1
|
Lütgendorf-Caucig C, Pelak M, Hug E, Flechl B, Surböck B, Marosi C, Mock U, Zach L, Mardor Y, Furman O, Hentschel H, Gora J, Fossati P, Stock M, Graichen U, Klee S, Georg P. Prospective Analysis of Radiation-Induced Contrast Enhancement and Health-Related Quality of Life After Proton Therapy for Central Nervous System and Skull Base Tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:1206-1216. [PMID: 38244874 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.01.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2023] [Revised: 01/03/2024] [Accepted: 01/04/2024] [Indexed: 01/22/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Intracerebral radiation-induced contrast enhancement (RICE) can occur after photon as well as proton beam therapy (PBT). This study evaluated the incidence, characteristics, and risk factors of RICE after PBT delivered to, or in direct proximity to, the brain and its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS AND MATERIALS Four hundred twenty-one patients treated with pencil beam scanning PBT between 2017 and 2021 were included. Follow-up included clinical evaluation and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment completion and annually thereafter. RICE was graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4, and HRQoL parameters were assessed via European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 questionnaires. RESULTS The median follow-up was 24 months (range, 6-54), and median dose to 1% relative volume of noninvolved central nervous system (D1%CNS) was 54.3 Gy relative biologic effectiveness (RBE; range, 30-76 Gy RBE). The cumulative RICE incidence was 15% (n = 63), of which 10.5% (n = 44) were grade 1, 3.1% (n = 13) were grade 2, and 1.4% (n = 6) were grade 3. No grade 4 or 5 events were observed. Twenty-six of 63 RICE (41.3%) had resolved at the latest follow-up. The median onset after PBT and duration of RICE in patients in whom the lesions resolved were 11.8 and 9.0 months, respectively. On multivariable analysis, D1%CNS > 57.6 Gy RBE, previous in-field radiation, and diabetes mellitus were identified as significant risk factors for RICE development. Previous radiation was the only factor influencing the risk of symptomatic RICE. After PBT, general HRQoL parameters were not compromised. In a matched cohort analysis of 54/50 patients with and without RICE, no differences in global health score or functional and symptom scales were seen. CONCLUSIONS The overall incidence of clinically relevant RICE after PBT is very low and has no significant negative effect on long-term patient QoL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Maciej Pelak
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria; University Clinic for Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Uniklinikum Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
| | - Eugen Hug
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Birgit Flechl
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Birgit Surböck
- Department of Neurology, Klinikum Favoriten, Vienna, Austria
| | - Christine Marosi
- Department of Internal Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Ulrike Mock
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Leor Zach
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel; Tel Aviv University, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Yael Mardor
- Tel Aviv University, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv, Israel; Advanced Technology Center, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel
| | - Orit Furman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | | | - Joanna Gora
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Piero Fossati
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Markus Stock
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Uwe Graichen
- Department of General Health Studies, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems, Austria
| | - Sascha Klee
- Department of General Health Studies, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems, Austria
| | - Petra Georg
- Department of Radiotherapy, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, University Hospital Krems, Krems, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Eichkorn T, Lischalk JW, Hörner-Rieber J, Deng M, Meixner E, Krämer A, Hoegen P, Sandrini E, Regnery S, Held T, Harrabi S, Jungk C, Herfarth K, Debus J, König L. Analysis of safety and efficacy of proton radiotherapy for IDH-mutated glioma WHO grade 2 and 3. J Neurooncol 2023; 162:489-501. [PMID: 36598613 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-022-04217-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2022] [Accepted: 12/14/2022] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Proton beam radiotherapy (PRT) has been demonstrated to improve neurocognitive sequelae particularly. Nevertheless, following PRT, increased rates of radiation-induced contrast enhancements (RICE) are feared. How safe and effective is PRT for IDH-mutated glioma WHO grade 2 and 3? METHODS We analyzed 194 patients diagnosed with IDH-mutated WHO grade 2 (n = 128) and WHO grade 3 (n = 66) glioma who were treated with PRT from 2010 to 2020. Serial clinical and imaging follow-up was performed for a median of 5.1 years. RESULTS For WHO grade 2, 61% were astrocytoma and 39% oligodendroglioma while for WHO grade 3, 55% were astrocytoma and 45% oligodendroglioma. Median dose for IDH-mutated glioma was 54 Gy(RBE) [range 50.4-60 Gy(RBE)] for WHO grade 2 and 60 Gy(RBE) [range 54-60 Gy(RBE)] for WHO grade 3. Five year overall survival was 85% in patients with WHO grade 2 and 67% in patients with WHO grade 3 tumors. Overall RICE risk was 25%, being higher in patients with WHO grade 2 (29%) versus in patients with WHO grade 3 (17%, p = 0.13). RICE risk increased independent of tumor characteristics with older age (p = 0.017). Overall RICE was symptomatic in 31% of patients with corresponding CTCAE grades as follows: 80% grade 1, 7% grade 2, 13% grade 3, and 0% grade 3 + . Overall need for RICE-directed therapy was 35%. CONCLUSION These data demonstrate the effectiveness of PRT for IDH-mutated glioma WHO grade 2 and 3. The RICE risk differs with WHO grading and is higher in older patients with IDH-mutated Glioma WHO grade 2 and 3.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tanja Eichkorn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Jonathan W Lischalk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York, University Langone Health at Long Island, New York, NY, USA
| | - Juliane Hörner-Rieber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Maximilian Deng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Eva Meixner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Anna Krämer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Philipp Hoegen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Elisabetta Sandrini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Sebastian Regnery
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Held
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Semi Harrabi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Christine Jungk
- Department of Neurosurgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Klaus Herfarth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site, Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Laila König
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Eulitz J, G C Troost E, Klünder L, Raschke F, Hahn C, Schulz E, Seidlitz A, Thiem J, Karpowitz C, Hahlbohm P, Grey A, Engellandt K, Löck S, Krause M, Lühr A. Increased relative biological effectiveness and periventricular radiosensitivity in proton therapy of glioma patients. Radiother Oncol 2023; 178:109422. [PMID: 36435337 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.11.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2022] [Revised: 10/25/2022] [Accepted: 11/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Currently, there is an intense debate on variations in intra-cerebral radiosensitivity and relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in proton therapy of primary brain tumours. Here, both effects were retrospectively investigated using late radiation-induced brain injuries (RIBI) observed in follow-up after proton therapy of patients with diagnosed glioma. METHODS In total, 42 WHO grade 2-3 glioma patients out of a consecutive patient cohort having received (adjuvant) proton radio(chemo)therapy between 2014 and 2017 were eligible for analysis. RIBI lesions (symptomatic or clinically asymptomatic) were diagnosed and delineated on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging scans obtained in the first two years of follow-up. Correlation of RIBI location and occurrence with dose (D), proton dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LET) and variable RBE dose parameters were tested in voxel- and in patient-wise logistic regression analyses. Additionally, anatomical and clinical parameters were considered. Model performance was estimated through cross-validated area-under-the-curve (AUC) values. RESULTS In total, 64 RIBI lesions were diagnosed in 21 patients. The median time between start of proton radio(chemo)therapy and RIBI appearance was 10.2 months. Median distances of the RIBI volume centres to the cerebral ventricles and to the clinical target volume border were 2.1 mm and 1.3 mm, respectively. In voxel-wise regression, the multivariable model with D, D × LET and periventricular region (PVR) revealed the highest AUC of 0.90 (95 % confidence interval: 0.89-0.91) while the corresponding model without D × LET revealed a value of 0.84 (0.83-0.86). In patient-level analysis, the equivalent uniform dose (EUD11, a = 11) in the PVR using a variable RBE was the most prominent predictor for RIBI with an AUC of 0.63 (0.32-0.90). CONCLUSIONS In this glioma cohort, an increased radiosensitivity within the PVR was observed as well as a spatial correlation of RIBI with an increased RBE. Both need to be considered when delivering radio(chemo)therapy using proton beams.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan Eulitz
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Esther G C Troost
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; National Center for Tumour Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, and; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Lauritz Klünder
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
| | - Felix Raschke
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Christian Hahn
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
| | - Erik Schulz
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Annekatrin Seidlitz
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; National Center for Tumour Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, and; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Justus Thiem
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; National Center for Tumour Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, and; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Caroline Karpowitz
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; National Center for Tumour Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, and; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Patricia Hahlbohm
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Institute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Arne Grey
- National Center for Tumour Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, and; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Institute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Kay Engellandt
- National Center for Tumour Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, and; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Institute and Polyclinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Steffen Löck
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; National Center for Tumour Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, and; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Mechthild Krause
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; National Center for Tumour Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany, and; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Armin Lühr
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Yang Y, Rwigema JCM, Vargas C, Yu NY, Keole SR, Wong WW, Schild SE, Bues M, Liu W, Shen J. Technical note: Investigation of dose and LET d effect to rectum and bladder by using non-straight laterals in prostate cancer receiving proton therapy. Med Phys 2022; 49:7428-7437. [PMID: 36208196 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16008] [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: 06/01/2022] [Revised: 09/02/2022] [Accepted: 09/22/2022] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Parallel-opposed lateral beams are the conventional beam arrangements in proton therapy for prostate cancer. However, when considering linear energy transfer (LET) and RBE effects, alternative beam arrangements should be investigated. PURPOSE To investigate the dose and dose averaged LET (LETd ) impact of using new beam arrangements rotating beams 5°-15° posteriorly to the laterals in prostate cancer treated with pencil-beam-scanning (PBS) proton therapy. METHODS Twenty patients with localized prostate cancer were included in this study. Four proton treatment plans for each patient were generated utilizing 0°, 5°, 10°, and 15° posterior oblique beam pairs relative to parallel-opposed lateral beams. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) from posterior oblique beams were analyzed. Dose-LETd -volume histogram (DLVH) was employed to study the difference in dose and LETd with each beam arrangement. DLVH indices, V ( d , l ) $V( {d,l} )$ , defined as the cumulative absolute volume that has a dose of at least d (Gy[RBE]) and a LETd of at least l (keV/µm), were calculated for both the rectum and bladder to the whole group of patients and two-sub groups with and without hydrogel spacer. These metrics were tested using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS Rotating beam angles from laterals to slightly posterior by 5°-15° reduced high LETd volumes while it increased the dose volume in the rectum and increased LETd in bladders. Beam angles rotated five degrees posteriorly from laterals (i.e., gantry in 95° and 265°) are proposed since they achieved the optimal balance of better LETd sparing and minimal dose increase in the rectum. A reduction of V(50 Gy[RBE], 2.6 keV/µm) from 7.41 to 3.96 cc (p < 0.01), and a slight increase of V(50 Gy[RBE], 0 keV/µm) from 20.1 to 21.6 cc (p < 0.01) were observed for the group without hydrogel spacer. The LETd sparing was less effective for the group with hydrogel spacer, which achieved the reduction of V(50 Gy[RBE], 2.6 keV/µm) from 4.28 to 2.10 cc (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Posterior oblique angle plans improved LETd sparing of the rectum while sacrificing LETd sparing in the bladder in the treatment of prostate cancer with PBS. Beam angle modification from laterals to slightly posterior may be a strategy to redistribute LETd and perhaps reduce rectal toxicity risks in prostate cancer patients treated with PBS. However, the effect is reduced for patients with hydrogel spacer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yunze Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | | | - Carlos Vargas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Nathan Y Yu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Sameer R Keole
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - William W Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Steven E Schild
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Martin Bues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Wei Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| | - Jiajian Shen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Vaniqui A, Vaassen F, Di Perri D, Eekers D, Compter I, Rinaldi I, van Elmpt W, Unipan M. Linear Energy Transfer and Relative Biological Effectiveness Investigation of Various Structures for a Cohort of Proton Patients With Brain Tumors. Adv Radiat Oncol 2022; 8:101128. [PMID: 36632089 PMCID: PMC9827037 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2022.101128] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2022] [Accepted: 10/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose The current knowledge on biological effects associated with proton therapy is limited. Therefore, we investigated the distributions of dose, dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd), and the product between dose and LETd (DLETd) for a patient cohort treated with proton therapy. Different treatment planning system features and visualization tools were explored. Methods and Materials For a cohort of 24 patients with brain tumors, the LETd, DLETd, and dose was calculated for a fixed relative biological effectiveness value and 2 variable models: plan-based and phenomenological. Dose threshold levels of 0, 5, and 20 Gy were imposed for LETd visualization. The relationship between physical dose and LETd and the frequency of LETd hotspots were investigated. Results The phenomenological relative biological effectiveness model presented consistently higher dose values. For lower dose thresholds, the LETd distribution was steered toward higher values related to low treatment doses. Differences up to 26.0% were found according to the threshold. Maximum LETd values were identified in the brain, periventricular space, and ventricles. An inverse relationship between LETd and dose was observed. Frequency information to the domain of dose and LETd allowed for the identification of clusters, which steer the mean LETd values, and the identification of higher, but sparse, LETd values. Conclusions Identifying, quantifying, and recording LET distributions in a standardized fashion is necessary, because concern exists over a link between toxicity and LET hotspots. Visualizing DLETd or dose × LETd during treatment planning could allow for clinicians to make informed decisions.
Collapse
|
6
|
Hahn C, Heuchel L, Ödén J, Traneus E, Wulff J, Plaude S, Timmermann B, Bäumer C, Lühr A. Comparing biological effectiveness guided plan optimization strategies for cranial proton therapy: potential and challenges. Radiat Oncol 2022; 17:169. [PMID: 36273132 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-022-02143-x] [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: 05/19/2022] [Accepted: 10/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To introduce and compare multiple biological effectiveness guided (BG) proton plan optimization strategies minimizing variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) induced dose burden in organs at risk (OAR) while maintaining plan quality with a constant RBE. METHODS Dose-optimized (DOSEopt) proton pencil beam scanning reference treatment plans were generated for ten cranial patients with prescription doses ≥ 54 Gy(RBE) and ≥ 1 OAR close to the clinical target volume (CTV). For each patient, four additional BG plans were created. BG objectives minimized either proton track-ends, dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd), energy depositions from high-LET protons or variable RBE-weighted dose (DRBE) in adjacent serially structured OARs. Plan quality (RBE = 1.1) was assessed by CTV dose coverage and robustness (2 mm setup, 3.5% density), dose homogeneity and conformity in the planning target volumes and adherence to OAR tolerance doses. LETd, DRBE (Wedenberg model, α/βCTV = 10 Gy, α/βOAR = 2 Gy) and resulting normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) for blindness and brainstem necrosis were derived. Differences between DOSEopt and BG optimized plans were assessed and statistically tested (Wilcoxon signed rank, α = 0.05). RESULTS All plans were clinically acceptable. DOSEopt and BG optimized plans were comparable in target volume coverage, homogeneity and conformity. For recalculated DRBE in all patients, all BG plans significantly reduced near-maximum DRBE to critical OARs with differences up to 8.2 Gy(RBE) (p < 0.05). Direct DRBE optimization primarily reduced absorbed dose in OARs (average ΔDmean = 2.0 Gy; average ΔLETd,mean = 0.1 keV/µm), while the other strategies reduced LETd (average ΔDmean < 0.3 Gy; average ΔLETd,mean = 0.5 keV/µm). LET-optimizing strategies were more robust against range and setup uncertaintes for high-dose CTVs than DRBE optimization. All BG strategies reduced NTCP for brainstem necrosis and blindness on average by 47% with average and maximum reductions of 5.4 and 18.4 percentage points, respectively. CONCLUSIONS All BG strategies reduced variable RBE-induced NTCPs to OARs. Reducing LETd in high-dose voxels may be favourable due to its adherence to current dose reporting and maintenance of clinical plan quality and the availability of reported LETd and dose levels from clinical toxicity reports after cranial proton therapy. These optimization strategies beyond dose may be a first step towards safely translating variable RBE optimization in the clinics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Hahn
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany. .,OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany. .,Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
| | - Lena Heuchel
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
| | - Jakob Ödén
- RaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - Jörg Wulff
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen, Essen, Germany.,West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Sandija Plaude
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen, Essen, Germany.,West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Beate Timmermann
- West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen, Essen, Germany.,West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.,Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Christian Bäumer
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany.,West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen, Essen, Germany.,West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Armin Lühr
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
DEGRO practical guideline for central nervous system radiation necrosis part 1: classification and a multistep approach for diagnosis. Strahlenther Onkol 2022; 198:873-883. [PMID: 36038669 PMCID: PMC9515024 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-022-01994-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2022] [Accepted: 07/19/2022] [Indexed: 10/31/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The Working Group for Neuro-Oncology of the German Society for Radiation Oncology in cooperation with members of the Neuro-Oncology Working Group of the German Cancer Society aimed to define a practical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of radiation-induced necrosis (RN) of the central nervous system (CNS). METHODS Panel members of the DEGRO working group invited experts, participated in a series of conferences, supplemented their clinical experience, performed a literature review, and formulated recommendations for medical treatment of RN including bevacizumab in clinical routine. CONCLUSION Diagnosis and treatment of RN requires multidisciplinary structures of care and defined processes. Diagnosis has to be made on an interdisciplinary level with the joint knowledge of a neuroradiologist, radiation oncologist, neurosurgeon, neuropathologist, and neuro-oncologist. A multistep approach as an opportunity to review as many characteristics as possible to improve diagnostic confidence is recommended. Additional information about radiotherapy (RT) techniques is crucial for the diagnosis of RN. Misdiagnosis of untreated and progressive RN can lead to severe neurological deficits. In this practice guideline, we propose a detailed nomenclature of treatment-related changes and a multistep approach for their diagnosis.
Collapse
|
8
|
Eichkorn T, Lischalk JW, Sandrini E, Meixner E, Regnery S, Held T, Bauer J, Bahn E, Harrabi S, Hörner-Rieber J, Herfarth K, Debus J, König L. Iatrogenic Influence on Prognosis of Radiation-Induced Contrast Enhancements in Patients with Glioma WHO 1-3 following Photon and Proton Radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2022; 175:133-143. [PMID: 36041565 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.08.025] [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: 03/17/2022] [Revised: 07/20/2022] [Accepted: 08/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Radiation-induced contrast enhancement (RICE) is a common side effect following radiotherapy for glioma, but both diagnosis and handling are challenging. Due to the potential risks associated with RICE and its challenges in differentiating RICE from tumor progression, it is critical to better understand how RICE prognosis depends on iatrogenic influence. MATERIALS AND METHODS We identified 99 patients diagnosed with RICE who were previously treated with either photon or proton therapy for World Health Organization (WHO) grade 1-3 primary gliomas. Post-treatment brain MRI-based volumetric analysis and clinical data collection was performed at multiple time points. RESULTS The most common histologic subtypes were astrocytoma (50%) and oligodendroglioma (46%). In 67%, it was graded WHO grade 2 and in 86% an IDH mutation was present. RICE first occurred after 16 months (range: 1 - 160) in median. At initial RICE occurrence, 39% were misinterpreted as tumor progression. A tumor-specific therapy including chemotherapy or re-irradiation led to a RICE size progression in 86% and 92% of cases, respectively and RICE symptom progression in 57% and 65% of cases, respectively. A RICE-specific therapy such as corticosteroids or Bevacizumab for larger or symptomatic RICE led to a RICE size regression in 81% of cases with symptom stability or regression in 62% of cases. CONCLUSIONS While with chemotherapy and re-irradiation a RICE progression was frequently observed, anti-edematous or anti-VEGF treatment frequently went along with a RICE regression. For RICE, correct diagnosis and treatment decisions are challenging and critical and should be made interdisciplinarily.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tanja Eichkorn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Jonathan W Lischalk
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Health at Long Island, New York, NY, USA.
| | - Elisabetta Sandrini
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Eva Meixner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Sebastian Regnery
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Thomas Held
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Julia Bauer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Emanuel Bahn
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Semi Harrabi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Juliane Hörner-Rieber
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany; Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Klaus Herfarth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany; Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Laila König
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany; National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
A systematic review of clinical studies on variable proton Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE). Radiother Oncol 2022; 175:79-92. [PMID: 35988776 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.08.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2022] [Revised: 08/05/2022] [Accepted: 08/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
Recently, a number of clinical studies have explored links between possible Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) elevations and patient toxicities and/or image changes following proton therapy. Our objective was to perform a systematic review of such studies. We applied a "Problem [RBE], Intervention [Protons], Population [Patients], Outcome [Side effect]" search strategy to the PubMed database. From our search, we retrieved studies which: (a) performed novel voxel-wise analyses of patient effects versus physical dose and LET (n = 13), and (b) compared image changes between proton and photon cohorts with regard to proton RBE (n = 9). For each retrieved study, we extracted data regarding: primary tumour type; size of patient cohort; type of image change studied; image-registration method (deformable or rigid); LET calculation method, and statistical methodology. We compared and contrasted their methods in order to discuss the weight of clinical evidence for variable proton RBE. We concluded that clinical evidence for variable proton RBE remains statistically weak at present. Our principal recommendation is that proton centres and clinical trial teams collaborate to standardize follow-up protocols and statistical analysis methods, so that larger patient cohorts can ultimately be considered for RBE analyses.
Collapse
|
10
|
Heuchel L, Hahn C, Pawelke J, Sørensen BS, Dosanjh M, Lühr A. Clinical use and future requirements of relative biological effectiveness: survey among all european proton therapy centres. Radiother Oncol 2022; 172:134-139. [PMID: 35605747 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.05.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2022] [Revised: 04/29/2022] [Accepted: 05/15/2022] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) varies along the treatment field. However, in clinical practice, a constant RBE of 1.1 is assumed, which can result in undesirable side effects. This study provides an accurate overview of current clinical practice for considering proton RBE in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS A survey was devised and sent to all proton therapy centres in Europe that treat patients. The online questionnaire consisted of 39 questions addressing various aspects of RBE consideration in clinical practice, including treatment planning, patient follow-up and future demands. RESULTS All 25 proton therapy centres responded. All centres prescribed a constant RBE of 1.1, but also applied measures (except for one eye treatment centre) to counteract variable RBE effects such as avoiding beams stopping inside or in front of an organ at risk and putting restrictions on the minimum number and opening angle of incident beams for certain treatment sites. For the future, most centres (16) asked for more retrospective or prospective outcome studies investigating the potential effect of the effect of a variable RBE. To perform such studies, 18 centres asked for LET and RBE calculation and visualisation tools developed by treatment planning system vendors. CONCLUSION All European proton centres are aware of RBE variability but comply with current guidelines of prescribing a constant RBE. However, they actively mitigate uncertainty and risk of side effects resulting from increased RBE by applying measures and restrictions during treatment planning. To change RBE-related clinical guidelines in the future more clinical data on RBE are explicitly demanded.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lena Heuchel
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Germany
| | - Christian Hahn
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Germany; OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
| | - Jörg Pawelke
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Germany
| | - Brita Singers Sørensen
- Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Danish Center for Particle Therapy, DCPT, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Manjit Dosanjh
- Department of Physics, University of Oxford, UK; CERN, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Armin Lühr
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Radiation-induced contrast enhancement following proton radiotherapy for low-grade glioma depends on tumor characteristics and is rarer in children than adults. Radiother Oncol 2022; 172:54-64. [PMID: 35568281 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.05.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2022] [Revised: 04/21/2022] [Accepted: 05/05/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Proton beam radiotherapy (PRT) is used in the treatment of low-grade glioma (LGG) to mitigate long-term sequelae. Following PRT, increased rates of radiation-induced contrast enhancements (RICE) are suspected but poorly understood. MATERIALS AND METHODS We analyzed consecutive 227 patients (42 children and 185 adults) treated with PRT (54Gy RBE) for LGG from 2010 to 2020 and followed with serial clinical exams and magnetic resonance imaging for in median 5.6 years. RESULTS Tumors were graded WHO 1 in a minority (n = 22, 12%) of adults, but a majority of children (n = 29, 69%). In contrast, tumors were graded WHO 2 in the majority (n = 160, 87%) of adults and a minority of children (n = 10, 24%). Five-year overall survival following PRT was 81% in adults and 91% in children. The risk of RICE was 5-fold more frequent in adults (25%) versus children (5%) (p = 0.0043). In children and adults, RICE were symptomatic in 50% and 55% (n=1 and 26) of cases with CTCAE grade 0 in 47% (n=23), grade 1 in 25% (n=12), 0% grade 2 (n=0) and 29% grade 3 (n=14), respectively. In adults, RICE risk was associated to WHO grading (8% in WHO grade 1 vs. 24% in WHO grade 2, p = 0.026), independent of age (p=0.44) and irradiation dose (p=0.005), but not independent of IDH mutational status. CONCLUSIONS These data demonstrate effectiveness of PRT for LGG in both children and adults. The RICE risk is lower in children which are a main target group for PRT and differs with WHO grading.
Collapse
|
12
|
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
|
13
|
Radiation induced contrast enhancement after proton beam therapy in patients with low grade glioma - How safe are protons? Radiother Oncol 2021; 167:211-218. [PMID: 34973277 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.12.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2021] [Revised: 11/30/2021] [Accepted: 12/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The optimal treatment strategy for low-grade glioma (LGG) is still a matter of controversy. Considering that the prognosis is typically favorable, the prevention of late sequelae is of particular importance. Proton beam therapy (PRT) has the potential to further reduce the burden of treatment related side effects. We set out to evaluate the clinical outcome of proton irradiation with a particular focus on morphologic features on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS We assessed prospectively 110 patients who received radiotherapy with protons for histologically proven LGG. Clinical and radiological information were analyzed resulting in more than 1200 available MRI examinations with a median follow-up of 39 months. Newly diagnosed contrast-enhancing lesions on MRI were delineated and correlated with parameters of the corresponding treatment plan. A voxel-based dose-matched paired analysis of the linear energy transfer (LET) inside vs outside lesions was performed. RESULTS Proton beam irradiation of patients with low-grade glioma results in overall survival (OS) of 90% after seven years. Median progression free survival had not yet been reached with surviving fraction of 54% after seven years. The incidence of temporary or clinically silent radiation induced contrast enhancement was significantly higher than previously assumed, however, symptomatic radiation necrosis was only detected in one patient. These radiation-induced contrast-enhancing lesions were almost exclusively seen at the distal beam end of the proton beam. In 22 out of 23 patients, the average LET of voxels inside contrast-enhancing lesions was significantly increased, compared to dose-matched voxels outside the lesions. CONCLUSION Symptomatic radiation necrosis following PRT was as rare as conventional photon-based treatment series suggest. However, the increased incidence of asymptomatic radiation-induced brain injuries with an increased average LET observed in this cohort provides strong clinical evidence to support the hypothesis that the relative biological effectiveness of protons is variable and different to the fixed factor of 1.1 currently used worldwide.
Collapse
|
14
|
Kasamatsu K, Tanaka S, Miyazaki K, Takao S, Miyamoto N, Hirayama S, Nishioka K, Hashimoto T, Aoyama H, Umegaki K, Matsuura T. Impact of a spatially dependent dose delivery time structure on the biological effectiveness of scanning proton therapy. Med Phys 2021; 49:702-713. [PMID: 34796522 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15367] [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: 08/03/2021] [Revised: 10/09/2021] [Accepted: 11/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE In the scanning beam delivery of protons, different portions of the target are irradiated with different linear energy transfer protons with various time intervals and irradiation times. This research aimed to evaluate the spatially dependent biological effectiveness of protracted irradiation in scanning proton therapy. METHODS One and two parallel opposed fields plans were created in water phantom with the prescribed dose of 2 Gy. Three scenarios (instantaneous, continuous, and layered scans) were used with the corresponding beam delivery models. The biological dose (physical dose × relative biological effectiveness) was calculated using the linear quadratic model and the theory of dual radiation action to quantitatively evaluate the dose delivery time effect. In addition, simulations using clinical plans (postoperative seminoma and prostate tumor cases) were conducted to assess the impact of the effects on the dose volume histogram parameters and homogeneity coefficient (HC) in targets. RESULTS In a single-field plan of water phantom, when the treatment time was 19 min, the layered-scan scenario showed a decrease of <0.2% (almost 3.3%) in the biological dose from the plan on the distal (proximal) side because of the high (low) dose rate. This is in contrast to the continuous scenario, where the biological dose was almost uniformly decreased over the target by approximately 3.3%. The simulation with clinical geometry showed that the decrease rates in D99% were 0.9% and 1.5% for every 10 min of treatment time prolongation for postoperative seminoma and prostate tumor cases, respectively, whereas the increase rates in HC were 0.7% and 0.2%. CONCLUSIONS In protracted irradiation in scanning proton therapy, the spatially dependent dose delivery time structure in scanning beam delivery can be an important factor for accurate evaluation of biological effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Koki Kasamatsu
- Graduate School of Biomedical Science and Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Sodai Tanaka
- Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.,Department of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Koichi Miyazaki
- Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.,Department of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Seishin Takao
- Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.,Department of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.,Proton Beam Therapy Center, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Naoki Miyamoto
- Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.,Department of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan
| | | | - Kentaro Nishioka
- Department of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Takayuki Hashimoto
- Department of Radiation Medical Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Hidefumi Aoyama
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Kikuo Umegaki
- Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.,Department of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.,Proton Beam Therapy Center, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan
| | - Taeko Matsuura
- Faculty of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.,Department of Medical Physics, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.,Proton Beam Therapy Center, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Sørensen BS, Pawelke J, Bauer J, Burnet NG, Dasu A, Høyer M, Karger CP, Krause M, Schwarz M, Underwood TSA, Wagenaar D, Whitfield GA, Lühr A. Does the uncertainty in relative biological effectiveness affect patient treatment in proton therapy? Radiother Oncol 2021; 163:177-184. [PMID: 34480959 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.08.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2021] [Revised: 08/09/2021] [Accepted: 08/22/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
Clinical treatment with protons uses the concept of relative biological effectiveness (RBE) to convert the absorbed dose into an RBE-weighted dose that equals the dose for radiotherapy with photons causing the same biological effect. Currently, in proton therapy a constant RBE of 1.1 is generically used. However, empirical data indicate that the RBE is not constant, but increases at the distal edge of the proton beam. This increase in RBE is of concern, as the clinical impact is still unresolved, and clinical studies demonstrating a clinical effect of an increased RBE are emerging. Within the European Particle Therapy Network (EPTN) work package 6 on radiobiology and RBE, a workshop was held in February 2020 in Manchester with one day of discussion dedicated to the impact of proton RBE in a clinical context. Current data on RBE effects, patient outcome and modelling from experimental as well as clinical studies were presented and discussed. Furthermore, representatives from European clinical proton therapy centres, who were involved in patient treatment, laid out their current clinical practice on how to consider the risk of a variable RBE in their centres. In line with the workshop, this work considers the actual impact of RBE issues on patient care in proton therapy by reviewing preclinical data on the relation between linear energy transfer (LET) and RBE, current clinical data sets on RBE effects in patients, and applied clinical strategies to manage RBE uncertainties. A better understanding of the variability in RBE would allow development of proton treatments which are safer and more effective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brita S Sørensen
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Experimental Clinical Oncology - Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
| | - Jörg Pawelke
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Julia Bauer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO) and National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Alexandru Dasu
- The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden; Medical Radiation Sciences, Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Morten Høyer
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Christian P Karger
- Dept. of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO) and National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Mechthild Krause
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Institute of Radiooncology-OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; German Cancer Consortium Dresden and German Cancer Research Center Heidelberg, Germany; Dept. of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine C.G. Carus, Dresden, Germany; National Center for Tumor Diseases Dresden, German Cancer Research Center Heidelberg, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine C.G. Carus Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany
| | - Marco Schwarz
- Protontherapy Department -Trento Hospital, and TIFPA-INFN, Trento, Italy
| | - Tracy S A Underwood
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, The University of Manchester, UK
| | - Dirk Wagenaar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Gillian A Whitfield
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; University of Manchester, UK
| | - Armin Lühr
- Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
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: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [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
|