1
|
Chattaraj A, Selvam TP. Calculation of biological effectiveness of SOBP proton beams: a TOPAS Monte Carlo study. Biomed Phys Eng Express 2024; 10:035004. [PMID: 38377599 DOI: 10.1088/2057-1976/ad2b02] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2023] [Accepted: 02/20/2024] [Indexed: 02/22/2024]
Abstract
Objective.This study aims to investigate the biological effectiveness of Spread-Out Bragg-Peak (SOBP) proton beams with initial kinetic energies 50-250 MeV at different depths in water using TOPAS Monte Carlo code.Approach.The study modelled SOBP proton beams using TOPAS time feature. Various LET-based models and Repair-Misrepair-Fixation model were employed to calculate Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) for V79 cell lines at different on-axis depths based on TOPAS. Microdosimetric Kinetic Model and biological weighting function-based models, which utilize microdosimetric distributions, were also used to estimate the RBE. A phase-space-based method was adopted for calculating microdosimetric distributions.Main results.The trend of variation of RBE with depth is similar in all the RBE models, but the absolute RBE values vary based on the calculation models. RBE sharply increases at the distal edge of SOBP proton beams. In the entrance region of all the proton beams, RBE values at 4 Gy i.e. RBE(4 Gy) resulting from different models are in the range of 1.04-1.07, comparable to clinically used generic RBE of 1.1. Moving from the proximal to distal end of the SOBP, RBE(4 Gy) is in the range of 1.15-1.33, 1.13-1.21, 1.11-1.17, 1.13-1.18 and 1.17-1.21, respectively for 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 MeV SOBP beams, whereas at the distal dose fall-off region, these values are 1.68, 1.53, 1.44, 1.42 and 1.40, respectively.Significance.The study emphasises application of depth-, dose- and energy- dependent RBE values in clinical application of proton beams.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arghya Chattaraj
- Radiological Physics and Advisory Division, Health, Safety and Environment Group, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai-400 085, India
- Homi Bhabha National Institute, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai-400 094, India
| | - T Palani Selvam
- Radiological Physics and Advisory Division, Health, Safety and Environment Group, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai-400 085, India
- Homi Bhabha National Institute, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai-400 094, India
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Upadhyay R, Liao K, Grosshans DR, McGovern SL, Frances McAleer M, Zaky W, Chintagumpala MM, Mahajan A, Nana Yeboa D, Paulino AC. Quantifying the risk and dosimetric variables of symptomatic brainstem injury after proton beam radiation in pediatric brain tumors. Neuro Oncol 2022; 24:1571-1581. [PMID: 35157767 PMCID: PMC9435496 DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noac044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Brainstem toxicity after radiation therapy (RT) is a devastating complication and a particular concern with proton radiation (PBT). We investigated the incidence and clinical correlates of brainstem injury in pediatric brain tumors treated with PBT. METHODS All patients <21 years with brain tumors treated with PBT at our institution from 2007-2019, with a brainstem Dmean >30 Gy and/or Dmax >50.4 Gy were included. Symptomatic brainstem injury (SBI) was defined as any new or progressive cranial neuropathy, ataxia, and/or motor weakness with corresponding radiographic abnormality within brainstem. RESULTS A total of 595 patients were reviewed and 468 (medulloblastoma = 200, gliomas = 114, ependymoma = 87, ATRT = 43) met our inclusion criteria. Median age at RT was 6.3 years and median prescribed RT dose was 54Gy [RBE]. Fifteen patients (3.2%) developed SBI, at a median of 4 months after RT. Grades 2, 3, 4, and 5 brainstem injuries were seen in 7, 5, 1, and 2 patients respectively. Asymptomatic radiographic changes were seen in 51 patients (10.9%). SBI was significantly higher in patients with age ≤3 years, female gender, ATRT histology, patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue, and those not receiving craniospinal irradiation. Patients with SBI had a significantly higher V50-52. In 2014, our institution started using strict brainstem dose constraints (Dmax ≤57 Gy, Dmean ≤52.4 Gy, and V54≤10%). There was a trend towards decrease in SBI from 4.4% (2007-2013) to 1.5% (2014-2019) (P = .089) without affecting survival. CONCLUSION Our results suggest a low risk of SBI after PBT for pediatric brain tumors, comparable to photon therapy. A lower risk was seen after adopting strict brainstem dose constraints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rituraj Upadhyay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The James Cancer Centre Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Kaiping Liao
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - David R Grosshans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Susan L McGovern
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Mary Frances McAleer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Wafik Zaky
- Department of Pediatrics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | - Anita Mahajan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Debra Nana Yeboa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Arnold C Paulino
- Corresponding Author: Arnold C. Paulino, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 0097, Houston, TX 77030, USA ()
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Prasanna PG, Rawojc K, Guha C, Buchsbaum JC, Miszczyk JU, Coleman CN. Normal Tissue Injury Induced by Photon and Proton Therapies: Gaps and Opportunities. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 110:1325-1340. [PMID: 33640423 PMCID: PMC8496269 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.02.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2020] [Revised: 01/20/2021] [Accepted: 02/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Despite technological advances in radiation therapy (RT) and cancer treatment, patients still experience adverse effects. Proton therapy (PT) has emerged as a valuable RT modality that can improve treatment outcomes. Normal tissue injury is an important determinant of the outcome; therefore, for this review, we analyzed 2 databases: (1) clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov and (2) the literature on PT in PubMed, which shows a steady increase in the number of publications. Most studies in PT registered with ClinicalTrials.gov with results available are nonrandomized early phase studies with a relatively small number of patients enrolled. From the larger database of nonrandomized trials, we listed adverse events in specific organs/sites among patients with cancer who are treated with photons and protons to identify critical issues. The present data demonstrate dosimetric advantages of PT with favorable toxicity profiles and form the basis for comparative randomized prospective trials. A comparative analysis of 3 recently completed randomized trials for normal tissue toxicities suggests that for early stage non-small cell lung cancer, no meaningful comparison could be made between stereotactic body RT and stereotactic body PT due to low accrual (NCT01511081). In addition, for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer, a comparison of intensity modulated RTwith passive scattering PT (now largely replaced by spot-scanned intensity modulated PT), PT did not provide any benefit in normal tissue toxicity or locoregional failure over photon therapy. Finally, for locally advanced esophageal cancer, proton beam therapy provided a lower total toxicity burden but did not improve progression-free survival and quality of life (NCT01512589). The purpose of this review is to inform the limitations of current trials looking at protons and photons, considering that advances in technology, physics, and biology are a continuum, and to advocate for future trials geared toward accurate precision RT that need to be viewed as an iterative process in a defined path toward delivering optimal radiation treatment. A foundational understanding of the radiobiologic differences between protons and photons in tumor and normal tissue responses is fundamental to, and necessary for, determining the suitability of a given type of biologically optimized RT to a patient or cohort.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pataje G Prasanna
- Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
| | - Kamila Rawojc
- The University Hospital in Krakow, Department of Endocrinology, Nuclear Medicine Unit, Krakow, Poland
| | - Chandan Guha
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York
| | - Jeffrey C Buchsbaum
- Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| | - Justyna U Miszczyk
- Department of Experimental Physics of Complex Systems, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
| | - C Norman Coleman
- Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Coleman CN, Buchsbaum JC, Prasanna PGS, Capala J, Obcemea C, Espey MG, Ahmed MM, Hong JA, Vikram B. Moving Forward in the Next Decade: Radiation Oncology Sciences for Patient-Centered Cancer Care. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2021; 5:pkab046. [PMID: 34350377 PMCID: PMC8328099 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkab046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2021] [Revised: 04/15/2021] [Accepted: 04/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
In a time of rapid advances in science and technology, the opportunities for radiation oncology are undergoing transformational change. The linkage between and understanding of the physical dose and induced biological perturbations are opening entirely new areas of application. The ability to define anatomic extent of disease and the elucidation of the biology of metastases has brought a key role for radiation oncology for treating metastatic disease. That radiation can stimulate and suppress subpopulations of the immune response makes radiation a key participant in cancer immunotherapy. Targeted radiopharmaceutical therapy delivers radiation systemically with radionuclides and carrier molecules selected for their physical, chemical, and biochemical properties. Radiation oncology usage of “big data” and machine learning and artificial intelligence adds the opportunity to markedly change the workflow for clinical practice while physically targeting and adapting radiation fields in real time. Future precision targeting requires multidimensional understanding of the imaging, underlying biology, and anatomical relationship among tissues for radiation as spatial and temporal “focused biology.” Other means of energy delivery are available as are agents that can be activated by radiation with increasing ability to target treatments. With broad applicability of radiation in cancer treatment, radiation therapy is a necessity for effective cancer care, opening a career path for global health serving the medically underserved in geographically isolated populations as a substantial societal contribution addressing health disparities. Understanding risk and mitigation of radiation injury make it an important discipline for and beyond cancer care including energy policy, space exploration, national security, and global partnerships.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Norman Coleman
- Correspondence to: C. Norman Coleman, MD, Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, MSC 9727, Bethesda, MD 20892-9727, USA (e-mail: )
| | - Jeffrey C Buchsbaum
- Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Pataje G S Prasanna
- Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Jacek Capala
- Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Ceferino Obcemea
- Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Michael G Espey
- Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Mansoor M Ahmed
- Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Julie A Hong
- Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Bhadrasain Vikram
- Radiation Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Buchsbaum JC. Comments on "Temporal lobe sparing radiotherapy with photons or protons for cognitive function preservation in paediatric craniopharyngioma" by Toussaint, et al.: Prior Similar Field Arrangement Work and a Need for Variable RBE Use. Radiother Oncol 2021; 158:327-329. [PMID: 33548283 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.11.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2020] [Revised: 11/15/2020] [Accepted: 11/18/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffrey C Buchsbaum
- Radiation Research Program, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Implementation of New Biology-Based Radiation Therapy Technology: When Is It Ready So "Perfect Makes Practice?". Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 105:934-937. [PMID: 31748143 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.08.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2019] [Revised: 08/08/2019] [Accepted: 08/11/2019] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
|
7
|
Haas-Kogan D, Indelicato D, Paganetti H, Esiashvili N, Mahajan A, Yock T, Flampouri S, MacDonald S, Fouladi M, Stephen K, Kalapurakal J, Terezakis S, Kooy H, Grosshans D, Makrigiorgos M, Mishra K, Poussaint TY, Cohen K, Fitzgerald T, Gondi V, Liu A, Michalski J, Mirkovic D, Mohan R, Perkins S, Wong K, Vikram B, Buchsbaum J, Kun L. National Cancer Institute Workshop on Proton Therapy for Children: Considerations Regarding Brainstem Injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 101:152-168. [PMID: 29619963 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.01.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 115] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2017] [Revised: 12/21/2017] [Accepted: 01/01/2018] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Proton therapy can allow for superior avoidance of normal tissues. A widespread consensus has been reached that proton therapy should be used for patients with curable pediatric brain tumor to avoid critical central nervous system structures. Brainstem necrosis is a potentially devastating, but rare, complication of radiation. Recent reports of brainstem necrosis after proton therapy have raised concerns over the potential biological differences among radiation modalities. We have summarized findings from the National Cancer Institute Workshop on Proton Therapy for Children convened in May 2016 to examine brainstem injury. METHODS AND MATERIALS Twenty-seven physicians, physicists, and researchers from 17 institutions with expertise met to discuss this issue. The definition of brainstem injury, imaging of this entity, clinical experience with photons and photons, and potential biological differences among these radiation modalities were thoroughly discussed and reviewed. The 3 largest US pediatric proton therapy centers collectively summarized the incidence of symptomatic brainstem injury and physics details (planning, dosimetry, delivery) for 671 children with focal posterior fossa tumors treated with protons from 2006 to 2016. RESULTS The average rate of symptomatic brainstem toxicity from the 3 largest US pediatric proton centers was 2.38%. The actuarial rate of grade ≥2 brainstem toxicity was successfully reduced from 12.7% to 0% at 1 center after adopting modified radiation guidelines. Guidelines for treatment planning and current consensus brainstem constraints for proton therapy are presented. The current knowledge regarding linear energy transfer (LET) and its relationship to relative biological effectiveness (RBE) are defined. We review the current state of LET-based planning. CONCLUSIONS Brainstem injury is a rare complication of radiation therapy for both photons and protons. Substantial dosimetric data have been collected for brainstem injury after proton therapy, and established guidelines to allow for safe delivery of proton radiation have been defined. Increased capability exists to incorporate LET optimization; however, further research is needed to fully explore the capabilities of LET- and RBE-based planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daphne Haas-Kogan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Daniel Indelicato
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Natia Esiashvili
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Anita Mahajan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Torunn Yock
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Stella Flampouri
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Shannon MacDonald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Maryam Fouladi
- Department of Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Kry Stephen
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - John Kalapurakal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Stephanie Terezakis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institute, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Hanne Kooy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - David Grosshans
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mike Makrigiorgos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Kavita Mishra
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Tina Young Poussaint
- Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Kenneth Cohen
- Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins Medical Institute, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Thomas Fitzgerald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts
| | - Vinai Gondi
- Northwestern Medicine Chicago Proton Center, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Arthur Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Jeff Michalski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Dragan Mirkovic
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Radhe Mohan
- Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Stephanie Perkins
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Kenneth Wong
- Children's Hospital of Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angles, California
| | - Bhadrasain Vikram
- Radiation Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Jeff Buchsbaum
- Radiation Research Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland
| | - Larry Kun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Radiation-agent combinations for glioblastoma: challenges in drug development and future considerations. J Neurooncol 2017; 134:551-557. [PMID: 28560665 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-017-2458-0] [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: 02/02/2017] [Accepted: 04/30/2017] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
Glioblastoma is an aggressive disease characterized by moderate initial response rates to first-line radiation-chemotherapy intervention followed by low poor response rates to second-line intervention. This article discusses novel strategic platforms for the development of radiation-investigational agent combination clinical trials for primary and recurrent glioblastoma in a NCI-NCTN settings with simultaneous analysis of challenges in the drug development process.
Collapse
|
9
|
Durante M, Orecchia R, Loeffler JS. Charged-particle therapy in cancer: clinical uses and future perspectives. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2017; 14:483-495. [DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.30] [Citation(s) in RCA: 241] [Impact Index Per Article: 34.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
|
10
|
Are Treatment Toxicity Issues in Particle Therapy a Clarion Call for Biologic Treatment Planning Overall? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 97:1085-1086. [PMID: 28332993 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.12.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2016] [Revised: 12/07/2016] [Accepted: 12/13/2016] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
|