1
|
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
|
2
|
Volumetric modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated proton therapy in the postoperative irradiation of thymoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2020; 146:2267-2276. [PMID: 32514629 DOI: 10.1007/s00432-020-03281-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2020] [Accepted: 05/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To investigate the role of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the radiation treatment of thymoma cancer. METHODS Twenty patients were retrospectively planned for IMPT [with (IMPT_R1 or IMPT_R2 according to the approach adopted) and without robust optimization] and VMAT. The results were compared according to dose-volume metrics on the clinical and planning target volumes (CTV and PTV) and the main organs at risk (heart, breasts, lungs, spinal cord and oesophagus). Estimates of the excess absolute risk (EAR) of secondary cancer induction were determined for the oesophagus, the breasts and the composite lungs. For the heart, the relative risk (RR) of chronic heart failure (CHF) was assessed. RESULTS IMPT and VMAT plans resulted equivalent in terms of target coverage for both the CTV and the PTV. The CTV homogeneity index resulted in 0.03 ± 0.01 and 0.04 ± 0.01 for VMAT and all IMPT plans, respectively. The conformality index resulted in 1.1 ± 0.1 and 1.2 ± 0.1 for VMAT and all IMPT plans. The mean dose to the breasts resulted in 10.5 ± 5.0, 4.5 ± 3.4, 4.7 ± 3.5 and 4.6 ± 3.4 Gy for VMAT, IMPT, IMPT_R1 and IMPT_R2. For the lungs, the mean dose was 9.6 ± 2.3, 3.5 ± 1.5, 3.6 ± 1.6 and 3.8 ± 1.4 Gy; for the heart: 8.7 ± 4.4, 4.3 ± 1.9, 4.5 ± 2.0 and 4.4 ± 2.4 Gy and for the oesophagus 8.2 ± 3.5, 2.2 ± 3.4, 2.4 ± 3.6 and 2.5 ± 3.5 Gy. The RR for CHF was 1.6 ± 0.3 for VMAT and 1.3 ± 0.2 for IMPT (R1 or R2). The EAR was 3.6 ± 0.v vs 1.0 ± 0.6 or 1.2 ± 0.6 (excess cases/10,000 patients year) for the oesophagus; 17.4 ± 6.5 vs 5.7 ± 3.2 or 6.1 ± 3.8 for the breasts and 24.8 ± 4.3 vs 8.1 ± 2.7 or 8.7 ± 2.3 for the composite lungs for VMAT and IMPT_R, respectively. CONCLUSION The data from this in-silico study suggest that intensity-modulated proton therapy could be significantly advantageous in the treatment of thymoma patients with particular emphasis to a substantial reduction of the risk of cardiac failure and secondary cancer induction. Robust planning is a technical pre-requisite for the safety of the delivery.
Collapse
|
3
|
Szymonowicz K, Krysztofiak A, van der Linden J, Kern A, Deycmar S, Oeck S, Squire A, Koska B, Hlouschek J, Vüllings M, Neander C, Siveke JT, Matschke J, Pruschy M, Timmermann B, Jendrossek V. Proton Irradiation Increases the Necessity for Homologous Recombination Repair Along with the Indispensability of Non-Homologous End Joining. Cells 2020; 9:E889. [PMID: 32260562 PMCID: PMC7226794 DOI: 10.3390/cells9040889] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2020] [Revised: 03/29/2020] [Accepted: 03/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Technical improvements in clinical radiotherapy for maximizing cytotoxicity to the tumor while limiting negative impact on co-irradiated healthy tissues include the increasing use of particle therapy (e.g., proton therapy) worldwide. Yet potential differences in the biology of DNA damage induction and repair between irradiation with X-ray photons and protons remain elusive. We compared the differences in DNA double strand break (DSB) repair and survival of cells compromised in non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), homologous recombination repair (HRR) or both, after irradiation with an equal dose of X-ray photons, entrance plateau (EP) protons, and mid spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) protons. We used super-resolution microscopy to investigate potential differences in spatial distribution of DNA damage foci upon irradiation. While DNA damage foci were equally distributed throughout the nucleus after X-ray photon irradiation, we observed more clustered DNA damage foci upon proton irradiation. Furthermore, deficiency in essential NHEJ proteins delayed DNA repair kinetics and sensitized cells to both, X-ray photon and proton irradiation, whereas deficiency in HRR proteins sensitized cells only to proton irradiation. We assume that NHEJ is indispensable for processing DNA DSB independent of the irradiation source, whereas the importance of HRR rises with increasing energy of applied irradiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Klaudia Szymonowicz
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (K.S.); (A.K.); (J.v.d.L.); (S.O.); (J.H.); (J.M.)
| | - Adam Krysztofiak
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (K.S.); (A.K.); (J.v.d.L.); (S.O.); (J.H.); (J.M.)
| | - Jansje van der Linden
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (K.S.); (A.K.); (J.v.d.L.); (S.O.); (J.H.); (J.M.)
| | - Ajvar Kern
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (A.K.); (B.K.); (M.V.); (B.T.)
| | - Simon Deycmar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Laboratory for Applied Radiobiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; (S.D.); (M.P.)
| | - Sebastian Oeck
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (K.S.); (A.K.); (J.v.d.L.); (S.O.); (J.H.); (J.M.)
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
| | - Anthony Squire
- Institute of Experimental Immunology and Imaging, Imaging Center Essen, University Hospital Essen, 45122 Essen, Germany;
| | - Benjamin Koska
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (A.K.); (B.K.); (M.V.); (B.T.)
| | - Julian Hlouschek
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (K.S.); (A.K.); (J.v.d.L.); (S.O.); (J.H.); (J.M.)
| | - Melanie Vüllings
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (A.K.); (B.K.); (M.V.); (B.T.)
| | - Christian Neander
- Institute of Developmental Cancer Therapeutics, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; (C.N.); (J.T.S.)
- Division of Solid Tumor Translational Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK, partner site Essen) and German Cancer Research Center, DKFZ, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jens T. Siveke
- Institute of Developmental Cancer Therapeutics, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; (C.N.); (J.T.S.)
- Division of Solid Tumor Translational Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK, partner site Essen) and German Cancer Research Center, DKFZ, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Johann Matschke
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (K.S.); (A.K.); (J.v.d.L.); (S.O.); (J.H.); (J.M.)
| | - Martin Pruschy
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Laboratory for Applied Radiobiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; (S.D.); (M.P.)
| | - Beate Timmermann
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (A.K.); (B.K.); (M.V.); (B.T.)
- Division of Solid Tumor Translational Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK, partner site Essen) and German Cancer Research Center, DKFZ, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Particle Therapy, West German Proton Therapy Center Essen (WPE), West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany
| | - Verena Jendrossek
- Institute of Cell Biology (Cancer Research), University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, 45147 Essen, Germany; (K.S.); (A.K.); (J.v.d.L.); (S.O.); (J.H.); (J.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
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
|
5
|
Saager M, Peschke P, Brons S, Debus J, Karger CP. Determination of the proton RBE in the rat spinal cord: Is there an increase towards the end of the spread-out Bragg peak? Radiother Oncol 2018; 128:115-120. [PMID: 29573823 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2018.03.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2017] [Revised: 03/07/2018] [Accepted: 03/07/2018] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE To determine the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons in the rat spinal cord as a function of linear energy transfer (LET) and dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS The rat cervical spinal cord was irradiated with single or two equal fractions (split doses) of protons at four positions (LET 1.4-5.5 keV/µm) along a 6 cm spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP). From dose-response analysis, TD50- (dose at 50% effect probability) and RBE-values were derived using the endpoint of radiation-induced myelopathy. RESULTS Along the SOBP, the TD50-values decreased from 21.7 ± 0.3 Gy to 19.5 ± 0.5 Gy for single and from 32.3 ± 0.3 Gy to 27.9 ± 0.5 Gy for split doses. The corresponding RBE-values increased from 1.13 ± 0.04 to 1.26 ± 0.05 (single doses) and from 1.06 ± 0.02 to 1.23 ± 0.03 (split doses). CONCLUSIONS For the relative high fractional doses, the experimental RBE at the distal edge of the proton SOBP is moderately increased. The conventionally applied RBE of 1.1 appears to be valid for the mid-SOBP region, but the higher values occurring more distally could be of clinical significance, especially if critical structures are located in this area. Further in vivo studies at lower fractional doses are urgently required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria Saager
- Dept. of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Peter Peschke
- Dept. of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stephan Brons
- Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Dept. of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Christian P Karger
- Dept. of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Jones B, McMahon SJ, Prise KM. The Radiobiology of Proton Therapy: Challenges and Opportunities Around Relative Biological Effectiveness. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2018; 30:285-292. [PMID: 29454504 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2018.01.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2018] [Accepted: 01/16/2018] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
With the current UK expansion of proton therapy there is a great opportunity for clinical oncologists to develop a translational interest in the associated scientific base and clinical results. In particular, the underpinning controversy regarding the conversion of photon dose to proton dose by the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) must be understood, including its important implications. At the present time, the proton prescribed dose includes an RBE of 1.1 regardless of tissue, tumour and dose fractionation. A body of data has emerged against this pragmatic approach, including a critique of the existing evidence base, due to choice of dose, use of only acute-reacting in vivo assays, analysis methods and the reference radiations used to determine the RBE. Modelling systems, based on the best available scientific evidence, and which include the clinically useful biological effective dose (BED) concept, have also been developed to estimate proton RBEs for different dose and linear energy transfer (LET) values. The latter reflect ionisation density, which progressively increases along each proton track. Late-reacting tissues, such as the brain, where α/β = 2 Gy, show a higher RBE than 1.1 at a low dose per fraction (1.2-1.8 Gy) at LET values used to cover conventional target volumes and can be much higher. RBE changes with tissue depth seem to vary depending on the method of beam delivery used. To reduce unexpected toxicity, which does occasionally follow proton therapy, a more rational approach to RBE allocation, using a variable RBE that depends on dose per fraction and the tissue and tumour radiobiological characteristics such as α/β, is proposed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Jones
- Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Oxford, UK.
| | - S J McMahon
- Centre for Cancer Research & Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - K M Prise
- Centre for Cancer Research & Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| |
Collapse
|