1
|
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
|
2
|
Vanderwaeren L, Dok R, Voordeckers K, Vandemaele L, Verstrepen KJ, Nuyts S. An Integrated Approach Reveals DNA Damage and Proteotoxic Stress as Main Effects of Proton Radiation in S. cerevisiae. Int J Mol Sci 2022; 23:ijms23105493. [PMID: 35628303 PMCID: PMC9145671 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23105493] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2022] [Revised: 05/09/2022] [Accepted: 05/12/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Proton radiotherapy (PRT) has the potential to reduce the normal tissue toxicity associated with conventional photon-based radiotherapy (X-ray therapy, XRT) because the active dose can be more directly targeted to a tumor. Although this dosimetric advantage of PRT is well known, the molecular mechanisms affected by PRT remain largely elusive. Here, we combined the molecular toolbox of the eukaryotic model Saccharomyces cerevisiae with a systems biology approach to investigate the physiological effects of PRT compared to XRT. Our data show that the DNA damage response and protein stress response are the major molecular mechanisms activated after both PRT and XRT. However, RNA-Seq revealed that PRT treatment evoked a stronger activation of genes involved in the response to proteotoxic stress, highlighting the molecular differences between PRT and XRT. Moreover, inhibition of the proteasome resulted in decreased survival in combination with PRT compared to XRT, not only further confirming that protons induced a stronger proteotoxic stress response, but also hinting at the potential of using proteasome inhibitors in combination with proton radiotherapy in clinical settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Vanderwaeren
- Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; (L.V.); (R.D.); (L.V.)
- Laboratory of Genetics and Genomics, Centre for Microbial and Plant Genetics, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;
- Laboratory for Systems Biology, VIB-KU Leuven Center for Microbiology, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Rüveyda Dok
- Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; (L.V.); (R.D.); (L.V.)
| | - Karin Voordeckers
- Laboratory of Genetics and Genomics, Centre for Microbial and Plant Genetics, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;
- Laboratory for Systems Biology, VIB-KU Leuven Center for Microbiology, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Laura Vandemaele
- Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; (L.V.); (R.D.); (L.V.)
- Laboratory of Genetics and Genomics, Centre for Microbial and Plant Genetics, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;
- Laboratory for Systems Biology, VIB-KU Leuven Center for Microbiology, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Kevin J. Verstrepen
- Laboratory of Genetics and Genomics, Centre for Microbial and Plant Genetics, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;
- Laboratory for Systems Biology, VIB-KU Leuven Center for Microbiology, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
- Correspondence: (K.J.V.); (S.N.); Tel.: +32-(0)16-75-1393 (K.J.V.); +32-1634-7600 (S.N.); Fax: +32-1634-7623 (S.N.)
| | - Sandra Nuyts
- Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; (L.V.); (R.D.); (L.V.)
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leuven Cancer Institute, University Hospitals Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
- Correspondence: (K.J.V.); (S.N.); Tel.: +32-(0)16-75-1393 (K.J.V.); +32-1634-7600 (S.N.); Fax: +32-1634-7623 (S.N.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Key biological mechanisms involved in high-LET radiation therapies with a focus on DNA damage and repair. Expert Rev Mol Med 2022; 24:e15. [PMID: 35357290 DOI: 10.1017/erm.2022.6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
DNA damage and repair studies are at the core of the radiation biology field and represent also the fundamental principles informing radiation therapy (RT). DNA damage levels are a function of radiation dose, whereas the type of damage and biological effects such as DNA damage complexity, depend on radiation quality that is linear energy transfer (LET). Both levels and types of DNA damage determine cell fate, which can include necrosis, apoptosis, senescence or autophagy. Herein, we present an overview of current RT modalities in the light of DNA damage and repair with emphasis on medium to high-LET radiation. Proton radiation is discussed along with its new adaptation of FLASH RT. RT based on α-particles includes brachytherapy and nuclear-RT, that is proton-boron capture therapy (PBCT) and boron-neutron capture therapy (BNCT). We also discuss carbon ion therapy along with combinatorial immune-based therapies and high-LET RT. For each RT modality, we summarise relevant DNA damage studies. Finally, we provide an update of the role of DNA repair in high-LET RT and we explore the biological responses triggered by differential LET and dose.
Collapse
|
4
|
DNA Damage Clustering after Ionizing Radiation and Consequences in the Processing of Chromatin Breaks. Molecules 2022; 27:molecules27051540. [PMID: 35268641 PMCID: PMC8911773 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27051540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2022] [Revised: 02/21/2022] [Accepted: 02/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Charged-particle radiotherapy (CPRT) utilizing low and high linear energy transfer (low-/high-LET) ionizing radiation (IR) is a promising cancer treatment modality having unique physical energy deposition properties. CPRT enables focused delivery of a desired dose to the tumor, thus achieving a better tumor control and reduced normal tissue toxicity. It increases the overall radiation tolerance and the chances of survival for the patient. Further improvements in CPRT are expected from a better understanding of the mechanisms governing the biological effects of IR and their dependence on LET. There is increasing evidence that high-LET IR induces more complex and even clustered DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) that are extremely consequential to cellular homeostasis, and which represent a considerable threat to genomic integrity. However, from the perspective of cancer management, the same DSB characteristics underpin the expected therapeutic benefit and are central to the rationale guiding current efforts for increased implementation of heavy ions (HI) in radiotherapy. Here, we review the specific cellular DNA damage responses (DDR) elicited by high-LET IR and compare them to those of low-LET IR. We emphasize differences in the forms of DSBs induced and their impact on DDR. Moreover, we analyze how the distinct initial forms of DSBs modulate the interplay between DSB repair pathways through the activation of DNA end resection. We postulate that at complex DSBs and DSB clusters, increased DNA end resection orchestrates an increased engagement of resection-dependent repair pathways. Furthermore, we summarize evidence that after exposure to high-LET IR, error-prone processes outcompete high fidelity homologous recombination (HR) through mechanisms that remain to be elucidated. Finally, we review the high-LET dependence of specific DDR-related post-translational modifications and the induction of apoptosis in cancer cells. We believe that in-depth characterization of the biological effects that are specific to high-LET IR will help to establish predictive and prognostic signatures for use in future individualized therapeutic strategies, and will enhance the prospects for the development of effective countermeasures for improved radiation protection during space travel.
Collapse
|
5
|
Paganetti H. Mechanisms and Review of Clinical Evidence of Variations in Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 112:222-236. [PMID: 34407443 PMCID: PMC8688199 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.08.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2021] [Revised: 07/14/2021] [Accepted: 08/10/2021] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
Proton therapy is increasingly being used as a radiation therapy modality. There is uncertainty about the biological effectiveness of protons relative to photon therapies as it depends on several physical and biological parameters. Radiation oncology currently applies a constant and generic value for the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1, which was chosen conservatively to ensure tumor coverage. The use of a constant value has been challenged particularly when considering normal tissue constraints. Potential variations in RBE have been assessed in several published reviews but have mostly focused on data from clonogenic cell survival experiments with unclear relevance for clinical proton therapy. The goal of this review is to put in vitro findings in relation to clinical observations. Relevant in vivo pathways determining RBE for tumors and normal tissues are outlined, including not only damage to tumor cells and parenchyma but also vascular damage and immune response. Furthermore, the current clinical evidence of varying RBE is reviewed. The assessment can serve as guidance for treatment planning, personalized dose prescriptions, and outcome analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
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]
|
7
|
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
|
8
|
Stanley FKT, Berger ND, Pearson DD, Danforth JM, Morrison H, Johnston JE, Warnock TS, Brenner DR, Chan JA, Pierce G, Cobb JA, Ploquin NP, Goodarzi AA. A high-throughput alpha particle irradiation system for monitoring DNA damage repair, genome instability and screening in human cell and yeast model systems. Nucleic Acids Res 2020; 48:e111. [PMID: 33010172 PMCID: PMC7641727 DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkaa782] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2020] [Revised: 08/27/2020] [Accepted: 09/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Ionizing radiation (IR) is environmentally prevalent and, depending on dose and linear energy transfer (LET), can elicit serious health effects by damaging DNA. Relative to low LET photon radiation (X-rays, gamma rays), higher LET particle radiation produces more disease causing, complex DNA damage that is substantially more challenging to resolve quickly or accurately. Despite the majority of human lifetime IR exposure involving long-term, repetitive, low doses of high LET alpha particles (e.g. radon gas inhalation), technological limitations to deliver alpha particles in the laboratory conveniently, repeatedly, over a prolonged period, in low doses and in an affordable, high-throughput manner have constrained DNA damage and repair research on this topic. To resolve this, we developed an inexpensive, high capacity, 96-well plate-compatible alpha particle irradiator capable of delivering adjustable, low mGy/s particle radiation doses in multiple model systems and on the benchtop of a standard laboratory. The system enables monitoring alpha particle effects on DNA damage repair and signalling, genome stability pathways, oxidative stress, cell cycle phase distribution, cell viability and clonogenic survival using numerous microscopy-based and physical techniques. Most importantly, this method is foundational for high-throughput genetic screening and small molecule testing in mammalian and yeast cells.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fintan K T Stanley
- Robson DNA Science Centre, Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Oncology, Charbonneau Cancer Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada
| | - N Daniel Berger
- Robson DNA Science Centre, Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Oncology, Charbonneau Cancer Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada
| | - Dustin D Pearson
- Robson DNA Science Centre, Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Oncology, Charbonneau Cancer Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada
| | - John M Danforth
- Robson DNA Science Centre, Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Oncology, Charbonneau Cancer Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada
| | - Hali Morrison
- Division of Medical Physics, Department of Oncology, Charbonneau Cancer Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada
| | - James E Johnston
- Robson DNA Science Centre, Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Oncology, Charbonneau Cancer Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada
| | - Tyler S Warnock
- Robson DNA Science Centre, Departments of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research and Community Health Sciences, Charbonneau Cancer Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada
| | - Darren R Brenner
- Robson DNA Science Centre, Departments of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research and Community Health Sciences, Charbonneau Cancer Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada
| | - Jennifer A Chan
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Charbonneau Cancer Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada
| | - Greg Pierce
- Division of Medical Physics, Department of Oncology, Charbonneau Cancer Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada
| | - Jennifer A Cobb
- Robson DNA Science Centre, Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Oncology, Charbonneau Cancer Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada
| | - Nicolas P Ploquin
- Division of Medical Physics, Department of Oncology, Charbonneau Cancer Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada
| | - Aaron A Goodarzi
- Robson DNA Science Centre, Departments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Oncology, Charbonneau Cancer Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Paganetti H, Blakely E, Carabe-Fernandez A, Carlson DJ, Das IJ, Dong L, Grosshans D, Held KD, Mohan R, Moiseenko V, Niemierko A, Stewart RD, Willers H. Report of the AAPM TG-256 on the relative biological effectiveness of proton beams in radiation therapy. Med Phys 2019; 46:e53-e78. [PMID: 30661238 DOI: 10.1002/mp.13390] [Citation(s) in RCA: 181] [Impact Index Per Article: 36.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2018] [Revised: 11/21/2018] [Accepted: 01/13/2019] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
The biological effectiveness of proton beams relative to photon beams in radiation therapy has been taken to be 1.1 throughout the history of proton therapy. While potentially appropriate as an average value, actual relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values may differ. This Task Group report outlines the basic concepts of RBE as well as the biophysical interpretation and mathematical concepts. The current knowledge on RBE variations is reviewed and discussed in the context of the current clinical use of RBE and the clinical relevance of RBE variations (with respect to physical as well as biological parameters). The following task group aims were designed to guide the current clinical practice: Assess whether the current clinical practice of using a constant RBE for protons should be revised or maintained. Identifying sites and treatment strategies where variable RBE might be utilized for a clinical benefit. Assess the potential clinical consequences of delivering biologically weighted proton doses based on variable RBE and/or LET models implemented in treatment planning systems. Recommend experiments needed to improve our current understanding of the relationships among in vitro, in vivo, and clinical RBE, and the research required to develop models. Develop recommendations to minimize the effects of uncertainties associated with proton RBE for well-defined tumor types and critical structures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Eleanor Blakely
- Biological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA
| | | | - David J Carlson
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Indra J Das
- New York University Langone Medical Center & Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Lei Dong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - David Grosshans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kathryn D Held
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Radhe Mohan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Vitali Moiseenko
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Andrzej Niemierko
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Robert D Stewart
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Henning Willers
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Oeck S, Szymonowicz K, Wiel G, Krysztofiak A, Lambert J, Koska B, Iliakis G, Timmermann B, Jendrossek V. Relating Linear Energy Transfer to the Formation and Resolution of DNA Repair Foci After Irradiation with Equal Doses of X-ray Photons, Plateau, or Bragg-Peak Protons. Int J Mol Sci 2018; 19:ijms19123779. [PMID: 30486506 PMCID: PMC6320817 DOI: 10.3390/ijms19123779] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2018] [Revised: 11/24/2018] [Accepted: 11/26/2018] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton beam therapy is increasingly applied for the treatment of human cancer, as it promises to reduce normal tissue damage. However, little is known about the relationship between linear energy transfer (LET), the type of DNA damage, and cellular repair mechanisms, particularly for cells irradiated with protons. We irradiated cultured cells delivering equal doses of X-ray photons, Bragg-peak protons, or plateau protons and used this set-up to quantitate initial DNA damage (mainly DNA double strand breaks (DSBs)), and to analyze kinetics of repair by detecting γH2A.X or 53BP1 using immunofluorescence. The results obtained validate the reliability of our set-up in delivering equal radiation doses under all conditions employed. Although the initial numbers of γH2A.X and 53BP1 foci scored were similar under the different irradiation conditions, it was notable that the maximum foci level was reached at 60 min after irradiation with Bragg-peak protons, as compared to 30 min for plateau protons and photons. Interestingly, Bragg-peak protons induced larger and irregularly shaped γH2A.X and 53BP1 foci. Additionally, the resolution of these foci was delayed. These results suggest that Bragg-peak protons induce DNA damage of increased complexity which is difficult to process by the cellular repair apparatus.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Oeck
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University of Duisburg-Essen, Medical School, Virchowstrasse 173, 45122 Essen, Germany.
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, 15 York Street, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
| | - Klaudia Szymonowicz
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University of Duisburg-Essen, Medical School, Virchowstrasse 173, 45122 Essen, Germany.
| | - Gesa Wiel
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University of Duisburg-Essen, Medical School, Virchowstrasse 173, 45122 Essen, Germany.
| | - Adam Krysztofiak
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University of Duisburg-Essen, Medical School, Virchowstrasse 173, 45122 Essen, Germany.
| | - Jamil Lambert
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen, University Hospital Essen, Am Muehlenbach 1, 45147 Essen, Germany.
| | - Benjamin Koska
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen, University Hospital Essen, Am Muehlenbach 1, 45147 Essen, Germany.
| | - George Iliakis
- Institute of Medical Radiation Biology; University of Duisburg-Essen; Medical School; Hufelandstr. 55, 45122 Essen, Germany.
| | - Beate Timmermann
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen, University Hospital Essen, Am Muehlenbach 1, 45147 Essen, Germany.
| | - Verena Jendrossek
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University of Duisburg-Essen, Medical School, Virchowstrasse 173, 45122 Essen, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
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
|
12
|
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]
|
13
|
Carbon Ion Radiotherapy: A Review of Clinical Experiences and Preclinical Research, with an Emphasis on DNA Damage/Repair. Cancers (Basel) 2017; 9:cancers9060066. [PMID: 28598362 PMCID: PMC5483885 DOI: 10.3390/cancers9060066] [Citation(s) in RCA: 96] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2017] [Revised: 05/21/2017] [Accepted: 06/06/2017] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Compared to conventional photon-based external beam radiation (PhXRT), carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) has superior dose distribution, higher linear energy transfer (LET), and a higher relative biological effectiveness (RBE). This enhanced RBE is driven by a unique DNA damage signature characterized by clustered lesions that overwhelm the DNA repair capacity of malignant cells. These physical and radiobiological characteristics imbue heavy ions with potent tumoricidal capacity, while having the potential for simultaneously maximally sparing normal tissues. Thus, CIRT could potentially be used to treat some of the most difficult to treat tumors, including those that are hypoxic, radio-resistant, or deep-seated. Clinical data, mostly from Japan and Germany, are promising, with favorable oncologic outcomes and acceptable toxicity. In this manuscript, we review the physical and biological rationales for CIRT, with an emphasis on DNA damage and repair, as well as providing a comprehensive overview of the translational and clinical data using CIRT.
Collapse
|
14
|
Held KD, Kawamura H, Kaminuma T, Paz AES, Yoshida Y, Liu Q, Willers H, Takahashi A. Effects of Charged Particles on Human Tumor Cells. Front Oncol 2016; 6:23. [PMID: 26904502 PMCID: PMC4751258 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2016.00023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 65] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2015] [Accepted: 01/21/2016] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
The use of charged particle therapy in cancer treatment is growing rapidly, in large part because the exquisite dose localization of charged particles allows for higher radiation doses to be given to tumor tissue while normal tissues are exposed to lower doses and decreased volumes of normal tissues are irradiated. In addition, charged particles heavier than protons have substantial potential clinical advantages because of their additional biological effects, including greater cell killing effectiveness, decreased radiation resistance of hypoxic cells in tumors, and reduced cell cycle dependence of radiation response. These biological advantages depend on many factors, such as endpoint, cell or tissue type, dose, dose rate or fractionation, charged particle type and energy, and oxygen concentration. This review summarizes the unique biological advantages of charged particle therapy and highlights recent research and areas of particular research needs, such as quantification of relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for various tumor types and radiation qualities, role of genetic background of tumor cells in determining response to charged particles, sensitivity of cancer stem-like cells to charged particles, role of charged particles in tumors with hypoxic fractions, and importance of fractionation, including use of hypofractionation, with charged particles.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathryn D Held
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA , USA
| | - Hidemasa Kawamura
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Gunma, Japan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan
| | - Takuya Kaminuma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center, Gunma, Japan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan
| | | | - Yukari Yoshida
- Gunma University Heavy Ion Medical Center , Gunma , Japan
| | - Qi Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA , USA
| | - Henning Willers
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA , USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Liu Q, Ghosh P, Magpayo N, Testa M, Tang S, Gheorghiu L, Biggs P, Paganetti H, Efstathiou JA, Lu HM, Held KD, Willers H. Lung Cancer Cell Line Screen Links Fanconi Anemia/BRCA Pathway Defects to Increased Relative Biological Effectiveness of Proton Radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 91:1081-9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.12.046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 67] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2014] [Revised: 12/20/2014] [Accepted: 12/24/2014] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|