1
|
Volz L, Liu P, Tessonnier T, Cong X, Durante M, Mairani A, Gu W, Abdollahi A, Ding X, Graeff C, Li T, Mein S. HyperSHArc: Single-Isocenter Stereotactic Radiosurgery of Multiple Brain Metastases Using Proton, Helium, and Carbon Ion Arc Therapy. Adv Radiat Oncol 2025; 10:101763. [PMID: 40264854 PMCID: PMC12013133 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2025.101763] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2024] [Accepted: 03/09/2025] [Indexed: 04/24/2025] Open
Abstract
Purpose This work presents a proof-of-concept study of HyperSHArc, spot-scanning hadron arc (SHArc) therapy for single-isocenter stereotactic radiosurgery of multiple brain metastases (MBMs). HyperSHArc plans using proton, helium, and carbon ions were compared with state-of-the-art volumetric modulated photon arc therapy. Methods and Materials Treatment design and optimization procedures were devised using commercial and in-house treatment planning systems. Planning and delivery methods considered dedicated energy, spot, and multiarc selection strategies. Proton, helium, and carbon HyperSHArc plans were generated for patients with MBM exhibiting 3 to 11 intracranial lesions with gross tumor volumes (GTVs) between 0.03 and 19.8 cc, at prescribed doses between 19 and 21Gy in a single-fraction. Planning target volumes (PTVs) considered a 1-mm isotropic margin around the GTV, and robust optimization with 2.5%/1 mm criteria for range and position uncertainty was applied. Photon hyper-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (HA-VMAT) plans were optimized for the PTVs using the HyperArc® single-isocenter stereotactic radiosurgery platform (Varian, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Results HyperSHArc plans were comparable between particle species, achieving highly conformal target doses and satisfying clinical coverage criteria. Particle arc plans reduced V2Gy and V4Gy in the healthy brain compared with HA-VMAT, while intermediate doses (V8Gy-V16Gy) were similar or reduced depending on the number of lesions. Particularly for the case with 11 targets, a considerable reduction in V12Gy was observed that could be relevant for reducing the risk of treatment-induced radionecrosis. HyperSHArc using carbon ions boosted dose-averaged linear energy transfer inside the target relevant to overcoming radioresistance factors (>100 keV/μm). Conclusions We present the first particle arc therapy strategies for MBM. Results demonstrate that with HyperSHArc, dose conformity comparable or superior to HA-VMAT is achievable while reducing the low-dose bath and increasing mean dose-averaged linear energy transfer in the GTV. Our findings suggest that HyperSHArc using light and heavy ions could be an effective and efficient means of treating MBM. Further development of HyperSHArc optimization and delivery is justified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lennart Volz
- Biophysics, GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Peilin Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Xiaoda Cong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Marco Durante
- Biophysics, GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
- Department is Institute of Condensed Matter Physics, Institute of Condensed Matter Physics, TU Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Medical Physics, Pavia, Italy
| | - Wenbo Gu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Amir Abdollahi
- Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Xuanfeng Ding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Corewell Health, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Christian Graeff
- Biophysics, GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
- Department of electrical engineering and information technology, TU Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Taoran Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Stewart Mein
- Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Accelerator and Medical Physics, Institute for Quantum Medical Science, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology (QST), Chiba, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Baltazar F, Longarino FK, Stengl C, Liermann J, Mein S, Debus J, Tessonnier T, Mairani A. Investigating LETd optimization strategies in carbon ion radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer: a dosimetric study using an anthropomorphic phantom. Med Phys 2025; 52:1746-1757. [PMID: 39656067 PMCID: PMC11880654 DOI: 10.1002/mp.17569] [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: 08/28/2024] [Revised: 11/29/2024] [Accepted: 11/29/2024] [Indexed: 03/06/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical carbon ion beams offer the potential to overcome hypoxia-induced radioresistance in pancreatic tumors, due to their high dose-averaged Linear Energy Transfer (LETd), as previous studies have linked a minimum LETd within the tumor to improved local control. Current clinical practices at the Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), which use two posterior beams, do not fully exploit the LETd advantage of carbon ions, as the high LETd is primarily focused on the beams' distal edges. Different LETd-boosting strategies, such as Spot-scanning Hadron Arc (SHArc), could enhance LETd distribution by concentrating high-LETd values in potential hypoxic tumor cores while sparing organs at risk. PURPOSE This study aims to investigate and verify different LETd-boosting strategies using an anthropomorphic pancreas phantom. METHODS Various LETd-boosting strategies were investigated for a cylindrical and a pancreas-shaped target in an anthropomorphic pancreas phantom. Treatment plans were optimized using single field optimization (SFO) or multi field optimization (MFO), with objective functions based on either physical dose (Phys), relative biological effectiveness (RBE)-weighted dose, or a combination of RBE and LETd-based objectives (LETopt). The LETd-boosting planning strategies were optimized with the goal of increasing the minimum LETd in the tumor without compromising its homogeneous dose coverage. Beam configurations investigated included the two-beam in-house clinical standard (2-SFOPhys, 2-SFORBE and 2-MFORBE-LETopt), a three-beam configuration (3-MFORBE and 3-MFORBE-LETopt) and SHArc (SHArcPhys, SHArcRBE and SHArcRBE-LETopt) using step-and-shoot delivery. The different plans were verified using an anthropomorphic pancreas phantom at HIT and compared to treatment planning system (TPS) predictions. RESULTS All investigated LETd-boosting strategies altered the LETd distribution while meeting optimization goals and constraints, resulting in varying degrees of LETd enhancement. For the cylindrical volume, the SHArc plan resulted in the highest LETd concentration in the tumor core, with the minimum LETd in the GTV scaling up to 91 keV/µm. For the pancreas-shaped volume, however, the 3-MFORBE-LETopt achieved a higher minimum LETd in the GTV than SHArcRBE (75.6 and 62.3 keV/µm, respectively). When combining SHArc with LETd optimization, a minimum LETd of 76.3 keV/µm was achieved, suggesting a potential benefit from this combined approach. Most dosimetric verifications showed dose deviations to the TPS within a 5% range, for both beam-per-beam and total dose. LETd-optimized and SHArc plans exhibited slightly higher mean dose deviations (2.0%-4.6%) compared to the standard RBE-based plans (<1.5%). CONCLUSION This study demonstrated the feasibility of enhancing LETd in pancreatic tumors using carbon ion arc delivery coupled with LETd optimization. The possibility of delivering these plans was verified through irradiation of an anthropomorphic pancreas phantom, which showed agreement between dose measurements and predictions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Filipa Baltazar
- Heidelberg Ion‐Beam Therapy Center (HIT)Department of Radiation OncologyHeidelbergGermany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation OncologyGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)HeidelbergGermany
- Medical FacultyHeidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany
| | - Friderike K. Longarino
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation OncologyGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)HeidelbergGermany
- Department of Radiation OncologyHeidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany
| | - Christina Stengl
- Medical FacultyHeidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany
- Division of Medical Physics in Radiation OncologyGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)HeidelbergGermany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO)HeidelbergGermany
| | - Jakob Liermann
- Heidelberg Ion‐Beam Therapy Center (HIT)Department of Radiation OncologyHeidelbergGermany
- Medical FacultyHeidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany
- Department of Radiation OncologyHeidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO)HeidelbergGermany
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT)HeidelbergGermany
| | - Stewart Mein
- Heidelberg Ion‐Beam Therapy Center (HIT)Department of Radiation OncologyHeidelbergGermany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation OncologyGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)HeidelbergGermany
- Department of Accelerator and Medical PhysicsInstitute for Quantum Medical ScienceNational Institutes for Quantum Science and TechnologyChibaJapan
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Heidelberg Ion‐Beam Therapy Center (HIT)Department of Radiation OncologyHeidelbergGermany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation OncologyGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)HeidelbergGermany
- Medical FacultyHeidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany
- Department of Radiation OncologyHeidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany
- Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO)HeidelbergGermany
- National Center for Tumor diseases (NCT)HeidelbergGermany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core Centre HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion‐Beam Therapy Center (HIT)Department of Radiation OncologyHeidelbergGermany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation OncologyGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)HeidelbergGermany
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Heidelberg Ion‐Beam Therapy Center (HIT)Department of Radiation OncologyHeidelbergGermany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation OncologyGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)HeidelbergGermany
- Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica (CNAO)PaviaItaly
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Tessonnier T, Filosa DI, Karle C, Baltazar F, Manti L, Glimelius L, Haberer T, Abdollahi A, Debus J, Mein S, Dokic I, Mairani A. First Dosimetric and Biological Verification for Spot-Scanning Hadron Arc Radiation Therapy With Carbon Ions. Adv Radiat Oncol 2024; 9:101611. [PMID: 39534427 PMCID: PMC11555336 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2024.101611] [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: 02/18/2024] [Accepted: 06/28/2024] [Indexed: 11/16/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose Spot-scanning hadron arc radiation therapy (SHArc) is a novel delivery technique for ion beams with potentially improved dose conformity and dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd) redistribution. The first dosimetric validation and in vitro verification of carbon ion arc delivery is presented. Methods and Materials Intensity-modulated particle therapy (IMPT) and SHArc plans were designed to deliver homogeneous physical dose or biological dose in a cylindrical polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) phantom. Additional IMPT carbon plans were optimized for testing different LETd-boosting strategies. Verifications of planned doses were performed with an ionization chamber, and a clonogenic survival assay was conducted using A549 cancer lung cell line. Radiation-induced nuclear 53BP1 foci were assessed to evaluate the cellular response in both normoxic and hypoxic conditions. Results Dosimetric measurements and clonogenic assay results showed a good agreement with planned dose and survival distributions. Measured survival fractions and foci confirmed carbon ions SHArc as a potential modality to overcome hypoxia-induced radioresistance. LETd-boosted IMPT plans reached similar LETd in the target as in SHArc plans, promising similar features against hypoxia but at the cost of an increased entrance dose. SHArc resulted, however, in a lower dose bath but in a larger volume around the target. Conclusions The first proof-of-principle of carbon ions SHArc delivery was performed, and experimental evidence suggests this novel modality as an attractive approach for treating hypoxic tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology (E050), German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Domenico Ivan Filosa
- Radiation Biophysics Laboratory, Department of Physics “E. Pancini,” University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare-INFN, Sezione di Napoli, Naples, Italy
| | - Celine Karle
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology (E210), National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine and Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Filipa Baltazar
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology (E050), German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine and Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Lorenzo Manti
- Radiation Biophysics Laboratory, Department of Physics “E. Pancini,” University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare-INFN, Sezione di Napoli, Naples, Italy
| | | | - Thomas Haberer
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Amir Abdollahi
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology (E210), National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine and Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Juergen Debus
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology (E050), German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine and Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stewart Mein
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology (E210), National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine and Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Ivana Dokic
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology (E210), National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine and Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology (E210), National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany
- National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy, Medical Physics, Pavia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Volz L, Korte J, Martire MC, Zhang Y, Hardcastle N, Durante M, Kron T, Graeff C. Opportunities and challenges of upright patient positioning in radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:18TR02. [PMID: 39159668 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad70ee] [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: 02/21/2024] [Accepted: 08/19/2024] [Indexed: 08/21/2024]
Abstract
Objective.Upright positioning has seen a surge in interest as a means to reduce radiotherapy (RT) cost, improve patient comfort, and, in selected cases, benefit treatment quality. In particle therapy (PT) in particular, eliminating the need for a gantry can present massive cost and facility footprint reduction. This review discusses the opportunities of upright RT in perspective of the open challenges.Approach.The clinical, technical, and workflow challenges that come with the upright posture have been extracted from an extensive literature review, and the current state of the art was collected in a synergistic perspective from photon and particle therapy. Considerations on future developments and opportunities are provided.Main results.Modern image guidance is paramount to upright RT, but it is not clear which modalities are essential to acquire in upright posture. Using upright MRI or upright CT, anatomical differences between upright/recumbent postures have been observed for nearly all body sites. Patient alignment similar to recumbent positioning was achieved in small patient/volunteer cohorts with prototype upright positioning systems. Possible clinical advantages, such as reduced breathing motion in upright position, have been reported, but limited cohort sizes prevent resilient conclusions on the treatment impact. Redesign of RT equipment for upright positioning, such as immobilization accessories for various body regions, is necessary, where several innovations were recently presented. Few clinical studies in upright PT have already reported promising outcomes for head&neck patients.Significance.With more evidence for benefits of upright RT emerging, several centers worldwide, particularly in PT, are installing upright positioning devices or have commenced upright treatment. Still, many challenges and open questions remain to be addressed to embed upright positioning firmly in the modern RT landscape. Guidelines, professionals trained in upright patient positioning, and large-scale clinical studies are required to bring upright RT to fruition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lennart Volz
- Biophysics, GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - James Korte
- Department of Physical Science, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centere, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Maria Chiara Martire
- Biophysics, GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Ye Zhang
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen-PSI, Switzerland
| | - Nicholas Hardcastle
- Department of Physical Science, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centere, Melbourne, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
| | - Marco Durante
- Biophysics, GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
- Institute for Condensed Matter Physics, Technical University Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Tomas Kron
- Department of Physical Science, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centere, Melbourne, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
| | - Christian Graeff
- Biophysics, GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
- Department for Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Technical University Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Holtzman AL, Mohammadi H, Furutani KM, Koffler DM, McGee LA, Lester SC, Gamez ME, Routman DM, Beltran CJ, Liang X. Impact of Relative Biologic Effectiveness for Proton Therapy for Head and Neck and Skull-Base Tumors: A Technical and Clinical Review. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:1947. [PMID: 38893068 PMCID: PMC11171304 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16111947] [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: 05/02/2024] [Revised: 05/17/2024] [Accepted: 05/18/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024] Open
Abstract
Proton therapy has emerged as a crucial tool in the treatment of head and neck and skull-base cancers, offering advantages over photon therapy in terms of decreasing integral dose and reducing acute and late toxicities, such as dysgeusia, feeding tube dependence, xerostomia, secondary malignancies, and neurocognitive dysfunction. Despite its benefits in dose distribution and biological effectiveness, the application of proton therapy is challenged by uncertainties in its relative biological effectiveness (RBE). Overcoming the challenges related to RBE is key to fully realizing proton therapy's potential, which extends beyond its physical dosimetric properties when compared with photon-based therapies. In this paper, we discuss the clinical significance of RBE within treatment volumes and adjacent serial organs at risk in the management of head and neck and skull-base tumors. We review proton RBE uncertainties and its modeling and explore clinical outcomes. Additionally, we highlight technological advancements and innovations in plan optimization and treatment delivery, including linear energy transfer/RBE optimizations and the development of spot-scanning proton arc therapy. These advancements show promise in harnessing the full capabilities of proton therapy from an academic standpoint, further technological innovations and clinical outcome studies, however, are needed for their integration into routine clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adam L. Holtzman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - Homan Mohammadi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - Keith M. Furutani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - Daniel M. Koffler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - Lisa A. McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA
| | - Scott C. Lester
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Mauricio E. Gamez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - David M. Routman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| | - Chris J. Beltran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - Xiaoying Liang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Northway SK, Vallejo BM, Liu L, Hansen EE, Tang S, Mah D, MacEwan IJ, Urbanic JJ, Chang C. A quantitative framework for patient-specific collision detection in proton therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2024; 25:e14247. [PMID: 38131514 PMCID: PMC11005990 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14247] [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: 08/08/2023] [Revised: 09/28/2023] [Accepted: 12/04/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Beam modifying accessories for proton therapy often need to be placed in close proximity of the patient for optimal dosimetry. However, proton treatment units are larger in size and as a result the planned treatment geometry may not be achievable due to collisions with the patient. A framework that can accurately simulate proton treatment geometry is desired. PURPOSE A quantitative framework was developed to model patient-specific proton treatment geometry, minimize air gap, and avoid collisions. METHODS The patient's external contour is converted into the International Electrotechnique Commission (IEC) gantry coordinates following the patient's orientation and each beam's gantry and table angles. All snout components are modeled by three-dimensional (3D) geometric shapes such as columns, cuboids, and frustums. Beam-specific parameters such as isocenter coordinates, snout type and extension are used to determine if any point on the external contour protrudes into the various snout components. A 3D graphical user interface is also provided to the planner to visualize the treatment geometry. In case of a collision, the framework's analytic algorithm quantifies the maximum protrusion of the external contour into the snout components. Without a collision, the framework quantifies the minimum distance of the external contour from the snout components and renders a warning if such distance is less than 5 cm. RESULTS Three different snout designs are modeled. Examples of potential collision and its aversion by snout retraction are demonstrated. Different patient orientations, including a sitting treatment position, as well as treatment plans with multiple isocenters, are successfully modeled in the framework. Finally, the dosimetric advantage of reduced air gap enabled by this framework is demonstrated by comparing plans with standard and reduced air gaps. CONCLUSION Implementation of this framework reduces incidence of collisions in the treatment room. In addition, it enables the planners to minimize the air gap and achieve better plan dosimetry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen K. Northway
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied SciencesUniversity of California at San DiegoLa JollaCaliforniaUSA
- California Protons Cancer Therapy CenterSan DiegoCaliforniaUSA
| | - Bailey M. Vallejo
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied SciencesUniversity of California at San DiegoLa JollaCaliforniaUSA
- California Protons Cancer Therapy CenterSan DiegoCaliforniaUSA
| | - Lawrence Liu
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied SciencesUniversity of California at San DiegoLa JollaCaliforniaUSA
- California Protons Cancer Therapy CenterSan DiegoCaliforniaUSA
| | - Emily E. Hansen
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied SciencesUniversity of California at San DiegoLa JollaCaliforniaUSA
- California Protons Cancer Therapy CenterSan DiegoCaliforniaUSA
| | - Shikui Tang
- Texas Center for Proton TherapyIrvingTexasUSA
| | - Dennis Mah
- ProCure Proton Therapy CenterSomersetNew JerseyUSA
| | - Iain J. MacEwan
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied SciencesUniversity of California at San DiegoLa JollaCaliforniaUSA
- California Protons Cancer Therapy CenterSan DiegoCaliforniaUSA
| | - James J. Urbanic
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied SciencesUniversity of California at San DiegoLa JollaCaliforniaUSA
- California Protons Cancer Therapy CenterSan DiegoCaliforniaUSA
| | - Chang Chang
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied SciencesUniversity of California at San DiegoLa JollaCaliforniaUSA
- California Protons Cancer Therapy CenterSan DiegoCaliforniaUSA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Sokol O, Durante M. Carbon Ions for Hypoxic Tumors: Are We Making the Most of Them? Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:4494. [PMID: 37760464 PMCID: PMC10526811 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15184494] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2023] [Revised: 09/07/2023] [Accepted: 09/07/2023] [Indexed: 09/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Hypoxia, which is associated with abnormal vessel growth, is a characteristic feature of many solid tumors that increases their metastatic potential and resistance to radiotherapy. Carbon-ion radiation therapy, either alone or in combination with other treatments, is one of the most promising treatments for hypoxic tumors because the oxygen enhancement ratio decreases with increasing particle LET. Nevertheless, current clinical practice does not yet fully benefit from the use of carbon ions to tackle hypoxia. Here, we provide an overview of the existing experimental and clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of C-ion radiotherapy in overcoming hypoxia-induced radioresistance, followed by a discussion of the strategies proposed to enhance it, including different approaches to maximize LET in the tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olga Sokol
- Biophysics Department, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforchung, Planckstraße 1, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany;
| | - Marco Durante
- Biophysics Department, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforchung, Planckstraße 1, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany;
- Institute for Condensed Matter Physics, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Hochschulstraße 8, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Henjum H, Dahle TJ, Mairani A, Pilskog S, Stokkevåg C, Boer CG, Redalen KR, Minn H, Malinen E, Ytre‐Hauge KS. Combined RBE and OER optimization in proton therapy with FLUKA based on EF5-PET. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2023; 24:e14014. [PMID: 37161820 PMCID: PMC10476997 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2022] [Revised: 03/14/2023] [Accepted: 04/10/2023] [Indexed: 05/11/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Tumor hypoxia is associated with poor treatment outcome. Hypoxic regions are more radioresistant than well-oxygenated regions, as quantified by the oxygen enhancement ratio (OER). In optimization of proton therapy, including OER in addition to the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) could therefore be used to adapt to patient-specific radioresistance governed by intrinsic radiosensitivity and hypoxia. METHODS A combined RBE and OER weighted dose (ROWD) calculation method was implemented in a FLUKA Monte Carlo (MC) based treatment planning tool. The method is based on the linear quadratic model, with α and β parameters as a function of the OER, and therefore a function of the linear energy transfer (LET) and partial oxygen pressure (pO2 ). Proton therapy plans for two head and neck cancer (HNC) patients were optimized with pO2 estimated from [18 F]-EF5 positron emission tomography (PET) images. For the ROWD calculations, an RBE of 1.1 (RBE1.1,OER ) and two variable RBE models, Rørvik (ROR) and McNamara (MCN), were used, alongside a reference plan without incorporation of OER (RBE1.1 ). RESULTS For the HNC patients, treatment plans in line with the prescription dose and with acceptable target ROWD could be generated with the established tool. The physical dose was the main factor modulated in the ROWD. The impact of incorporating OER during optimization of HNC patients was demonstrated by the substantial difference found between ROWD and physical dose in the hypoxic tumor region. The largest physical dose differences between the ROWD optimized plans and the reference plan was 12.2 Gy. CONCLUSION The FLUKA MC based tool was able to optimize proton treatment plans taking the tumor pO2 distribution from hypoxia PET images into account. Independent of RBE-model, both elevated LET and physical dose were found in the hypoxic regions, which shows the potential to increase the tumor control compared to a conventional optimization approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helge Henjum
- Department of Physics and TechnologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
| | - Tordis Johnsen Dahle
- Department of Physics and TechnologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
- Department of Oncology and Medical PhysicsHaukeland University HospitalBergenNorway
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica (CNAO Foundation)PaviaItaly
- Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT)HeidelbergGermany
| | - Sara Pilskog
- Department of Physics and TechnologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
- Department of Oncology and Medical PhysicsHaukeland University HospitalBergenNorway
| | - Camilla Stokkevåg
- Department of Physics and TechnologyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
- Department of Oncology and Medical PhysicsHaukeland University HospitalBergenNorway
| | | | - Kathrine Røe Redalen
- Department of PhysicsNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
| | - Heikki Minn
- Department of Oncology and RadiotherapyTurku University HospitalTurkuFinland
- Turku PET CentreUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
| | - Eirik Malinen
- Department of PhysicsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
- Department of Medical PhysicsOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Lysakovski P, Besuglow J, Kopp B, Mein S, Tessonnier T, Ferrari A, Haberer T, Debus J, Mairani A. Development and benchmarking of the first fast Monte Carlo engine for helium ion beam dose calculation: MonteRay. Med Phys 2022; 50:2510-2524. [PMID: 36542403 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16178] [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: 05/10/2022] [Revised: 12/04/2022] [Accepted: 12/05/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are considered the gold-standard for accuracy in radiotherapy dose calculation; however, general purpose MC engines are computationally demanding and require long runtimes. For this reason, several groups have recently developed fast MC systems dedicated mainly to photon and proton external beam therapy, affording both speed and accuracy. PURPOSE To support research and clinical activities at the Heidelberg Ion-beam Therapy Center (HIT) with actively scanned helium ion beams, this work presents MonteRay, the first fast MC dose calculation engine for helium ion therapy. METHODS MonteRay is a CPU MC dose calculation engine written in C++, capable of simulating therapeutic proton and helium ion beams. In this work, development steps taken to include helium ion beams in MonteRay are presented. A detailed description of the newly implemented physics models for helium ions, for example, for multiple coulomb scattering and inelastic nuclear interactions, is provided. MonteRay dose computations of helium ion beams are evaluated using a comprehensive validation dataset, including measurements of spread-out Bragg peaks (SOBPs) with varying penetration depths/field sizes, measurements with an anthropomorphic phantom and FLUKA simulations of a patient plan. Improvement in computational speed is demonstrated in comparison against reference FLUKA simulations. RESULTS Dosimetric comparisons between MonteRay and measurements demonstrated good agreement. Comparing SOBPs at 5, 12.5, and 20 cm depth, mean absolute percent dose differences were 0.7%, 0.7%, and 1.4%, respectively. Comparison against measurements behind an anthropomorphic head phantom revealed mean absolute dose differences of about 1.2% (FLUKA: 1.5%) with per voxel errors ranging from -4.5% to 4.1% (FLUKA: -6% to 3%). Computed global 3%/3 mm 3D-gamma passing rates of ∼99% were achieved, exceeding those previously reported for an analytical dose engine. Comparisons against FLUKA simulations for a patient plan revealed local 2%/2 mm 3D-gamma passing rates of 98%. Compared to FLUKA in voxelized geometries, MonteRay saw run-time reductions ranging from 20× to 60×, depending on the beam's energy. CONCLUSIONS MonteRay, the first fast MC engine dedicated to helium ion therapy, has been successfully developed with a focus on both speed and accuracy. Validations against dosimetric measurements in homogeneous and heterogeneous scenarios and FLUKA MC calculations have proven the validity of the physical models implemented. Timing comparisons have shown significant speedups between 20 and 60 when compared to FLUKA, making MonteRay viable for clinical routine. MonteRay will support research and clinical practice at HIT, for example, TPS development, validation and treatment design for upcoming clinical trials for raster-scanned helium ion therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Lysakovski
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Judith Besuglow
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Benedikt Kopp
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stewart Mein
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Alfredo Ferrari
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Haberer
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Medical Physics, National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Pavia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Garrido-Hernandez G, Henjum H, Høiskar MK, Dahle TJ, Redalen KR, Ytre-Hauge KS. Hypoxia adapted relative biological effectiveness models for proton therapy: a simulation study. Biomed Phys Eng Express 2022; 8:065026. [PMID: 36260973 DOI: 10.1088/2057-1976/ac9b5d] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2022] [Accepted: 10/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
In proton therapy, a constant relative biological effectiveness (RBE) factor of 1.1 is applied although the RBE has been shown to depend on factors including the Linear Energy Transfer (LET). The biological effectiveness of radiotherapy has also been shown to depend on the level of oxygenation, quantified by the oxygen enhancement ratio (OER). To estimate the biological effectiveness across different levels of oxygenation the RBE-OER-weighted dose (ROWD) can be used. To investigate the consistency between different approaches to estimate ROWD, we implemented and compared OER models in a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation tool. Five OER models were explored: Wenzl and Wilkens 2011 (WEN), Tinganelliet al2015 (TIN), Strigariet al2018 (STR), Dahleet al2020 (DAH) and Meinet al2021 (MEI). OER calculations were combined with a proton RBE model and the microdosimetric kinetic model for ROWD calculations. ROWD and OER were studied for a water phantom scenario and a head and neck cancer case using hypoxia PET data for the OER calculation. The OER and ROWD estimates from the WEN, MEI and DAH showed good agreement while STR and TIN gave higher OER values and lower ROWD. The WEN, STR and DAH showed some degree of OER-LET dependency while this was negligible for the MEI and TIN models. The ROWD for all implemented models is reduced in hypoxic regions with an OER of 1.0-2.1 in the target volume. While some variations between the models were observed, all models display a large difference in the estimated dose from hypoxic and normoxic regions. This shows the potential to increase the dose or LET in hypoxic regions or reduce the dose to normoxic regions which again could lead to normal tissue sparing. With reliable hypoxia imaging, RBE-OER weighting could become a useful tool for proton therapy plan optimization.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Helge Henjum
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Marte Kåstad Høiskar
- Department of Physics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Tordis Johnsen Dahle
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Norway
| | - Kathrine Røe Redalen
- Department of Physics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Mairani A, Mein S, Blakely E, Debus J, Durante M, Ferrari A, Fuchs H, Georg D, Grosshans DR, Guan F, Haberer T, Harrabi S, Horst F, Inaniwa T, Karger CP, Mohan R, Paganetti H, Parodi K, Sala P, Schuy C, Tessonnier T, Titt U, Weber U. Roadmap: helium ion therapy. Phys Med Biol 2022; 67. [PMID: 35395649 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac65d3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2021] [Accepted: 04/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Helium ion beam therapy for the treatment of cancer was one of several developed and studied particle treatments in the 1950s, leading to clinical trials beginning in 1975 at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The trial shutdown was followed by decades of research and clinical silence on the topic while proton and carbon ion therapy made debuts at research facilities and academic hospitals worldwide. The lack of progression in understanding the principle facets of helium ion beam therapy in terms of physics, biological and clinical findings persists today, mainly attributable to its highly limited availability. Despite this major setback, there is an increasing focus on evaluating and establishing clinical and research programs using helium ion beams, with both therapy and imaging initiatives to supplement the clinical palette of radiotherapy in the treatment of aggressive disease and sensitive clinical cases. Moreover, due its intermediate physical and radio-biological properties between proton and carbon ion beams, helium ions may provide a streamlined economic steppingstone towards an era of widespread use of different particle species in light and heavy ion therapy. With respect to the clinical proton beams, helium ions exhibit superior physical properties such as reduced lateral scattering and range straggling with higher relative biological effectiveness (RBE) and dose-weighted linear energy transfer (LETd) ranging from ∼4 keVμm-1to ∼40 keVμm-1. In the frame of heavy ion therapy using carbon, oxygen or neon ions, where LETdincreases beyond 100 keVμm-1, helium ions exhibit similar physical attributes such as a sharp lateral penumbra, however, with reduced radio-biological uncertainties and without potentially spoiling dose distributions due to excess fragmentation of heavier ion beams, particularly for higher penetration depths. This roadmap presents an overview of the current state-of-the-art and future directions of helium ion therapy: understanding physics and improving modeling, understanding biology and improving modeling, imaging techniques using helium ions and refining and establishing clinical approaches and aims from learned experience with protons. These topics are organized and presented into three main sections, outlining current and future tasks in establishing clinical and research programs using helium ion beams-A. Physics B. Biological and C. Clinical Perspectives.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Mairani
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Medical Physics, Pavia, Italy.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stewart Mein
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Eleanor Blakely
- Biological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, United States of America
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Marco Durante
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany.,Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institut für Physik Kondensierter Materie, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Alfredo Ferrari
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Hermann Fuchs
- Division of Medical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.,MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Dietmar Georg
- Division of Medical Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.,MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - David R Grosshans
- The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Fada Guan
- The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.,Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 06510, United States of America
| | - Thomas Haberer
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Semi Harrabi
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Felix Horst
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Taku Inaniwa
- Department of Accelerator and Medical Physics, Institute for Quantum Medical Science, QST, 4-9-1 Anagawa, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8555, Japan.,Medical Physics Laboratory, Division of Health Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, 1-7 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan
| | - Christian P Karger
- National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Radhe Mohan
- The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States of America.,Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States of America
| | - Katia Parodi
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Department of Experimental Physics-Medical Physics, Munich, Germany
| | - Paola Sala
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Department of Experimental Physics-Medical Physics, Munich, Germany
| | - Christoph Schuy
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Uwe Titt
- The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America
| | - Ulrich Weber
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Held T, Tessonnier T, Franke H, Regnery S, Bauer L, Weusthof K, Harrabi S, Herfarth K, Mairani A, Debus J, Adeberg S. Ways to unravel the clinical potential of carbon ions for head and neck cancer reirradiation: dosimetric comparison and local failure pattern analysis as part of the prospective randomized CARE trial. Radiat Oncol 2022; 17:121. [PMID: 35804448 PMCID: PMC9264522 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-022-02093-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2022] [Accepted: 06/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) yields biophysical advantages compared to photons but randomized studies for the reirradiation setting are pending. The aim of the current project was to evaluate potential clinical benefits and drawbacks of CIRT compared to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in recurrent head and neck cancer. Methods Dose-volume parameters and local failure patterns of CIRT compared to VMAT were evaluate in 16 patients from the randomized CARE trial on head and neck cancer reirradiation. Results Despite an increased target dose, CIRT resulted in significantly reduced organ at risk (OAR) dose across all patients (− 8.7% Dmean). The dose-volume benefits were most pronounced in the brainstem (− 20.7% Dmax) and the optic chiasma (− 13.0% Dmax). The most frequent local failure was type E (extraneous; 50%), followed type B (peripheral; 33%) and type A (central; 17%). In one patient with type A biological and/or dosimetric failure after CIRT, mMKM dose recalculation revealed reduced target coverage. Conclusions CIRT resulted in highly improved critical OAR sparing compared to VMAT across all head and neck cancer reirradiation scenarios despite an increased prescription dose. Local failure pattern analysis revealed further potential CIRT specific clinical benefits and potential pitfalls with regard to image-guidance and biological dose-optimization. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-022-02093-4.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- 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. .,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. .,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- 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.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Henrik Franke
- 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
| | - 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
| | - Lukas Bauer
- 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
| | - Katharina Weusthof
- 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
| | - 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.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 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.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Andrea Mairani
- 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.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Medical Physics, National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Pavia, Italy
| | - 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.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Sebastian Adeberg
- 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.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Heidelberg, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Mein S, Kopp B, Tessonnier T, Liermann J, Abdollahi A, Debus J, Haberer T, Mairani A. Spot-scanning hadron arc (SHArc) therapy: A proof of concept using single and multi-ion strategies with helium, carbon, oxygen and neon ions. Med Phys 2022; 49:6082-6097. [PMID: 35717613 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15800] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2022] [Revised: 06/03/2022] [Accepted: 06/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To present particle arc therapy treatments using single and multi-ion therapy optimization strategies with helium (4 He), carbon (12 C), oxygen (16 O) and neon (20 Ne) ion beams. METHODS AND MATERIALS An optimization procedure and workflow were devised for spot-scanning hadron arc therapy (SHArc) treatment planning in the PRECISE (PaRticle thErapy using single and Combined Ion optimization StratEgies) treatment planning system (TPS). Physical and biological beam models were developed for helium, carbon, oxygen and neon ions via FLUKA MC simulation. SHArc treatments were optimized using both single ion (12 C, 16 O, or 20 Ne) and multi-ion therapy (16 O+4 He or 20 Ne+4 He) applying variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) modeling using a modified microdosimetric kinetic model (mMKM) with (α/β)x values of 2Gy, 5Gy and 3.1Gy respectively, for glioblastoma, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and prostate adenocarcinoma patient cases. Dose, effective dose, linear energy transfer (LET) and RBE were computed with the GPU-accelerated dose engine FRoG and dosimetric/biophysical attributes were evaluated in the context of conventional particle and photon-based therapies (e.g., volumetric modulated arc therapy [VMAT]). RESULTS All SHArc plans met the target optimization goals (3GyRBE) and demonstrated increased target conformity and substantially lower low-dose bath to surrounding normal tissues than VMAT. SHArc plans using a single ion species (12 C, 16 O, or 20 Ne) exhibited favorable LET distributions with the highest-LET components centralized in the target volume, with values ranging from ∼80-170keV/μm, ∼130-220keV/μm and ∼180-350keV/μm, for 12 C, 16 O, or 20 Ne, respectively, exceeding mean target LET of conventional particle therapy (12 C:∼60, 16 O:∼78 20 Ne:∼100 keV/μm). Multi-ion therapy with SHArc delivery (SHArcMIT ) provided a similar level of target LET enhancement as SHArc compared to conventional planning, however, with additional benefits of homogenous physical dose and RBE distributions. CONCLUSION Here, we demonstrate that arc delivery of light and heavy ion beams, using either a single ion species (12 C, 16 O, or 20 Ne) or combining two ions in a single fraction (16 O+4 He or 20 Ne+4 He), affords enhanced physical and biological distributions (e.g., LET) compared with conventional delivery with photons or particle beams. SHArc marks the first single and multi-ion arc therapy treatment optimization approach using light and heavy ions. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stewart Mein
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany
| | - Benedikt Kopp
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany
| | - Jakob Liermann
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany
| | - Amir Abdollahi
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Clinical Cooperation Unit Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany
| | - Thomas Haberer
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.,National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Medical Physics, Pavia, 27100, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Kaderka R, Liu KC, Liu L, VanderStraeten R, Liu TL, Lee KM, Tu YCE, MacEwan I, Simpson D, Urbanic J, Chang C. Toward automatic beam angle selection for pencil-beam scanning proton liver Treatments: A deep learning-based approach. Med Phys 2022; 49:4293-4304. [PMID: 35488864 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15676] [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: 01/09/2022] [Revised: 03/31/2022] [Accepted: 04/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dose deposition characteristics of proton radiation can be advantageous over photons. Proton treatment planning however poses additional challenges for the planners. Proton therapy is usually delivered with only a small number of beam angles, and the quality of a proton treatment plan is largely determined by the beam angles employed. Finding the optimal beam angles for a proton treatment plan requires time and experience, motivating the investigation of automatic beam angle selection methods. PURPOSE A deep learning-based approach to automatic beam angle selection is proposed for proton pencil-beam scanning treatment planning of liver lesions. METHODS We cast beam-angle selection as a multi-label classification problem. To account for angular boundary discontinuity, the underlying convolution neural network is trained with the proposed Circular Earth Mover's Distance based regularization and multi-label circular-smooth label technique. Furthermore, an analytical algorithm emulating proton treatment planners' clinical practice is employed in post-processing to improve the output of the model. Forty-nine patients that received proton liver treatments between 2017 and 2020 were randomly divided into training (n = 31), validation (n = 7), and test sets (n = 11). AI-selected beam angles were compared with those angles selected by human planners, and the dosimetric outcome was investigated by creating plans using knowledge-based treatment planning. RESULTS For 7 of the 11 cases in the test set, AI-selected beam angles agreed with those chosen by human planners to within 20 degrees (median angle difference = 10°; mean = 18.6°). Moreover, out of the total 22 beam angles predicted by the model, 15 (68%) were within 10 degrees of the human-selected angles. The high correlation in beam angles resulted in comparable dosimetric statistics between proton treatment plans generated using AI- and human-selected angles. For the cases with beam angle differences exceeding 20°, the dosimetric analysis showed similar plan quality although with different emphases on organ-at-risk sparing. CONCLUSIONS This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of a novel deep learning-based beam angle selection technique. Testing on liver cancer patients showed that the resulting plans were clinically viable with comparable dosimetric quality to those using human-selected beam angles. In tandem with auto-contouring and knowledge-based treatment planning tools, the proposed model could represent a pathway for nearly fully automated treatment planning in proton therapy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert Kaderka
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92121.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami, Miami, FL, 33136
| | | | - Lawrence Liu
- California Protons Cancer Therapy Center, San Diego, CA, 92121
| | | | | | | | | | - Iain MacEwan
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92121.,California Protons Cancer Therapy Center, San Diego, CA, 92121
| | - Daniel Simpson
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92121
| | - James Urbanic
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92121.,California Protons Cancer Therapy Center, San Diego, CA, 92121
| | - Chang Chang
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92121.,California Protons Cancer Therapy Center, San Diego, CA, 92121
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Biological Dose Optimization for Particle Arc Therapy using Helium and Carbon Ions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 114:334-348. [PMID: 35490991 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.04.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2021] [Revised: 04/11/2022] [Accepted: 04/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To present biological dose optimization for particle arc therapy using helium and carbon ions. METHODS Treatment plan planning and optimization procedures were developed for spot-scanning hadron arc (SHArc) delivery using the RayStation TPS and a GPU-accelerated dose engine (†TPS-XXX). The SHArc optimization algorithm is applicable for charged particle beams and determines angle-dependencies for spot/energy selection with three main initiatives: i) achieve standard clinical optimization goals and constraints for target and OARs, ii) target dose robustness and iii) increasing LET in the target volume. Three patient cases previously treated at the †INSTITUTION-XXX were selected for evaluation of conventional versus arc delivery for the two clinical particle beams (helium [4He] and carbon [12C] ions): glioblastoma, prostate-adenocarcinoma and skull-base chordoma. Biological dose and dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd) distributions for SHArc were evaluated against conventional planning techniques (VMAT and IMPT2F) applying the modified microdosimetric kinetic model (mMKM) for considering bio-effect with (α/β)x=2Gy. Clinical viability and deliverability were assessed via evaluation of plan quality, robustness and irradiation time. RESULTS For all investigated patient cases, SHArc treatment optimizations met planning goals and constraints for target coverage and OARs, exhibiting acceptable target coverage and reduced normal tissue volumes with effective dose >10GyRBE compared to conventional 2F planning. For carbon ions, LETd was increased in the target volume from ∼40-60keV/µm to ∼80-140keV/µm for SHArc compared to conventional treatments. Favorable LETd distributions were possible with the SHArc approach, with maximum LETd in CTV/GTV and potential reductions of high-LET regions in normal tissues and OARs. Compared to VMAT, SHArc affords substantial reductions in normal tissue dose (40-70%). CONCLUSION SHArc therapy offers potential treatment benefits such as increased normal tissue sparing from higher doses >10GyRBE, enhanced target LETd, and potential reduction in high-LET components in OARs. Findings justify further development of robust SHArc treatment planning towards potential clinical translation.
Collapse
|
16
|
Engwall E, Battinelli C, Wase V, Marthin O, Glimelius L, Bokrantz R, Andersson B, Fredriksson A. Fast robust optimization of proton PBS arc therapy plans using early energy layer selection and spot assignment. Phys Med Biol 2022; 67. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac55a6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2021] [Accepted: 02/16/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Objective. Proton pencil-beam scanning arcs (PBS arcs) have gained much attention during the past years, due to its potential for increased clinical benefit compared to conventional proton therapy. Previous studies on PBS arcs have primarily been focused on plan quality, and lately efforts have been made to reduce the delivery time. However, the methods presented so far suffer from slow optimization processes. Approach. We present a new method for fast robust optimization of PBS arc plans. The new method assigns a single energy layer per discretized direction prior to spot weight optimization and reduces the number of initial spots considerably compared to conventional methods. We used the new method for three prostate cancer patients with a prescribed dose to the CTV of 77 GyRBE in 35 fractions. For each of the patients, four plans were created: 2-beam IMPT (2IMPT), 1-beam PBS arc (1Arc), 1-beam PBS arc without focus on reducing upward energy jumps (1Arc_unseq) and two-beam PBS arc (2Arc). Main results. All PBS arc plans show a reduced integral dose compared to their respective 2IMPT plans. In the nominal case, the average CTV D98 and D2 metrics over the three patients were best for the 2Arc, followed by 2IMPT (
D
98
¯
/
D
2
¯
:
7523/7986 cGyRBE (2IMPT), 7478/7984 cGy (1Arc), 7486/7951 cGy (1Arc_unseq), 7531/7951 cGyRBE (2Arc)). The average robust target coverage in terms of V95 of the voxelwise minimum dose distribution (evaluated over 42 scenarios) was: 98.0% (2IMPT), 88.6% (1Arc), 92.5% (1Arc_unseq), 97.3% (2Arc). The optimization time, including spot selection and spot dose computation, is longest for the 2Arc plan, but is below 6 min for all patients. The maximum estimated delivery time for all types of arc plans is just above 5 min Significance. The ability for efficient treatment planning constitutes an important step towards clinical introduction of proton PBS arcs.
Collapse
|
17
|
Pakela JM, Knopf A, Dong L, Rucinski A, Zou W. Management of Motion and Anatomical Variations in Charged Particle Therapy: Past, Present, and Into the Future. Front Oncol 2022; 12:806153. [PMID: 35356213 PMCID: PMC8959592 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.806153] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2021] [Accepted: 02/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
The major aim of radiation therapy is to provide curative or palliative treatment to cancerous malignancies while minimizing damage to healthy tissues. Charged particle radiotherapy utilizing carbon ions or protons is uniquely suited for this task due to its ability to achieve highly conformal dose distributions around the tumor volume. For these treatment modalities, uncertainties in the localization of patient anatomy due to inter- and intra-fractional motion present a heightened risk of undesired dose delivery. A diverse range of mitigation strategies have been developed and clinically implemented in various disease sites to monitor and correct for patient motion, but much work remains. This review provides an overview of current clinical practices for inter and intra-fractional motion management in charged particle therapy, including motion control, current imaging and motion tracking modalities, as well as treatment planning and delivery techniques. We also cover progress to date on emerging technologies including particle-based radiography imaging, novel treatment delivery methods such as tumor tracking and FLASH, and artificial intelligence and discuss their potential impact towards improving or increasing the challenge of motion mitigation in charged particle therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia M. Pakela
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Antje Knopf
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
- Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Cologne, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Lei Dong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| | - Antoni Rucinski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
| | - Wei Zou
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Wasowicz TJ. Neutral Dissociation of Pyridine Evoked by Irradiation of Ionized Atomic and Molecular Hydrogen Beams. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 23:205. [PMID: 35008633 PMCID: PMC8745593 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23010205] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2021] [Revised: 12/19/2021] [Accepted: 12/22/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
The interactions of ions with molecules and the determination of their dissociation patterns are challenging endeavors of fundamental importance for theoretical and experimental science. In particular, the investigations on bond-breaking and new bond-forming processes triggered by the ionic impact may shed light on the stellar wind interaction with interstellar media, ionic beam irradiations of the living cells, ion-track nanotechnology, radiation hardness analysis of materials, and focused ion beam etching, deposition, and lithography. Due to its vital role in the natural environment, the pyridine molecule has become the subject of both basic and applied research in recent years. Therefore, dissociation of the gas phase pyridine (C5H5N) into neutral excited atomic and molecular fragments following protons (H+) and dihydrogen cations (H2+) impact has been investigated experimentally in the 5-1000 eV energy range. The collision-induced emission spectroscopy has been exploited to detect luminescence in the wavelength range from 190 to 520 nm at the different kinetic energies of both cations. High-resolution optical fragmentation spectra reveal emission bands due to the CH(A2Δ→X2Πr; B2Σ+→X2Πr; C2Σ+→X2Πr) and CN(B2Σ+→X2Σ+) transitions as well as atomic H and C lines. Their spectral line shapes and qualitative band intensities are examined in detail. The analysis shows that the H2+ irradiation enhances pyridine ring fragmentation and creates various fragments more pronounced than H+ cations. The plausible collisional processes and fragmentation pathways leading to the identified products are discussed and compared with the latest results obtained in cation-induced fragmentation of pyridine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tomasz J Wasowicz
- Division of Complex Systems Spectroscopy, Institute of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Faculty of Applied Physics and Mathematics, Gdansk University of Technology, ul. G. Narutowicza 11/12, 80-233 Gdansk, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Yap J, De Franco A, Sheehy S. Future Developments in Charged Particle Therapy: Improving Beam Delivery for Efficiency and Efficacy. Front Oncol 2021; 11:780025. [PMID: 34956897 PMCID: PMC8697351 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.780025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2021] [Accepted: 11/16/2021] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
The physical and clinical benefits of charged particle therapy (CPT) are well recognized. However, the availability of CPT and complete exploitation of dosimetric advantages are still limited by high facility costs and technological challenges. There are extensive ongoing efforts to improve upon these, which will lead to greater accessibility, superior delivery, and therefore better treatment outcomes. Yet, the issue of cost remains a primary hurdle as utility of CPT is largely driven by the affordability, complexity and performance of current technology. Modern delivery techniques are necessary but limited by extended treatment times. Several of these aspects can be addressed by developments in the beam delivery system (BDS) which determines the overall shaping and timing capabilities enabling high quality treatments. The energy layer switching time (ELST) is a limiting constraint of the BDS and a determinant of the beam delivery time (BDT), along with the accelerator and other factors. This review evaluates the delivery process in detail, presenting the limitations and developments for the BDS and related accelerator technology, toward decreasing the BDT. As extended BDT impacts motion and has dosimetric implications for treatment, we discuss avenues to minimize the ELST and overview the clinical benefits and feasibility of a large energy acceptance BDS. These developments support the possibility of advanced modalities and faster delivery for a greater range of treatment indications which could also further reduce costs. Further work to realize methodologies such as volumetric rescanning, FLASH, arc, multi-ion and online image guided therapies are discussed. In this review we examine how increased treatment efficiency and efficacy could be achieved with improvements in beam delivery and how this could lead to faster and higher quality treatments for the future of CPT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacinta Yap
- School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Andrea De Franco
- IFMIF Accelerator Development Group, Rokkasho Fusion Institute, National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology, Aomori, Japan
| | - Suzie Sheehy
- School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Vidal M, Moignier C, Patriarca A, Sotiropoulos M, Schneider T, De Marzi L. Future technological developments in proton therapy - A predicted technological breakthrough. Cancer Radiother 2021; 25:554-564. [PMID: 34272182 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2021.06.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2021] [Accepted: 06/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
In the current spectrum of cancer treatments, despite high costs, a lack of robust evidence based on clinical outcomes or technical and radiobiological uncertainties, particle therapy and in particular proton therapy (PT) is rapidly growing. Despite proton therapy being more than fifty years old (first proposed by Wilson in 1946) and more than 220,000 patients having been treated with in 2020, many technological challenges remain and numerous new technical developments that must be integrated into existing systems. This article presents an overview of on-going technical developments and innovations that we felt were most important today, as well as those that have the potential to significantly shape the future of proton therapy. Indeed, efforts have been done continuously to improve the efficiency of a PT system, in terms of cost, technology and delivery technics, and a number of different developments pursued in the accelerator field will first be presented. Significant developments are also underway in terms of transport and spatial resolution achievable with pencil beam scanning, or conformation of the dose to the target: we will therefore discuss beam focusing and collimation issues which are important parameters for the development of these techniques, as well as proton arc therapy. State of the art and alternative approaches to adaptive PT and the future of adaptive PT will finally be reviewed. Through these overviews, we will finally see how advances in these different areas will allow the potential for robust dose shaping in proton therapy to be maximised, probably foreshadowing a future era of maturity for the PT technique.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Vidal
- Centre Antoine-Lacassagne, Fédération Claude Lalanne, 227, avenue de la Lanterne, 06200 Nice, France
| | - C Moignier
- Centre François Baclesse, Department of Medical Physics, Centre de protonthérapie de Normandie, 14000 Caen, France
| | - A Patriarca
- Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Radiation oncology department, Centre de protonthérapie d'Orsay, Campus universitaire, bâtiment 101, 91898 Orsay, France
| | - M Sotiropoulos
- Institut Curie, Université PSL, CNRS UMR3347, Inserm U1021, Signalisation radiobiologie et cancer, 91400 Orsay, France
| | - T Schneider
- Institut Curie, Université PSL, CNRS UMR3347, Inserm U1021, Signalisation radiobiologie et cancer, 91400 Orsay, France
| | - L De Marzi
- Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Radiation oncology department, Centre de protonthérapie d'Orsay, Campus universitaire, bâtiment 101, 91898 Orsay, France; Institut Curie, PSL Research University, University Paris Saclay, Inserm LITO, Campus universitaire, 91898 Orsay, France.
| |
Collapse
|