and measured with the I2 index (heterogeneity measure across studies).

RESULTS

A total of 230 studies matched inclusion criteria and, due to overlapped populations, 160 were included in the present analysis. Significant lower rates of G ≥ 2 acute GI incidence (2 % vs 7 %) and improved 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival (95 % vs 91 %) were observed in the PT arm compared to XRT. PT benefits in 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival were maintained for the moderate hypofractionated arm (p-value 0.0122) and among patients in intermediate and low-risk classes (p-values < 0.0001 and 0.0368, respectively). No statistically relevant differences were found for the other considered outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The present study supports that PT is safe and effective for localized PCa treatment, however, more data from RCTs are needed to draw solid evidence in this setting and further effort must be made to identify the patient subgroups that could benefit the most from PT.

Understanding Relative Biological Effectiveness and Clinical Outcome of Prostate Cancer Therapy Using Particle Irradiation: Analysis of Tumor Control Probability With the Modified Microdosimetric Kinetic Model

PURPOSE

Recent experimental studies and clinical trial results might indicate that-at least for some indications-continued use of the mechanistic model for relative biological effectiveness (RBE) applied at carbon ion therapy facilities in Europe for several decades (LEM-I) may be unwarranted. We present a novel clinical framework for prostate cancer treatment planning and tumor control probability (TCP) prediction based on the modified microdosimetric kinetic model (mMKM) for particle therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Treatment plans of 91 patients with prostate tumors (proton: 46, carbon ions: 45) applying 66 GyRBE [RBE = 1.1 for protons and LEM-I, (α/β)x = 2.0 Gy, for carbon ions] in 20 fractions were recalculated using mMKM [(α/β)x = 3.1 Gy]). Based solely on the response data of photon-irradiated patient groups stratified according to risk and usage of androgen deprivation therapy, we derived parameters for an mMKM-based Poisson-TCP model. Subsequently, new carbon and helium ion plans, adhering to prescribed biological dose criteria, were generated. These were systematically compared with the clinical experience of Japanese centers employing an analogous fractionation scheme and existing proton plans.

RESULTS

mMKM predictions suggested significant biological dose deviation between the proton and carbon ion arms. Patients irradiated with protons received (3.25 ± 0.08)  GyRBEmMKM/Fx, whereas patients treated with carbon ions received(2.51 ± 0.05)  GyRBEmMKM/Fx. TCP predictions were (86 ± 3)% for protons and (52 ± 4)% for carbon ions, matching the clinical outcome of 85% and 50%. Newly optimized carbon ion plans, guided by the mMKM/TCP model, effectively replicated clinical data from Japanese centers. Using mMKM, helium ions exhibited similar target coverage as proton and carbon ions and improved rectum and bladder sparing compared with proton.

CONCLUSIONS

Our mMKM-based model for prostate cancer treatment planning and TCP prediction was validated against clinical data for proton and carbon ion therapy, and its application was extended to helium ion therapy. Based on the data presented in this work, mMKM seems to be a good candidate for clinical biological calculations in carbon ion therapy for prostate cancer.

Exploring Helium Ions' Potential for Post-Mastectomy Left-Sided Breast Cancer Radiotherapy

Proton therapy presents a promising modality for treating left-sided breast cancer due to its unique dose distribution. Helium ions provide increased conformality thanks to a reduced lateral scattering. Consequently, the potential clinical benefit of both techniques was explored. An explorative treatment planning study involving ten patients, previously treated with VMAT (Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy) for 50 Gy in 25 fractions for locally advanced, node-positive breast cancer, was carried out using proton pencil beam therapy with a fixed relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1 and helium therapy with a variable RBE described by the mMKM (modified microdosimetric kinetic model). Results indicated that target coverage was improved with particle therapy for both the clinical target volume and especially the internal mammary lymph nodes compared to VMAT. Median dose value analysis revealed that proton and helium plans provided lower dose on the left anterior descending artery (LAD), heart, lungs and right breast than VMAT. Notably, helium therapy exhibited improved ipsilateral lung sparing over protons. Employing NTCP models as available in the literature, helium therapy showed a lower probability of grade ≤ 2 radiation pneumonitis (22% for photons, 5% for protons and 2% for helium ions), while both proton and helium ions reduce the probability of major coronary events with respect to VMAT.

Proton versus photon therapy for high-risk prostate cancer with dose escalation of dominant intraprostatic lesions: a preliminary planning study

Background and purpose

This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of safe-dose escalation to dominant intraprostatic lesions (DILs) and assess the clinical impact using dose-volume (DV) and biological metrics in photon and proton therapy. Biological parameters defined as late grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) derived from planned (D P) and accumulated dose (D A) were utilized.

Materials and methods

In total, 10 patients with high-risk prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI-defined DILs were investigated. Each patient had two plans with a focal boost to the DILs using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Plans were optimized to obtain DIL coverage while respecting the mandatory organ-at-risk constraints. For the planning evaluation, DV metrics, tumor control probability (TCP) for the DILs and whole prostate excluding the DILs (prostate-DILs), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the rectum and bladder were calculated. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyzing TCP and NTCP data.

Results

IMPT achieved a higher Dmean for the DILs compared to VMAT (IMPT: 68.1 GyRBE vs. VMAT: 66.6 Gy, p < 0.05). Intermediate-high rectal and bladder doses were lower for IMPT (p < 0.05), while the high-dose region (V60 Gy) remained comparable. IMPT-TCP for prostate-DIL were higher compared to VMAT (IMPT: 86%; α/β = 3, 94.3%; α/β = 1.5 vs. VMAT: 84.7%; α/β = 3, 93.9%; α/β = 1.5, p < 0.05). Likewise, IMPT obtained a moderately higher DIL TCP (IMPT: 97%; α/β = 3, 99.3%; α/β = 1.5 vs. VMAT: 95.9%; α/β = 3, 98.9%; α/β = 1.5, p < 0.05). Rectal D A-NTCP displayed the highest GI toxicity risk at 5.6%, and IMPT has a lower GI toxicity risk compared to VMAT-predicted Quantec-NTCP (p < 0.05). Bladder D P-NTCP projected a higher GU toxicity than D A-NTCP, with VMAT having the highest risk (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Dose escalation using IMPT is able to achieve a high TCP for the DILs, with the lowest rectal and bladder DV doses at the intermediate-high-dose range. The reduction in physical dose was translated into a lower NTCP (p < 0.05) for the bladder, although rectal toxicity remained equivalent.

DNA damage and repair dependencies of ionising radiation modalities

Radiotherapy is utilised in the treatment of ∼50% of all human cancers, which predominantly employs photon radiation. However, particle radiotherapy elicits significant benefits over conventional photons due to more precise dose deposition and increased linear energy transfer (LET) that generates an enhanced therapeutic response. Specifically, proton beam therapy (PBT) and carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) are characterised by a Bragg peak, which generates a low entrance radiation dose, with the majority of the energy deposition being defined within a small region which can be specifically targeted to the tumour, followed by a low exit dose. PBT is deemed relatively low-LET whereas CIRT is more densely ionising and therefore high LET. Despite the radiotherapy type, tumour cell killing relies heavily on the introduction of DNA damage that overwhelms the repair capacity of the tumour cells. It is known that DNA damage complexity increases with LET that leads to enhanced biological effectiveness, although the specific DNA repair pathways that are activated following the different radiation sources is unclear. This knowledge is required to determine whether specific proteins and enzymes within these pathways can be targeted to further increase the efficacy of the radiation. In this review, we provide an overview of the different radiation modalities and the DNA repair pathways that are responsive to these. We also provide up-to-date knowledge of studies examining the impact of LET and DNA damage complexity on DNA repair pathway choice, followed by evidence on how enzymes within these pathways could potentially be therapeutically exploited to further increase tumour radiosensitivity, and therefore radiotherapy efficacy.

Does variable RBE affect toxicity risks for mediastinal lymphoma patients? NTCP-based evaluation after proton therapy treatment

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.

A systematic review of clinical studies on variable proton Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE)

Recently, a number of clinical studies have explored links between possible Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) elevations and patient toxicities and/or image changes following proton therapy. Our objective was to perform a systematic review of such studies. We applied a "Problem [RBE], Intervention [Protons], Population [Patients], Outcome [Side effect]" search strategy to the PubMed database. From our search, we retrieved studies which: (a) performed novel voxel-wise analyses of patient effects versus physical dose and LET (n = 13), and (b) compared image changes between proton and photon cohorts with regard to proton RBE (n = 9). For each retrieved study, we extracted data regarding: primary tumour type; size of patient cohort; type of image change studied; image-registration method (deformable or rigid); LET calculation method, and statistical methodology. We compared and contrasted their methods in order to discuss the weight of clinical evidence for variable proton RBE. We concluded that clinical evidence for variable proton RBE remains statistically weak at present. Our principal recommendation is that proton centres and clinical trial teams collaborate to standardize follow-up protocols and statistical analysis methods, so that larger patient cohorts can ultimately be considered for RBE analyses.

Comparison of Estimated Late Toxicities between IMPT and IMRT Based on Multivariable NTCP Models for High-Risk Prostate Cancers Treated with Pelvic Nodal Radiation

Purpose

To compare the late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities (GU) estimated using multivariable normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models, between pencil-beam scanning proton beam therapy (PBT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) in patients of high-risk prostate cancers requiring pelvic nodal irradiation (PNI) using moderately hypofractionated regimen.

Materials and Methods

Twelve consecutive patients treated with PBT at our center were replanned with HT using the same planning goals. Six late GI and GU toxicity domains (stool frequency, rectal bleeding, fecal incontinence, dysuria, urinary incontinence, and hematuria) were estimated based on the published multivariable NTCP models. The ΔNTCP (difference in absolute NTCP between HT and PBT plans) for each of the toxicity domains was calculated. A one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to analyze distribution of data, and either a paired t test or a Wilcoxon matched-pair signed rank test was used to test statistical significance.

Results

Proton beam therapy and HT plans achieved adequate target coverage. Proton beam therapy plans led to significantly better sparing of bladder, rectum, and bowel bag especially in the intermediate range of 15 to 40 Gy, whereas doses to penile bulb and femoral heads were higher with PBT plans. The average ΔNTCP for grade (G)2 rectal bleeding, fecal incontinence, stool frequency, dysuria, urinary incontinence, and G1 hematuria was 12.17%, 1.67%, 2%, 5.83%, 2.42%, and 3.91%, respectively, favoring PBT plans. The average cumulative ΔNTCP for GI and GU toxicities (ΣΔNTCP) was 16.58% and 11.41%, respectively, favoring PBT. Using a model-based selection threshold of any G2 ΔNTCP >10%, 67% (8 patients) would be eligible for PBT.

Conclusion

Proton beam therapy plans led to superior sparing of organs at risk compared with HT, which translated to lower NTCP for late moderate GI and GU toxicities in patients of prostate cancer treated with PNI. For two-thirds of our patients, the difference in estimated absolute NTCP values between PBT and HT crossed the accepted threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

The impact of variable relative biological effectiveness in proton therapy for left-sided breast cancer when estimating normal tissue complications in the heart and lung

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical impact of relative biological effectiveness (RBE) variations in proton beam scanning treatment (PBS) for left-sided breast cancer versus the assumption of a fixed RBE of 1.1, particularly in the context of comparisons with photon-based three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Ten patients receiving radiation treatment to the whole breast/chest wall and regional lymph nodes were selected for each modality. For PBS, the dose distributions were re-calculated with both a fixed RBE and a variable RBE using an empirical RBE model. Dosimetric indices based on dose-volume histogram analysis were calculated for the entire heart wall, left anterior descending artery (LAD) and left lung. Furthermore, normal tissue toxicity probabilities for different endpoints were evaluated. The results show that applying a variable RBE significantly increases the RBE-weighted dose and consequently the calculated dosimetric indices increases for all organs compared to a fixed RBE. The mean dose to the heart and the maximum dose to the LAD and the left lung are significantly lower for PBS assuming a fixed RBE compared to 3DCRT. However, no statistically significant difference is seen when a variable RBE is applied. For a fixed RBE, lung toxicities are significantly lower compared to 3DCRT but when applying a variable RBE, no statistically significant differences are noted. A disadvantage is seen for VMAT over both PBS and 3DCRT. One-to-one plan comparison on 8 patients between PBS and 3DCRT shows similar results. We conclude that dosimetric analysis for all organs and toxicity estimation for the left lung might be underestimated when applying a fixed RBE for protons. Potential RBE variations should therefore be considered as uncertainty bands in outcome analysis.

A Nordic-Baltic perspective on indications for proton therapy with strategies for identification of proper patients

The beneficial effects of protons are primarily based on reduction of low to intermediate radiation dose bath to normal tissue surrounding the radiotherapy target volume. Despite promise for reduced long-term toxicity, the percentage of cancer patients treated with proton therapy remains low. This is probably caused by technical improvements in planning and delivery of photon therapy, and by high cost, low availability and lack of high-level evidence on proton therapy. A number of proton treatment facilities are under construction or have recently opened; there are now two operational Scandinavian proton centres and two more are under construction, thereby eliminating the availability hurdle. Even with the advantageous physical properties of protons, there is still substantial ambiguity and no established criteria related to which patients should receive proton therapy. This topic was discussed in a session at the Nordic Collaborative Workshop on Particle Therapy, held in Uppsala 14-15 November 2019. This paper resumes the Nordic-Baltic perspective on proton therapy indications and discusses strategies to identify patients for proton therapy. As for indications, neoplastic entities, target volume localisation, size, internal motion, age, second cancer predisposition, dose escalation and treatment plan comparison based on the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle or normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models were discussed. Importantly, the patient selection process should be integrated into the radiotherapy community and emphasis on collaboration across medical specialties, involvement of key decision makers and knowledge dissemination in general are important factors. An active Nordic-Baltic proton therapy organisation would also serve this purpose.

Radiation Track Structure: How the Spatial Distribution of Energy Deposition Drives Biological Response

Ionising radiation is incredibly effective at causing biological effects. This is due to the unique way energy is deposited along highly structured tracks of ionisation and excitation events, which results in correlation with sites of DNA damage from the nanometre to the micrometre scale. Correlation of these events along the track on the nanometre scale results in clustered damage, which not only results in the formation of DNA double-strand breaks (DSB), but also more difficult to repair complex DSB, which include additional damage within a few base pairs. The track structure varies significantly with radiation quality and the increase in relative biological effectiveness observed with increasing linear energy transfer in part corresponds to an increase in the probability and complexity of clustered DNA damage produced. Likewise, correlation over larger scales, associated with packing of DNA and associated chromosomes within the cell nucleus, can also have a major impact on the biological response. The proximity of the correlated damage along the track increases the probability of miss-repair through pairwise interactions resulting in an increase in probability and complexity of DNA fragments/deletions, mutations and chromosomal rearrangements. Understanding the mechanisms underlying the biological effectiveness of ionising radiation can provide an important insight into ways of increasing the efficacy of radiotherapy, as well as the risks associated with exposure. This requires a multi-scale approach for modelling, not only considering the physics of the track structure from the millimetre scale down to the nanometre scale, but also the structural packing of the DNA within the nucleus, the resulting chemistry in the context of the highly reactive environment of the nucleus, together with the subsequent biological response.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy with optional focal lesion ablative microboost in prostate cancer: Topical review and multicenter consensus

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is gaining interest by the recent publication of the first phase III trials on prostate SBRT and the promising results of many other phase II trials. Before long term results became available, the major concern for implementing SBRT in PCa in daily clinical practice was the potential risk of late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. A number of recently published trials, including late outcome and toxicity data, contributed to the growing evidence for implementation of SBRT for PCa in daily clinical practice. However, there exists substantial variability in delivering SBRT for PCa. The aim of this topical review is to present a number of prospective trials and retrospective analyses of SBRT in the treatment of PCa. We focus on the treatment strategies and techniques used in these trials. In addition, recent literature on a simultaneous integrated boost to the tumor lesion, which could create an additional value in the SBRT treatment of PCa, was described. Furthermore, we discuss the multicenter consensus of the FLAME consortium on SBRT for PCa with a focal boost to the macroscopic intraprostatic tumor nodule(s).