1
|
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
|
2
|
Toussaint L, Indelicato DJ, Muren LP, Stokkevåg CH. Risk of second primary cancer from proton arc therapy of pediatric brain tumors. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2023; 27:100480. [PMID: 37655121 PMCID: PMC10465935 DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2023.100480] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2023] [Revised: 07/31/2023] [Accepted: 08/02/2023] [Indexed: 09/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Proton arc therapy (PAT) is currently explored for clinical implementation, despite its associated low-dose bath. This study therefore aimed at evaluating the risk of radiation-induced second primary cancer (SPC) for PAT in pediatric brain tumor patients. Two brain-specific models for SPC induction were applied in five cases to compare volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and PAT surrogate plans. The PAT integral dose was reduced by a median of 29% compared to VMAT, and 17% compared to IMPT. For both models, the estimated SPC risks were consistently the lowest for PAT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Toussaint
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Daniel J Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Ludvig P Muren
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Camilla H Stokkevåg
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Cao W, Li Y, Zhang X, Poenisch F, Yepes P, Sahoo N, Grosshans D, McGovern S, Gunn GB, Frank SJ, Zhu XR. Intensity modulated proton arc therapy via geometry-based energy selection for ependymoma. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2023:e13954. [PMID: 36913484 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13954] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2022] [Revised: 02/06/2023] [Accepted: 02/14/2023] [Indexed: 03/14/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE We developed and tested a novel method of creating intensity modulated proton arc therapy (IMPAT) plans that uses computing resources similar to those for regular intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans and may offer a dosimetric benefit for patients with ependymoma or similar tumor geometries. METHODS Our IMPAT planning method consists of a geometry-based energy selection step with major scanning spot contributions as inputs computed using ray-tracing and single-Gaussian approximation of lateral spot profiles. Based on the geometric relation of scanning spots and dose voxels, our energy selection module selects a minimum set of energy layers at each gantry angle such that each target voxel is covered by sufficient scanning spots as specified by the planner, with dose contributions above the specified threshold. Finally, IMPAT plans are generated by robustly optimizing scanning spots of the selected energy layers using a commercial proton treatment planning system (TPS). The IMPAT plan quality was assessed for four ependymoma patients. Reference three-field IMPT plans were created with similar planning objective functions and compared with the IMPAT plans. RESULTS In all plans, the prescribed dose covered 95% of the clinical target volume (CTV) while maintaining similar maximum doses for the brainstem. While IMPAT and IMPT achieved comparable plan robustness, the IMPAT plans achieved better homogeneity and conformity than the IMPT plans. The IMPAT plans also exhibited higher relative biological effectiveness (RBE) enhancement than did the corresponding reference IMPT plans for the CTV in all four patients and brainstem in three of them. CONCLUSIONS The proposed method demonstrated potential as an efficient technique for IMPAT planning and may offer a dosimetric benefit for patients with ependymoma or tumors in close proximity to critical organs. IMPAT plans created using this method had elevated RBE enhancement associated with increased linear energy transfer (LET) in both targets and abutting critical organs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wenhua Cao
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Yupeng Li
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Xiaodong Zhang
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Falk Poenisch
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Pablo Yepes
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.,Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Narayan Sahoo
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David Grosshans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Susan McGovern
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - G Brandon Gunn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Steven J Frank
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Xiaorong R Zhu
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Engwall E, Battinelli C, Wase V, Marthin O, Glimelius L, Bokrantz R, Andersson B, Fredriksson A. Fast robust optimization of proton PBS arc therapy plans using early energy layer selection and spot assignment. Phys Med Biol 2022; 67. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac55a6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2021] [Accepted: 02/16/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Objective. Proton pencil-beam scanning arcs (PBS arcs) have gained much attention during the past years, due to its potential for increased clinical benefit compared to conventional proton therapy. Previous studies on PBS arcs have primarily been focused on plan quality, and lately efforts have been made to reduce the delivery time. However, the methods presented so far suffer from slow optimization processes. Approach. We present a new method for fast robust optimization of PBS arc plans. The new method assigns a single energy layer per discretized direction prior to spot weight optimization and reduces the number of initial spots considerably compared to conventional methods. We used the new method for three prostate cancer patients with a prescribed dose to the CTV of 77 GyRBE in 35 fractions. For each of the patients, four plans were created: 2-beam IMPT (2IMPT), 1-beam PBS arc (1Arc), 1-beam PBS arc without focus on reducing upward energy jumps (1Arc_unseq) and two-beam PBS arc (2Arc). Main results. All PBS arc plans show a reduced integral dose compared to their respective 2IMPT plans. In the nominal case, the average CTV D98 and D2 metrics over the three patients were best for the 2Arc, followed by 2IMPT (
D
98
¯
/
D
2
¯
:
7523/7986 cGyRBE (2IMPT), 7478/7984 cGy (1Arc), 7486/7951 cGy (1Arc_unseq), 7531/7951 cGyRBE (2Arc)). The average robust target coverage in terms of V95 of the voxelwise minimum dose distribution (evaluated over 42 scenarios) was: 98.0% (2IMPT), 88.6% (1Arc), 92.5% (1Arc_unseq), 97.3% (2Arc). The optimization time, including spot selection and spot dose computation, is longest for the 2Arc plan, but is below 6 min for all patients. The maximum estimated delivery time for all types of arc plans is just above 5 min Significance. The ability for efficient treatment planning constitutes an important step towards clinical introduction of proton PBS arcs.
Collapse
|
5
|
Proton Minibeam Radiation Therapy and Arc Therapy: Proof of Concept of a Winning Alliance. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 14:cancers14010116. [PMID: 35008280 PMCID: PMC8749801 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14010116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2021] [Revised: 12/20/2021] [Accepted: 12/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Normal tissue’s morbidity continues to limit the increase in the therapeutic index in radiation therapy. This study explores the potential advantages of combining proton arc therapy and proton minibeam radiation therapy, which have already individually shown a significant normal tissue’s sparing. This alliance aims to integrate the benefits of those techniques in a single approach. Abstract (1) Background: Proton Arc Therapy and Proton Minibeam Radiation Therapy are two novel therapeutic approaches with the potential to lower the normal tissue complication probability, widening the therapeutic window for radioresistant tumors. While the benefits of both modalities have been individually evaluated, their combination and its potential advantages are being assessed in this proof-of-concept study for the first time. (2) Methods: Monte Carlo simulations were employed to evaluate the dose and LET distributions in brain tumor irradiations. (3) Results: a net reduction in the dose to normal tissues (up to 90%), and the preservation of the spatial fractionation of the dose were achieved for all configurations evaluated. Additionally, Proton Minibeam Arc Therapy (pMBAT) reduces the volumes exposed to high-dose and high-LET values at expense of increased low-dose and intermediate-LET values. (4) Conclusions: pMBAT enhances the individual benefits of proton minibeams while keeping those of conventional proton arc therapy. These results might facilitate the path towards patients’ treatments since lower peak doses in normal tissues would be needed than in the case of a single array of proton minibeams.
Collapse
|
6
|
Yap J, De Franco A, Sheehy S. Future Developments in Charged Particle Therapy: Improving Beam Delivery for Efficiency and Efficacy. Front Oncol 2021; 11:780025. [PMID: 34956897 PMCID: PMC8697351 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.780025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2021] [Accepted: 11/16/2021] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
The physical and clinical benefits of charged particle therapy (CPT) are well recognized. However, the availability of CPT and complete exploitation of dosimetric advantages are still limited by high facility costs and technological challenges. There are extensive ongoing efforts to improve upon these, which will lead to greater accessibility, superior delivery, and therefore better treatment outcomes. Yet, the issue of cost remains a primary hurdle as utility of CPT is largely driven by the affordability, complexity and performance of current technology. Modern delivery techniques are necessary but limited by extended treatment times. Several of these aspects can be addressed by developments in the beam delivery system (BDS) which determines the overall shaping and timing capabilities enabling high quality treatments. The energy layer switching time (ELST) is a limiting constraint of the BDS and a determinant of the beam delivery time (BDT), along with the accelerator and other factors. This review evaluates the delivery process in detail, presenting the limitations and developments for the BDS and related accelerator technology, toward decreasing the BDT. As extended BDT impacts motion and has dosimetric implications for treatment, we discuss avenues to minimize the ELST and overview the clinical benefits and feasibility of a large energy acceptance BDS. These developments support the possibility of advanced modalities and faster delivery for a greater range of treatment indications which could also further reduce costs. Further work to realize methodologies such as volumetric rescanning, FLASH, arc, multi-ion and online image guided therapies are discussed. In this review we examine how increased treatment efficiency and efficacy could be achieved with improvements in beam delivery and how this could lead to faster and higher quality treatments for the future of CPT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacinta Yap
- School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Andrea De Franco
- IFMIF Accelerator Development Group, Rokkasho Fusion Institute, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Aomori, Japan
| | - Suzie Sheehy
- School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
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
|
8
|
Vidal M, Moignier C, Patriarca A, Sotiropoulos M, Schneider T, De Marzi L. Future technological developments in proton therapy - A predicted technological breakthrough. Cancer Radiother 2021; 25:554-564. [PMID: 34272182 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2021.06.017] [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: 06/07/2021] [Accepted: 06/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
In the current spectrum of cancer treatments, despite high costs, a lack of robust evidence based on clinical outcomes or technical and radiobiological uncertainties, particle therapy and in particular proton therapy (PT) is rapidly growing. Despite proton therapy being more than fifty years old (first proposed by Wilson in 1946) and more than 220,000 patients having been treated with in 2020, many technological challenges remain and numerous new technical developments that must be integrated into existing systems. This article presents an overview of on-going technical developments and innovations that we felt were most important today, as well as those that have the potential to significantly shape the future of proton therapy. Indeed, efforts have been done continuously to improve the efficiency of a PT system, in terms of cost, technology and delivery technics, and a number of different developments pursued in the accelerator field will first be presented. Significant developments are also underway in terms of transport and spatial resolution achievable with pencil beam scanning, or conformation of the dose to the target: we will therefore discuss beam focusing and collimation issues which are important parameters for the development of these techniques, as well as proton arc therapy. State of the art and alternative approaches to adaptive PT and the future of adaptive PT will finally be reviewed. Through these overviews, we will finally see how advances in these different areas will allow the potential for robust dose shaping in proton therapy to be maximised, probably foreshadowing a future era of maturity for the PT technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Vidal
- Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, Fédération Claude Lalanne, 227, avenue de la Lanterne, 06200 Nice, France
| | - C Moignier
- Centre François Baclesse, Department of Medical Physics, Centre de protonthérapie de Normandie, 14000 Caen, France
| | - A Patriarca
- Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Radiation oncology department, Centre de protonthérapie d'Orsay, Campus universitaire, bâtiment 101, 91898 Orsay, France
| | - M Sotiropoulos
- Institut Curie, Université PSL, CNRS UMR3347, Inserm U1021, Signalisation radiobiologie et cancer, 91400 Orsay, France
| | - T Schneider
- Institut Curie, Université PSL, CNRS UMR3347, Inserm U1021, Signalisation radiobiologie et cancer, 91400 Orsay, France
| | - L De Marzi
- Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Radiation oncology department, Centre de protonthérapie d'Orsay, Campus universitaire, bâtiment 101, 91898 Orsay, France; Institut Curie, PSL Research University, University Paris Saclay, Inserm LITO, Campus universitaire, 91898 Orsay, France.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Mein S, Tessonnier T, Kopp B, Harrabi S, Abdollahi A, Debus J, Haberer T, Mairani A. Spot-Scanning Hadron Arc (SHArc) Therapy: A Study With Light and Heavy Ions. Adv Radiat Oncol 2021; 6:100661. [PMID: 33817410 PMCID: PMC8010580 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100661] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2020] [Revised: 12/29/2020] [Accepted: 01/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the clinical potential of spot-scanning hadron arc (SHArc) therapy with a heavy-ion gantry. METHODS AND MATERIALS A series of in silico studies was conducted via treatment plan optimization in FRoG and the RayStation TPS to compare SHArc therapy against reference plans using conventional techniques with single, parallel-opposed, and 3-field configurations for 3 clinical particle beams (protons [p], helium [4He], and carbon [12C] ions). Tests were performed on water-equivalent cylindrical phantoms for simple targets and clinical-like scenarios with an organ-at-risk in proximity of the target. Effective dose and dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETD) distributions for SHArc were evaluated against conventional planning techniques applying the modified microdosimetric kinetic model for considering bio-effect with (α/β)x = 2 Gy. A model for hypoxia-induced tumor radio-resistance was developed for particle therapy with dependence on oxygen concentration and particle species/energy (Zeff/β)2 to investigate the impact on effective dose. RESULTS SHArc plans exhibited similar target coverage with unique treatment attributes and distributions compared with conventional planning, with carbon ions demonstrating the greatest potential for tumor control and normal tissue sparing among the arc techniques. All SHArc plans exhibited a low-dose bath outside the target volume with a reduced maximum dose in normal tissues compared with single, parallel-opposed, and 3-field configuration plans. Moreover, favorable LETD distributions were made possible using the SHArc approach, with maximum LETD in the r = 5 mm tumor core (~8 keVμm-1, ~30 keVμm-1, and ~150 keVμm-1 for p, 4He, and 12C ions, respectively) and reductions of high-LET regions in normal tissues and organs-at-risk compared with static treatment beam delivery. CONCLUSION SHArc therapy offers potential treatment benefits such as increased normal tissue sparing. Without explicit consideration of oxygen concentration during treatment planning and optimization, SHArc-C may mitigate tumor hypoxia-induced loss of efficacy. Findings justify further development of robust SHArc treatment planning toward potential clinical translation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stewart Mein
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), 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
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Benedikt Kopp
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), 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
- Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Germany
| | - Semi Harrabi
- 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
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Amir Abdollahi
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), 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
| | - Jürgen Debus
- 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
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Haberer
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- 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
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Mazal A, Vera Sanchez JA, Sanchez-Parcerisa D, Udias JM, España S, Sanchez-Tembleque V, Fraile LM, Bragado P, Gutierrez-Uzquiza A, Gordillo N, Garcia G, Castro Novais J, Perez Moreno JM, Mayorga Ortiz L, Ilundain Idoate A, Cremades Sendino M, Ares C, Miralbell R, Schreuder N. Biological and Mechanical Synergies to Deal With Proton Therapy Pitfalls: Minibeams, FLASH, Arcs, and Gantryless Rooms. Front Oncol 2021; 10:613669. [PMID: 33585238 PMCID: PMC7874206 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.613669] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2020] [Accepted: 12/02/2020] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton therapy has advantages and pitfalls comparing with photon therapy in radiation therapy. Among the limitations of protons in clinical practice we can selectively mention: uncertainties in range, lateral penumbra, deposition of higher LET outside the target, entrance dose, dose in the beam path, dose constraints in critical organs close to the target volume, organ movements and cost. In this review, we combine proposals under study to mitigate those pitfalls by using individually or in combination: (a) biological approaches of beam management in time (very high dose rate “FLASH” irradiations in the order of 100 Gy/s) and (b) modulation in space (a combination of mini-beams of millimetric extent), together with mechanical approaches such as (c) rotational techniques (optimized in partial arcs) and, in an effort to reduce cost, (d) gantry-less delivery systems. In some cases, these proposals are synergic (e.g., FLASH and minibeams), in others they are hardly compatible (mini-beam and rotation). Fixed lines have been used in pioneer centers, or for specific indications (ophthalmic, radiosurgery,…), they logically evolved to isocentric gantries. The present proposals to produce fixed lines are somewhat controversial. Rotational techniques, minibeams and FLASH in proton therapy are making their way, with an increasing degree of complexity in these three approaches, but with a high interest in the basic science and clinical communities. All of them must be proven in clinical applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Daniel Sanchez-Parcerisa
- Grupo de Física Nuclear and IPARCOS, U. Complutense Madrid, CEI Moncloa, Madrid, Spain.,Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.,Sedecal Molecular Imaging, Madrid, Spain
| | - Jose Manuel Udias
- Grupo de Física Nuclear and IPARCOS, U. Complutense Madrid, CEI Moncloa, Madrid, Spain.,Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| | - Samuel España
- Grupo de Física Nuclear and IPARCOS, U. Complutense Madrid, CEI Moncloa, Madrid, Spain.,Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| | - Victor Sanchez-Tembleque
- Grupo de Física Nuclear and IPARCOS, U. Complutense Madrid, CEI Moncloa, Madrid, Spain.,Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| | - Luis Mario Fraile
- Grupo de Física Nuclear and IPARCOS, U. Complutense Madrid, CEI Moncloa, Madrid, Spain.,Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain
| | - Paloma Bragado
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.,Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. U. Complutense, Madrid, Spain
| | - Alvaro Gutierrez-Uzquiza
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.,Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. U. Complutense, Madrid, Spain
| | - Nuria Gordillo
- Department of Applied Physics, U. Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.,Center for Materials Microanalysis, (CMAM), U. Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | - Gaston Garcia
- Center for Materials Microanalysis, (CMAM), U. Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Carme Ares
- Centro de Protonterapia Quironsalud, Madrid, Spain
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Bertolet A, Cortés-Giraldo M, Carabe-Fernandez A. Implementation of the microdosimetric kinetic model using analytical microdosimetry in a treatment planning system for proton therapy. Phys Med 2021; 81:69-76. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.11.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2020] [Revised: 10/17/2020] [Accepted: 11/19/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
|