1
|
Gardner LL, O'Connor JD, McMahon SJ. Benchmarking proton RBE models. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:085022. [PMID: 38471187 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad3329] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2023] [Accepted: 03/12/2024] [Indexed: 03/14/2024]
Abstract
Objective.To biologically optimise proton therapy, models which can accurately predict variations in proton relative biological effectiveness (RBE) are essential. Current phenomenological models show large disagreements in RBE predictions, due to different model assumptions and differences in the data to which they were fit. In this work, thirteen RBE models were benchmarked against a comprehensive proton RBE dataset to evaluate predictions when all models are fit using the same data and fitting techniques, and to assess the statistical robustness of the models.Approach.Model performance was initially evaluated by fitting to the full dataset, and then a cross-validation approach was applied to assess model generalisability and robustness. The impact of weighting the fit and the choice of biological endpoint (either single or multiple survival levels) was also evaluated.Main results.Fitting the models to a common dataset reduced differences between their predictions, however significant disagreements remained due to different underlying assumptions. All models performed poorly under cross-validation in the weighted fits, suggesting that some uncertainties on the experimental data were significantly underestimated, resulting in over-fitting and poor performance on unseen data. The simplest model, which depends linearly on the LET but has no tissue or dose dependence, performed best for a single survival level. However, when fitting to multiple survival levels simultaneously, more complex models with tissue dependence performed better. All models had significant residual uncertainty in their predictions compared to experimental data.Significance.This analysis highlights that poor quality of error estimation on the dose response parameters introduces substantial uncertainty in model fitting. The significant residual error present in all approaches illustrates the challenges inherent in fitting to large, heterogeneous datasets and the importance of robust statistical validation of RBE models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lydia L Gardner
- Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - John D O'Connor
- School of Engineering, Ulster University, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen J McMahon
- Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Parisi A, Beltran CJ, Furutani KM. Variable RBE in proton radiotherapy: a comparative study with the predictive Mayo Clinic Florida microdosimetric kinetic model and phenomenological models of cell survival. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68:185020. [PMID: 38133518 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/acf43b] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2023] [Accepted: 08/25/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023]
Abstract
Objectives. (1) To examine to what extent the cell- and exposure- specific information neglected in the phenomenological proton relative biological effectiveness (RBE) models could influence the computed RBE in proton therapy. (2) To explore similarities and differences in the formalism and the results between the linear energy transfer (LET)-based phenomenological proton RBE models and the microdosimetry-based Mayo Clinic Florida microdosimetric kinetic model (MCF MKM). (3) To investigate how the relationship between the RBE and the dose-mean proton LET is affected by the proton energy spectrum and the secondary fragments.Approach. We systematically compared six selected phenomenological proton RBE models with the MCF MKM in track-segment simulations, monoenergetic proton beams in a water phantom, and two spread-out Bragg peaks. A representative comparison within vitrodata for human glioblastoma cells (U87 cell line) is also included.Main results. Marked differences were observed between the results of the phenomenological proton RBE models, as reported in previous studies. The dispersion of these models' results was found to be comparable to the spread in the MCF MKM results obtained by varying the cell-specific parameters neglected in the phenomenological models. Furthermore, while single cell-specific correlation between RBE and the dose-mean proton LET seems reasonable above 2 keVμm-1, caution is necessary at lower LET values due to the relevant contribution of secondary fragments. The comparison within vitrodata demonstrates comparable agreement between the MCF MKM predictions and the results of the phenomenological models.Significance. The study highlights the importance of considering cell-specific characteristics and detailed radiation quality information for accurate RBE calculations in proton therapy. Furthermore, these results provide confidence in the use of the MCF MKM for clonogenic survival RBE calculations in proton therapy, offering a more mechanistic approach compared to phenomenological models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessio Parisi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, United States of America
| | - Chris J Beltran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, United States of America
| | - Keith M Furutani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sebastián SM, Alejandro C, Ignacio E, Sophia G, Pía VM, Andrea R. Monte Carlo simulations of cell survival in proton SOBP. Phys Med Biol 2023; 68:195024. [PMID: 37673077 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/acf752] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2023] [Accepted: 09/06/2023] [Indexed: 09/08/2023]
Abstract
Objective. The objective of this study is to develop a multi-scale modeling approach that accurately predicts radiation-induced DNA damage and survival fraction in specific cell lines.Approach. A Monte Carlo based simulation framework was employed to make the predictions. The FLUKA Monte Carlo code was utilized to estimate absorbed doses and fluence energy spectra, which were then used in the Monte Carlo Damage Simulation code to compute DNA damage yields in Chinese hamster V79 cell lines. The outputs were converted into cell survival fractions using a previously published theoretical model. To reduce the uncertainties of the predictions, new values for the parameters of the theoretical model were computed, expanding the database of experimental points considered in the previous estimation. Simulated results were validated against experimental data, confirming the applicability of the framework for proton beams up to 230 MeV. Additionally, the impact of secondary particles on cell survival was estimated.Main results. The simulated survival fraction versus depth in a glycerol phantom is reported for eighteen different configurations. Two proton spread out Bragg peaks at several doses were simulated and compared with experimental data. In all cases, the simulations follow the experimental trends, demonstrating the accuracy of the predictions up to 230 MeV.Significance. This study holds significant importance as it contributes to the advancement of models for predicting biological responses to radiation, ultimately contributing to more effective cancer treatment in proton therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Carabe Alejandro
- Hampton University Proton Therapy Institute, 40 Enterprise Pkwy Hampton, VA 2366, United States of America
| | - Espinoza Ignacio
- Instituto de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 7820436 Santiago, Chile
| | - Galvez Sophia
- Instituto de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 7820436 Santiago, Chile
| | - Valenzuela María Pía
- Instituto de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 7820436 Santiago, Chile
| | - Russomando Andrea
- Instituto de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 7820436 Santiago, Chile
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Henjum H, Tjelta J, Fjæra LF, Pilskog S, Stokkevåg CH, Lyngholm E, Handeland AH, Ytre-Hauge KS. Influence of beam pruning techniques on LET and RBE in proton arc therapy. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1155310. [PMID: 37731633 PMCID: PMC10508957 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1155310] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2023] [Accepted: 08/15/2023] [Indexed: 09/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction Proton arc therapy (PAT) is an emerging treatment modality that holds promise to improve target volume coverage and reduce linear energy transfer (LET) in organs at risk. We aimed to investigate if pruning the highest energy layers in each beam direction could increase the LET in the target and reduce LET in tissue and organs at risk (OAR) surrounding the target volume, thus reducing the relative biological effectiveness (RBE)-weighted dose and sparing healthy tissue. Methods PAT plans for a germinoma, an ependymoma and a rhabdomyosarcoma patient were created in the Eclipse treatment planning system with a prescribed dose of 54 Gy(RBE) using a constant RBE of 1.1 (RBE1.1). The PAT plans was pruned for high energy spots, creating several PAT plans with different amounts of pruning while maintaining tumor coverage, denoted PX-PAT plans, where X represents the amount of pruning. All plans were recalculated in the FLUKA Monte Carlo software, and the LET, physical dose, and variable RBE-weighted dose from the phenomenological Rørvik (ROR) model and an LET weighted dose (LWD) model were evaluated. Results and discussion For the germinoma case, all plans but the P6-PAT reduced the mean RBE-weighted dose to the surrounding healthy tissue compared to the PAT plan. The LET was increasingly higher within the PTV for each pruning iteration, where the mean LET from the P6-PAT plan was 1.5 keV / μm higher than for the PAT plan, while the P4- and P5-PAT plans provided an increase of 0.4 and 0.7 keV / μm , respectively. The other plans increased the LET by a smaller margin compared to the PAT plan. Likewise, the LET values to the healthy tissue were reduced for each degree of pruning. Similar results were found for the ependymoma and the rhabdomyosarcoma case. We demonstrated a PAT pruning technique that can increase both LET and RBE in the target volume and at the same time decreased values in healthy tissue, without affecting the target volume dose coverage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helge Henjum
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Johannes Tjelta
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Lars Fredrik Fjæra
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Sara Pilskog
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Camilla H. Stokkevåg
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Erlend Lyngholm
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Andreas H. Handeland
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Flint DB, Ruff CE, Bright SJ, Yepes P, Wang Q, Manandhar M, Kacem MB, Turner BX, Martinus DKJ, Shaitelman SF, Sawakuchi GO. An empirical model of proton RBE based on the linear correlation between x-ray and proton radiosensitivity. Med Phys 2022; 49:6221-6236. [PMID: 35831779 PMCID: PMC10360139 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15850] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2022] [Revised: 06/12/2022] [Accepted: 06/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Proton relative biological effectiveness (RBE) is known to depend on physical factors of the proton beam, such as its linear energy transfer (LET), as well as on cell-line specific biological factors, such as their ability to repair DNA damage. However, in a clinical setting, proton RBE is still considered to have a fixed value of 1.1 despite the existence of several empirical models that can predict proton RBE based on how a cell's survival curve (linear-quadratic model [LQM]) parameters α and β vary with the LET of the proton beam. Part of the hesitation to incorporate variable RBE models in the clinic is due to the great noise in the biological datasets on which these models are trained, often making it unclear which model, if any, provides sufficiently accurate RBE predictions to warrant a departure from RBE = 1.1. PURPOSE Here, we introduce a novel model of proton RBE based on how a cell's intrinsic radiosensitivity varies with LET, rather than its LQM parameters. METHODS AND MATERIALS We performed clonogenic cell survival assays for eight cell lines exposed to 6 MV x-rays and 1.2, 2.6, or 9.9 keV/µm protons, and combined our measurements with published survival data (n = 397 total cell line/LET combinations). We characterized how radiosensitivity metrics of the form DSF% , (the dose required to achieve survival fraction [SF], e.g., D10% ) varied with proton LET, and calculated the Bayesian information criteria associated with different LET-dependent functions to determine which functions best described the underlying trends. This allowed us to construct a six-parameter model that predicts cells' proton survival curves based on the LET dependence of their radiosensitivity, rather than the LET dependence of the LQM parameters themselves. We compared the accuracy of our model to previously established empirical proton RBE models, and implemented our model within a clinical treatment plan evaluation workflow to demonstrate its feasibility in a clinical setting. RESULTS Our analyses of the trends in the data show that DSF% is linearly correlated between x-rays and protons, regardless of the choice of the survival level (e.g., D10% , D37% , or D50% are similarly correlated), and that the slope and intercept of these correlations vary with proton LET. The model we constructed based on these trends predicts proton RBE within 15%-30% at the 68.3% confidence level and offers a more accurate general description of the experimental data than previously published empirical models. In the context of a clinical treatment plan, our model generally predicted higher RBE-weighted doses than the other empirical models, with RBE-weighted doses in the distal portion of the field being up to 50.7% higher than the planned RBE-weighted doses (RBE = 1.1) to the tumor. CONCLUSIONS We established a new empirical proton RBE model that is more accurate than previous empirical models, and that predicts much higher RBE values in the distal edge of clinical proton beams.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David B. Flint
- Department of Radiation PhysicsThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Chase E. Ruff
- Department of Radiation PhysicsThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Scott J. Bright
- Department of Radiation PhysicsThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Pablo Yepes
- Department of Radiation PhysicsThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
- Department of Physics and AstronomyRice UniversityHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Qianxia Wang
- Department of Radiation PhysicsThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
- Department of Physics and AstronomyRice UniversityHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Mandira Manandhar
- Department of Radiation PhysicsThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Mariam Ben Kacem
- Department of Radiation PhysicsThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Broderick X. Turner
- Department of Radiation PhysicsThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical SciencesHoustonTexasUSA
| | - David K. J. Martinus
- Department of Radiation PhysicsThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical SciencesHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Simona F. Shaitelman
- Department of Radiation OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
| | - Gabriel O. Sawakuchi
- Department of Radiation PhysicsThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonTexasUSA
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical SciencesHoustonTexasUSA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Fredrik Fjæra L, Indelicato DJ, Handeland AH, Ytre-Hauge KS, Lassen-Ramshad Y, Muren LP, Stokkevåg CH. A case-control study of linear energy transfer and relative biological effectiveness related to symptomatic brainstem toxicity following pediatric proton therapy. Radiother Oncol 2022:S0167-8140(22)04220-7. [PMID: 35917900 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.07.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2022] [Revised: 06/28/2022] [Accepted: 07/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE A fixed relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1 (RBE1.1) is used clinically in proton therapy even though the RBE varies with properties such as dose level and linear energy transfer (LET). We therefore investigated if symptomatic brainstem toxicity in pediatric brain tumor patients treated with proton therapy could be associated with a variable LET and RBE. MATERIALS AND METHODS 36 patients treated with passive scattering proton therapy were selected for a case-control study from a cohort of 954 pediatric brain tumor patients. Nine children with symptomatic brainstem toxicity were each matched to three controls based on age, diagnosis, adjuvant therapy, and brainstem RBE1.1 dose characteristics. Differences across cases and controls related to the dose-averaged LET (LETd) and variable RBE-weighted dose from two RBE models were analyzed in the high-dose region. RESULTS LETd metrics were marginally higher for cases vs. controls for the majority of dose levels and brainstem substructures. Considering areas with doses above 54 Gy(RBE1.1), we found a moderate trend of 13% higher median LETd in the brainstem for cases compared to controls (P = .08), while the difference in the median variable RBE-weighted dose for the same structure was only 2% (P = .6). CONCLUSION Trends towards higher LETd for cases compared to controls were noticeable across structures and LETd metrics for this patient cohort. While case-control differences were minor, an association with the observed symptomatic brainstem toxicity cannot be ruled out.
Collapse
|
7
|
Tian L, Hahn C, Lühr A. An ion-independent phenomenological relative biological effectiveness (RBE) model for proton therapy. Radiother Oncol 2022; 174:69-76. [PMID: 35803365 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.06.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2022] [Revised: 06/14/2022] [Accepted: 06/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1 is used for proton therapy though clinical evidence of varying RBE was raised. Clinical studies on RBE variability have been conducted for decades for carbon radiation, which could advance the understanding of the clinical proton RBE given an ion-independent RBE model. In this work, such a model, linear and simple, using the beam quantity Q = Z2/E (Z = ion charge, E = kinetic energy per nucleon) was tested and compared to the commonly used, proton-specific and linear energy transfer (LET) based Wedenberg RBE model. MATERIAL AND METHODS The Wedenberg and Q models, both predicting RBEmax and RBEmin (i.e., RBE at vanishing and very high dose, respectively), are compared in terms of ion-dependence and prediction power. An experimental in-vitro data ensemble covering 115 publications for various ions was used as dataset. RESULTS The model parameter of the Q model was observed to be similar for different ions (in contrast to LET). The Q model was trained without any prior knowledge of proton data. For proton RBE, the differences between experimental data and corresponding predictions of the Wedenberg or the Q model were highly comparable. CONCLUSIONS A simple linear RBE model using Q instead of LET was proposed and tested to be able to predict proton RBE using model parameter trained based on only RBE data of other particles in a clinical proton energy range for a large in-vitro dataset. Adding (pre)clinical knowledge from carbon ion therapy may, therefore, reduce the dominating biological uncertainty in proton RBE modelling. This would translate in reduced RBE related uncertainty in proton therapy treatment planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liheng Tian
- TU Dortmund University, Department of Physics, Dortmund, Germany.
| | - Christian Hahn
- TU Dortmund University, Department of Physics, 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
| | - Armin Lühr
- TU Dortmund University, Department of Physics, Dortmund, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Poon DMC, Wu S, Ho L, Cheung KY, Yu B. Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14040925. [PMID: 35205673 PMCID: PMC8870339 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14040925] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2021] [Revised: 02/10/2022] [Accepted: 02/11/2022] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Reported clinical outcomes of proton therapy (PT) for localized prostate cancer are similar to photon-based external beam radiotherapy. Apparently, the dosimetric advantages of PT have yet to be translated to clinical benefits. The suboptimal clinical outcomes of PT might be attributable to inadequate dose prescription, as indicated by the ASCENDE-RT trial. Moreover, uncertainties involved in the treatment planning and delivery processes, as well as technological limitations in PT treatment systems, may lead to discrepancies between planned doses and actual doses delivered to patients. In this article, we reviewed the current status of PT for prostate cancer and discussed different clinical implementations that could potentially improve the clinical outcome of PT for prostate cancer. Various technological advancements under which uncertainties in dose calculations can be minimized, including MRI-guided PT, dual-energy photon-counting CT and high-resolution Monte Carlo-based treatment planning systems, are highlighted. Abstract The dosimetric advantages of proton therapy (PT) treatment plans are demonstrably superior to photon-based external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localized prostate cancer, but the reported clinical outcomes are similar. This may be due to inadequate dose prescription, especially in high-risk disease, as indicated by the ASCENDE-RT trial. Alternatively, the lack of clinical benefits with PT may be attributable to improper dose delivery, mainly due to geometric and dosimetric uncertainties during treatment planning, as well as delivery procedures that compromise the dose conformity of treatments. Advanced high-precision PT technologies, and treatment planning and beam delivery techniques are being developed to address these uncertainties. For instance, external magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided patient setup rooms are being developed to improve the accuracy of patient positioning for treatment. In-room MRI-guided patient positioning systems are also being investigated to improve the geometric accuracy of PT. Soon, high-dose rate beam delivery systems will shorten beam delivery time to within one breath hold, minimizing the effects of organ motion and patient movements. Dual-energy photon-counting computed tomography and high-resolution Monte Carlo-based treatment planning systems are available to minimize uncertainties in dose planning calculations. Advanced in-room treatment verification tools such as prompt gamma detector systems will be used to verify the depth of PT. Clinical implementation of these new technologies is expected to improve the accuracy and dose conformity of PT in the treatment of localized prostate cancers, and lead to better clinical outcomes. Improvement in dose conformity may also facilitate dose escalation, improving local control and implementation of hypofractionation treatment schemes to improve patient throughput and make PT more cost effective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Darren M. C. Poon
- Comprehensive Oncology Centre, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong 999077, China;
| | - Stephen Wu
- Medical Physics Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong 999077, China; (L.H.); (K.Y.C.); (B.Y.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +852-29171413
| | - Leon Ho
- Medical Physics Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong 999077, China; (L.H.); (K.Y.C.); (B.Y.)
| | - Kin Yin Cheung
- Medical Physics Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong 999077, China; (L.H.); (K.Y.C.); (B.Y.)
| | - Ben Yu
- Medical Physics Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong 999077, China; (L.H.); (K.Y.C.); (B.Y.)
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Hahn C, Ödén J, Dasu A, Vestergaard A, Fuglsang Jensen M, Sokol O, Pardi C, Bourhaleb F, Leite A, de Marzi L, Smith E, Aitkenhead A, Rose C, Merchant M, Kirkby K, Grzanka L, Pawelke J, Lühr A. Towards harmonizing clinical linear energy transfer (LET) reporting in proton radiotherapy: a European multi-centric study. Acta Oncol 2022; 61:206-214. [PMID: 34686122 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2021.1992007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2021] [Accepted: 10/06/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical data suggest that the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in proton therapy (PT) varies with linear energy transfer (LET). However, LET calculations are neither standardized nor available in clinical routine. Here, the status of LET calculations among European PT institutions and their comparability are assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eight European PT institutions used suitable treatment planning systems with their center-specific beam model to create treatment plans in a water phantom covering different field arrangements and fulfilling commonly agreed dose objectives. They employed their locally established LET simulation environments and procedures to determine the corresponding LET distributions. Dose distributions D1.1 and DRBE assuming constant and variable RBE, respectively, and LET were compared among the institutions. Inter-center variability was assessed based on dose- and LET-volume-histogram parameters. RESULTS Treatment plans from six institutions fulfilled all clinical goals and were eligible for common analysis. D1.1 distributions in the target volume were comparable among PT institutions. However, corresponding LET values varied substantially between institutions for all field arrangements, primarily due to differences in LET averaging technique and considered secondary particle spectra. Consequently, DRBE using non-harmonized LET calculations increased inter-center dose variations substantially compared to D1.1 and significantly in mean dose to the target volume of perpendicular and opposing field arrangements (p < 0.05). Harmonizing LET reporting (dose-averaging, all protons, LET to water or to unit density tissue) reduced the inter-center variability in LET to the order of 10-15% within and outside the target volume for all beam arrangements. Consequentially, inter-institutional variability in DRBE decreased to that observed for D1.1. CONCLUSION Harmonizing the reported LET among PT centers is feasible and allows for consistent multi-centric analysis and reporting of tumor control and toxicity in view of a variable RBE. It may serve as basis for harmonized variable RBE dose prescription in PT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Hahn
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Medical Physics and Radiotherapy, Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
| | - Jakob Ödén
- RaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Alexandru Dasu
- The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden
- Medical Radiation Sciences, Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Anne Vestergaard
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Olga Sokol
- GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Claudia Pardi
- I-SEE (Internet-Simulation Evaluation Envision), Torino, Italy
| | - Faiza Bourhaleb
- I-SEE (Internet-Simulation Evaluation Envision), Torino, Italy
| | - Amélia Leite
- Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Radiation Oncology Department, Proton Therapy Centre, Centre Universitaire, Orsay, France
| | - Ludovic de Marzi
- Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Radiation Oncology Department, Proton Therapy Centre, Centre Universitaire, Orsay, France
- Institut Curie, PSL Research University, University Paris Saclay, Inserm LITO, Orsay, France
| | - Edward Smith
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, UK
| | - Adam Aitkenhead
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, UK
| | - Christopher Rose
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, UK
| | - Michael Merchant
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, UK
| | - Karen Kirkby
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, UK
| | - Leszek Grzanka
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
| | - Jörg Pawelke
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Armin Lühr
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Medical Physics and Radiotherapy, Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Henjum H, Dahle TJ, Fjæra LF, Rørvik E, Pilskog S, Stokkevåg CH, Mairani A, Ytre-Hauge KS. The Organ Sparing Potential of Different Biological Optimization Strategies in Proton Therapy. Adv Radiat Oncol 2021; 6:100776. [PMID: 34765804 PMCID: PMC8573123 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100776] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2021] [Revised: 06/20/2021] [Accepted: 08/09/2021] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose Variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) models allow for differences in linear energy transfer (LET), physical dose, and tissue type to be accounted for when quantifying and optimizing the biological damage of protons. These models are complex and fraught with uncertainties, and therefore, simpler RBE optimization strategies have also been suggested. Our aim was to compare several biological optimization strategies for proton therapy by evaluating their performance in different clinical cases. Methods and Materials Two different optimization strategies were compared: full variable RBE optimization and differential RBE optimization, which involve applying fixed RBE for the planning target volume (PTV) and variable RBE in organs at risk (OARs). The optimization strategies were coupled to 2 variable RBE models and 1 LET-weighted dose model, with performance demonstrated on 3 different clinical cases: brain, head and neck, and prostate tumors. Results In cases with low (α/β)x in the tumor, the full RBE optimization strategies had a large effect, with up to 10% reduction in RBE-weighted dose to the PTV and OARs compared with the reference plan, whereas smaller variations (<5%) were obtained with differential optimization. For tumors with high (α/β)x, the differential RBE optimization strategy showed a greater reduction in RBE-weighted dose to the OARs compared with the reference plan and the full RBE optimization strategy. Conclusions Differences between the optimization strategies varied across the studied cases, influenced by both biological and physical parameters. Whereas full RBE optimization showed greater OAR sparing, awareness of underdosage to the target must be carefully considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helge Henjum
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Corresponding author: Helge Henjum, MSc
| | - Tordis J. Dahle
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Lars Fredrik Fjæra
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Eivind Rørvik
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Sara Pilskog
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Camilla H. Stokkevåg
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica (CNAO Foundation), Pavia, Italy
- Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Liew H, Meister S, Mein S, Tessonnier T, Kopp B, Held T, Haberer T, Abdollahi A, Debus J, Dokic I, Mairani A. Combined DNA Damage Repair Interference and Ion Beam Therapy: Development, Benchmark, and Clinical Implications of a Mechanistic Biological Model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 112:802-817. [PMID: 34710524 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.09.048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2021] [Revised: 09/10/2021] [Accepted: 09/28/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Our purpose was to develop a mechanistic model that describes and predicts radiation response after combined DNA damage repair interference (DDRi) and particle radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS The heterogeneous dose distributions of protons and 4He ions were implemented into the "UNIfied and VERSatile bio-response Engine" (UNIVERSE). Predictions for monoenergetic and mixed fields over clinically relevant dose and linear energy transfer range were compared with experimental in vitro survival data measured in this work as well as data available in the literature, including different cell lines and DDR interferences. Ultimately, UNIVERSE predictions were investigated in a patient plan. RESULTS UNIVERSE accurately predicts survival of cell lines with and without DDRi in clinical settings of ion beam therapy based only on 3 parameters derived from photon data. With increasing dose or linear energy transfer, the radiosensitizing effect of DDRi decreases, resulting in diminished relative biological effect of ion beam radiation for cells subjected to DDRi in comparison to cells that are not. Similar trends were observed in patient plan recalculations; however, this analysis also suggests that DDRi + particle radiation therapy may better preserve the therapeutic window in comparison to DDRi + photon radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS The presented framework represents the first mechanistic model of combined DDRi and particle radiation therapy comprehensively benchmarked in clinically relevant scenarios and a step toward more personalized treatment. It reveals potential differences between DDRi + photon radiation therapy versus DDRi + particle radiation therapy, which have not been described so far. UNIVERSE could aid in appraising the clinical viability of combined administration of radiosensitizing drugs and charged particle therapy, as well as the identification of patients with known DDR deficiencies in the tumor who might benefit from therapy with light ions, freeing limited space at heavy ion therapy centers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hans Liew
- 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 Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Sarah Meister
- 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 Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Biology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Stewart Mein
- 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 Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University 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
| | - Benedikt Kopp
- 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 Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Held
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), University Hospital Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Haberer
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Amir Abdollahi
- 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 Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), University Hospital Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Clinical Cooperation Unit 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
| | - Ivana Dokic
- 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 Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Heidelberg, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg University 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; National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Medical Physics, Pavia, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Bellinzona EV, Grzanka L, Attili A, Tommasino F, Friedrich T, Krämer M, Scholz M, Battistoni G, Embriaco A, Chiappara D, Cirrone GAP, Petringa G, Durante M, Scifoni E. Biological Impact of Target Fragments on Proton Treatment Plans: An Analysis Based on the Current Cross-Section Data and a Full Mixed Field Approach. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13194768. [PMID: 34638254 PMCID: PMC8507563 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13194768] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2021] [Revised: 09/13/2021] [Accepted: 09/13/2021] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Proton therapy is now an established external radiotherapy modality for cancer treatment. Clinical routine currently neglects the radiobiological impact of nuclear target fragments even if experimental evidences show a significant enhancement in cell-killing effect due to secondary particles. This paper quantifies the contribution of proton target fragments of different charge in different irradiation scenarios and compares the computationally predicted corrections to the overall biological dose with experimental data. Abstract Clinical routine in proton therapy currently neglects the radiobiological impact of nuclear target fragments generated by proton beams. This is partially due to the difficult characterization of the irradiation field. The detection of low energetic fragments, secondary protons and fragments, is in fact challenging due to their very short range. However, considering their low residual energy and therefore high LET, the possible contribution of such heavy particles to the overall biological effect could be not negligible. In this context, we performed a systematic analysis aimed at an explicit assessment of the RBE (relative biological effectiveness, i.e., the ratio of photon to proton physical dose needed to achieve the same biological effect) contribution of target fragments in the biological dose calculations of proton fields. The TOPAS Monte Carlo code has been used to characterize the radiation field, i.e., for the scoring of primary protons and fragments in an exemplary water target. TRiP98, in combination with LEM IV RBE tables, was then employed to evaluate the RBE with a mixed field approach accounting for fragments’ contributions. The results were compared with that obtained by considering only primary protons for the pristine beam and spread out Bragg peak (SOBP) irradiations, in order to estimate the relative weight of target fragments to the overall RBE. A sensitivity analysis of the secondary particles production cross-sections to the biological dose has been also carried out in this study. Finally, our modeling approach was applied to the analysis of a selection of cell survival and RBE data extracted from published in vitro studies. Our results indicate that, for high energy proton beams, the main contribution to the biological effect due to the secondary particles can be attributed to secondary protons, while the contribution of heavier fragments is mainly due to helium. The impact of target fragments on the biological dose is maximized in the entrance channels and for small α/β values. When applied to the description of survival data, model predictions including all fragments allowed better agreement to experimental data at high energies, while a minor effect was observed in the peak region. An improved description was also obtained when including the fragments’ contribution to describe RBE data. Overall, this analysis indicates that a minor contribution can be expected to the overall RBE resulting from target fragments. However, considering the fragmentation effects can improve the agreement with experimental data for high energy proton beams.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elettra Valentina Bellinzona
- Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Applications (TIFPA), National Institute for Nuclear Physics, (INFN), 38123 Trento, Italy; (E.V.B.); (F.T.)
- Department of Physics, University of Trento, 38123 Trento, Italy;
| | - Leszek Grzanka
- The Department of Radiation Research and Proton Radiotherapy, Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, 31-342 Krakow, Poland;
| | - Andrea Attili
- “Roma Tre” Section, INFN—National Institute for Nuclear Physics, 00146 Roma, Italy;
| | - Francesco Tommasino
- Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Applications (TIFPA), National Institute for Nuclear Physics, (INFN), 38123 Trento, Italy; (E.V.B.); (F.T.)
- Department of Physics, University of Trento, 38123 Trento, Italy;
| | - Thomas Friedrich
- Department of Biophysics, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany; (T.F.); (M.K.); (M.S.); (M.D.)
| | - Michael Krämer
- Department of Biophysics, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany; (T.F.); (M.K.); (M.S.); (M.D.)
| | - Michael Scholz
- Department of Biophysics, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany; (T.F.); (M.K.); (M.S.); (M.D.)
| | | | - Alessia Embriaco
- “Pavia” Section, INFN—National Institute for Nuclear Physics, 6-27100 Pavia, Italy;
| | - Davide Chiappara
- Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, INFN—National Institute for Nuclear Physics, 95125 Catania, Italy; (D.C.); (G.A.P.C.); (G.P.)
| | - Giuseppe A. P. Cirrone
- Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, INFN—National Institute for Nuclear Physics, 95125 Catania, Italy; (D.C.); (G.A.P.C.); (G.P.)
| | - Giada Petringa
- Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, INFN—National Institute for Nuclear Physics, 95125 Catania, Italy; (D.C.); (G.A.P.C.); (G.P.)
| | - Marco Durante
- Department of Biophysics, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany; (T.F.); (M.K.); (M.S.); (M.D.)
- Institut für Physik Kondensierter Materie, Technische Universität, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Emanuele Scifoni
- Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Applications (TIFPA), National Institute for Nuclear Physics, (INFN), 38123 Trento, Italy; (E.V.B.); (F.T.)
- Department of Physics, University of Trento, 38123 Trento, Italy;
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Almhagen E, Traneus E, Ahnesjö A. Handling of beam spectra in training and application of proton RBE models. Phys Med Biol 2021; 66. [PMID: 34464939 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac226a] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2021] [Accepted: 08/31/2021] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Published data from cell survival experiments are frequently used as training data for models of proton relative biological effectiveness (RBE). The publications rarely provide full information about the primary particle spectrum of the used beam, or its content of heavy secondary particles. The purpose of this paper is to assess to what extent heavy secondary particles may have been present in published cell survival experiments, and to investigate the impact of non-primary protons for RBE calculations in treatment planning. We used the Monte Carlo code Geant4 to calculate the occurrence of non-primary protons and heavier secondary particles for clinical protons beams in water for four incident energies in the [100, 250] MeV interval. We used the resulting spectra together with a conservative RBE parameterization and an RBE model to map both the rise of RBE at the beam entry surface due to heavy secondary particle buildup, and the difference in estimated RBE if non-primary protons are included or not in the beam quality metric. If included, non-primary protons cause a difference of 2% of the RBE in the plateau region of an spread out Bragg peak and 1% in the Bragg peak. Including non-primary protons specifically for RBE calculations will consequently have a negligible impact and can be ignored. A buildup distance in water of one millimeter was sufficient to reach an equilibrium state of RBE for the four incident energies selected. For the investigated experimental data, 83 out of the 86 data points were found to have been determined with at least that amount of buildup material. Hence, RBE model training data should be interpreted to include the contribution of heavy secondaries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erik Almhagen
- Medical Radiation Sciences, Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Akademiska Sjukhuset, Uppsala, Sweden.,The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden
| | | | - Anders Ahnesjö
- Medical Radiation Sciences, Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Akademiska Sjukhuset, Uppsala, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Deng W, Yang Y, Liu C, Bues M, Mohan R, Wong WW, Foote RH, Patel SH, Liu W. A Critical Review of LET-Based Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Plan Evaluation and Optimization for Head and Neck Cancer Management. Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:36-49. [PMID: 34285934 PMCID: PMC8270082 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-20-00049.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2020] [Accepted: 10/14/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
In this review article, we review the 3 important aspects of linear-energy-transfer (LET) in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for head and neck (H&N) cancer management. Accurate LET calculation methods are essential for LET-guided plan evaluation and optimization, which can be calculated either by analytical methods or by Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Recently, some new 3D analytical approaches to calculate LET accurately and efficiently have been proposed. On the other hand, several fast MC codes have also been developed to speed up the MC simulation by simplifying nonessential physics models and/or using the graphics processor unit (GPU)–acceleration approach. Some concepts related to LET are also briefly summarized including (1) dose-weighted versus fluence-weighted LET; (2) restricted versus unrestricted LET; and (3) microdosimetry versus macrodosimetry. LET-guided plan evaluation has been clinically done in some proton centers. Recently, more and more studies using patient outcomes as the biological endpoint have shown a positive correlation between high LET and adverse events sites, indicating the importance of LET-guided plan evaluation in proton clinics. Various LET-guided plan optimization methods have been proposed to generate proton plans to achieve biologically optimized IMPT plans. Different optimization frameworks were used, including 2-step optimization, 1-step optimization, and worst-case robust optimization. They either indirectly or directly optimize the LET distribution in patients while trying to maintain the same dose distribution and plan robustness. It is important to consider the impact of uncertainties in LET-guided optimization (ie, LET-guided robust optimization) in IMPT, since IMPT is sensitive to uncertainties including both the dose and LET distributions. We believe that the advancement of the LET-guided plan evaluation and optimization will help us exploit the unique biological characteristics of proton beams to improve the therapeutic ratio of IMPT to treat H&N and other cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Deng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Yunze Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Chenbin Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
| | - Martin Bues
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Radhe Mohan
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - William W Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Robert H Foote
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Samir H Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Wei Liu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Kalholm F, Grzanka L, Traneus E, Bassler N. A systematic review on the usage of averaged LET in radiation biology for particle therapy. Radiother Oncol 2021; 161:211-221. [PMID: 33894298 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.04.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2020] [Revised: 04/06/2021] [Accepted: 04/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
Linear Energy Transfer (LET) is widely used to express the radiation quality of ion beams, when characterizing the biological effectiveness. However, averaged LET may be defined in multiple ways, and the chosen definition may impact the resulting reported value. We review averaged LET definitions found in the literature, and quantify which impact using these various definitions have for different reference setups. We recorded the averaged LET definitions used in 354 publications quantifying the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of hadronic beams, and investigated how these various definitions impact the reported averaged LET using a Monte Carlo particle transport code. We find that the kind of averaged LET being applied is, generally, poorly defined. Some definitions of averaged LET may influence the reported averaged LET values up to an order of magnitude. For publications involving protons, most applied dose averaged LET when reporting RBE. The absence of what target medium is used and what secondary particles are included further contributes to an ill-defined averaged LET. We also found evidence of inconsistent usage of averaged LET definitions when deriving LET-based RBE models. To conclude, due to commonly ill-defined averaged LET and to the inherent problems of LET-based RBE models, averaged LET may only be used as a coarse indicator of radiation quality. We propose a more rigorous way of reporting LET values, and suggest that ideally the entire particle fluence spectra should be recorded and provided for future RBE studies, from which any type of averaged LET (or other quantities) may be inferred.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fredrik Kalholm
- Medical Radiation Physics, Dept. of Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Oncology and Pathology, Medical Radiation Physics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Leszek Grzanka
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
| | | | - Niels Bassler
- Medical Radiation Physics, Dept. of Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Oncology and Pathology, Medical Radiation Physics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Bauer J, Bahn E, Harrabi S, Herfarth K, Debus J, Alber M. How can scanned proton beam treatment planning for low-grade glioma cope with increased distal RBE and locally increased radiosensitivity for late MR-detected brain lesions? Med Phys 2021; 48:1497-1507. [PMID: 33506555 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14739] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2020] [Revised: 12/10/2020] [Accepted: 01/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
A novel risk model has recently been proposed for the occurrence of late contrast-enhancing brain lesions (CEBLs) after proton irradiation of low-grade glioma (LGG) patients. It predicts a strong dependence on dose-weighted linear-energy transfer (LETd effect) and an increased radiosensitivity of the ventricular proximity, a 4-mm fringe surrounding the ventricular system (VP4mm effect). On this basis, we investigated (A) how these two risk factors and patient-specific anatomical and treatment plan (TP) features contribute to normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and (B) if conventional LETd -reduction techniques like multiple-field TP are able to reduce NTCP. (A) The LGG model cohort (N = 110) was stratified with respect to prescribed dose, tumor grade, and treatment field configuration. NTCP predictions and CEBL occurrence rates per strata were analyzed. (B) The effect of multiple-field TP was investigated in two patient groups: (i) nine high-risk subjects with extended lateral target volumes who had developed CEBLs after single-beam treatments were retrospectively replanned with a clinical standard two-field setting using almost orthogonal fields and strictly opposing fields, (ii) single-field treatments were simulated for seven low-risk patients with small central target volumes clinically treated with two strictly opposing fields. (A) In the model cohort, we identified the exposure of the radiosensitive VP4mm fringe with proton field components of increased biological effectiveness as dominant NTCP driving factor. We observed that larger target volumes and location lateral to the main ventricles, both being characteristic for WHO°II tumors, presented with the highest complication risks. Among subjects of an equal dose prescription of 54 Gy(RBE), the highest median NTCP was obtained for the WHO°II group treated with two fields using sharp angles. (B) Regarding the effect of multiple-field plans, we found that an NTCP reduction was only achievable in the low-risk group where the LETd effect dominates and the VP4mm effect is small. NTCP of the single-field plans was 23% higher compared to the clinical opposing field plan. In the high-risk group, where the VP4mm effect dominates the risk, both two-field scenarios yielded 44% higher NTCP predictions compared to the clinical single-field plans. The interplay of an increased radiosensitivity in the VP4mm fringe with proton field components of increased biological effectiveness creates a geometric complexity that can hardly be managed by current clinical TP. Our results underline that advanced biologically guided TP approaches become crucial for an effective risk minimization in proton therapy of LGG.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Bauer
- 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
| | - Emanuel Bahn
- 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
| | - 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
| | - 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
| | - Markus Alber
- 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
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Abstract
Uncertainties in the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons remains a major barrier to the biological optimisation of proton therapy. While a constant value of 1.1 is widely used in treatment planning, extensive preclinical in vitro and in vivo data suggests that proton RBE is variable, depending on proton energy, target tissue, and endpoint. A number of phenomenological models have been developed to try and explain this variation, but agreement between these models is often poor. This has been attributed to both the models' underlying assumptions and the data to which they are fit. In this brief note, we investigate the underlying trends in these models by comparing their predictions as a function of relevant biological and physical parameters, to determine where models are in conceptual agreement or disagreement. By doing this, it can be seen that the primary differences between models arise from how they handle biological parameters (i.e. [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] from the linear-quadratic model for photon exposures). By contrast, when specifically explored for linear energy transfer-dependence, all models show extremely good correlation. These observations suggest that there is a pressing need for more systematic exploration of biological variation in RBE across different cells in well-controlled conditions to help distinguish between these different models and identify the true behaviour.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen J McMahon
- Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 7AE, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Otterlei OM, Indelicato DJ, Toussaint L, Ytre-Hauge KS, Pilskog S, Fjaera LF, Rørvik E, Pettersen HES, Muren LP, Lassen-Ramshad Y, Di Pinto M, Stokkevåg CH. Variation in relative biological effectiveness for cognitive structures in proton therapy of pediatric brain tumors. Acta Oncol 2021; 60:267-274. [PMID: 33131367 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2020.1840626] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinically, a constant value of 1.1 is used for the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons, whereas in vitro the RBE has been shown to vary depending on physical dose, tissue type, and linear energy transfer (LET). As the LET increases at the distal end of the proton beam, concerns exist for an elevated RBE in normal tissues. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the heterogeneity of RBE to brain structures associated with cognition (BSCs) in pediatric suprasellar tumors. MATERIAL AND METHODS Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans for 10 pediatric craniopharyngioma patients were re-calculated using 11 phenomenological and two plan-based variable RBE models. Based on LET, tissue dependence and number of data points used to fit the models, the three RBE models considered the most relevant for the studied endpoint were selected. Thirty BSCs were investigated in terms of RBE and dose/volume parameters. RESULTS For a representative patient, the median (range) dose-weighted mean RBE (RBEd) across all BSCs from the plan-based models was among the lowest (1.09 (1.02-1.52) vs. the phenomenological models at 1.21 (0.78-2.24)). Omitting tissue dependency resulted in RBEd at 1.21 (1.04-2.24). Across all patients, the narrower RBE model selection gave median RBEd values from 1.22 to 1.30. CONCLUSION For all BSCs, there was a systematic model-dependent variation in RBEd, mirroring the uncertainty in biological effects of protons. According to a refined selection of in vitro models, the RBE variation across BSCs was in effect underestimated when using a fixed RBE of 1.1.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Laura Toussaint
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Sara Pilskog
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| | | | - Eivind Rørvik
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | | | - Ludvig P. Muren
- Department of Medical Physics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Marcos Di Pinto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Camilla H. Stokkevåg
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Embriaco A, Attili A, Bellinzona EV, Dong Y, Grzanka L, Mattei I, Muraro S, Scifoni E, Tommasino F, Valle SM, Battistoni G. FLUKA simulation of target fragmentation in proton therapy. Phys Med 2020; 80:342-346. [PMID: 33271390 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.09.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2019] [Revised: 09/02/2020] [Accepted: 09/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
In proton therapy, secondary fragments are created in nuclear interactions of the beam with the target nuclei. The secondary fragments have low kinetic energies and high atomic numbers as compared to primary protons. Fragments have a high LET and deposit all their energy close to the generation point. For their characteristics, secondary fragments can alter the dose distribution and lead to an increase of RBE for the same delivered physical dose. Moreover, the radiobiological impact of target fragmentation is significant mostly in the region before the Bragg peak, where generally healthy tissues are present, and immediately after Bragg peak. Considering the high biological impact of those particles, especially in the case of healthy tissues or organs at risk, the inclusion of target fragmentation processes in the dose calculation of a treatment planning system can be relevant to improve the treatment accuracy and for this reason it is one of the major tasks of the MoVe IT project. In this study, Monte Carlo simulations were employed to fully characterize the mixed radiation field generated by target fragmentation in proton therapy. The dose averaged LET has been evaluated in case of a Spread Out Bragg Peak (SOBP). Starting from LET distribution, RBE has been evaluated with two different phenomenological models. In order to characterize the mixed radiation field, the production cross section has been evaluated by means of the FLUKA code. The future development of present work is to generate a MC database of fragments fluence to be included in TPS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Embriaco
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Milano, Italy.
| | - A Attili
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma Tre, Italy
| | - E V Bellinzona
- Universitá degli studi di Trento, Italy; TIFPA Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Application, Italy
| | - Y Dong
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Milano, Italy; Universitá degli studi di Milano, Italy
| | - L Grzanka
- Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kraków, Poland
| | - I Mattei
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Milano, Italy
| | - S Muraro
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Milano, Italy
| | - E Scifoni
- TIFPA Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Application, Italy
| | - F Tommasino
- Universitá degli studi di Trento, Italy; TIFPA Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Application, Italy
| | - S M Valle
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Milano, Italy
| | - G Battistoni
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Milano, Italy; TIFPA Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Application, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Hahn C, Eulitz J, Peters N, Wohlfahrt P, Enghardt W, Richter C, Lühr A. Impact of range uncertainty on clinical distributions of linear energy transfer and biological effectiveness in proton therapy. Med Phys 2020; 47:6151-6162. [PMID: 33118161 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14560] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2020] [Revised: 10/01/2020] [Accepted: 10/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Increased radiation response after proton irradiation, such as late radiation-induced toxicity, is determined by high dose and elevated linear energy transfer (LET). Steep dose-averaged LET (LETd ) gradients and elevated LETd occur at the end of proton range and might be particularly sensitive to uncertainties in range prediction. Therefore, this study quantified LETd distributions and the impact of range uncertainty in robust dose-optimized proton treatment plans and assessed the biological effect in normal tissues and tumors of patients. METHODS For each of six cancer patients (two brain, head-and-neck, and prostate), two nominal treatment plans were robustly dose optimized using single- and multi-field optimization, respectively. For each plan, two additional scenarios with ±3.5% range deviation relative to the nominal plan were derived by global rescaling of stopping-power ratios. Dose and LETd distributions were calculated for each scenario using the beam parameters of the corresponding nominal plan. The variability in relative biological effectiveness (RBE) and probability of late radiation-induced brain toxicity (PIC ) was assessed. RESULTS The optimization technique (single- vs multi-field) had a negligible impact on the LETd distributions in the clinical target volume (CTV) and in most organs at risk (OARs). LETd distributions in the CTV were rather homogeneous with arithmetic mean of LETd below 3.2 keV/µm and robust against range deviations. The RBE variability within the CTV induced by range uncertainty was small (≤0.05, 95% confidence interval). In OARs, LETd hotspots (>7 keV/µm) occurred and LETd distributions were inhomogeneous and sensitive to range deviations. LETd hotspots and the impact of range deviations were most prominent in OARs of brain tumor patients which translated in RBE values exceeding 1.1 in all brain OARs. The near-maximum predicted PIC in healthy brain tissue of brain tumor patients was smaller than 5% and occurred adjacent to the CTV. Range deviations induced absolute differences in PIC up to 1.2%. CONCLUSIONS Robust dose optimization generates LETd distributions in the target volume robust against range deviations. The current findings support using a constant RBE within the CTV. The impact of range deviations on the considered probability of late radiation-induced toxicity in brain tissue was limited for robust dose-optimized treatment plans. Incorporation of LETd in robust optimization frameworks may further reduce uncertainty related to the RBE-weighted dose estimation in normal tissues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- 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 Medical Physics and Radiotherapy, Faculty of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
| | - 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.,Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Nils Peters
- 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
| | - Patrick Wohlfahrt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - Wolfgang Enghardt
- 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.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Christian Richter
- 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.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, 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.,Department of Medical Physics and Radiotherapy, Faculty of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany.,Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany.,German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Patera V, Prezado Y, Azaiez F, Battistoni G, Bettoni D, Brandenburg S, Bugay A, Cuttone G, Dauvergne D, de France G, Graeff C, Haberer T, Inaniwa T, Incerti S, Nasonova E, Navin A, Pullia M, Rossi S, Vandevoorde C, Durante M. Biomedical Research Programs at Present and Future High-Energy Particle Accelerators. Front Phys 2020; 8:00380. [PMID: 33224942 PMCID: PMC7116397 DOI: 10.3389/fphy.2020.00380] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/15/2023]
Abstract
Biomedical applications at high-energy particle accelerators have always been an important section of the applied nuclear physics research. Several new facilities are now under constructions or undergoing major upgrades. While the main goal of these facilities is often basic research in nuclear physics, they acknowledge the importance of including biomedical research programs and of interacting with other medical accelerator facilities providing patient treatments. To harmonize the programs, avoid duplications, and foster collaboration and synergism, the International Biophysics Collaboration is providing a platform to several accelerator centers with interest in biomedical research. In this paper, we summarize the programs of various facilities in the running, upgrade, or construction phase.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vincenzo Patera
- Dipartimento di Scienze di Base e Applicate per l’Ingegneria, University “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Denis Dauvergne
- Université Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS/IN2P3, UMR5821, LPSC, GDR MI2B, LabEx PRIMES, Grenoble, France
| | | | - Christian Graeff
- Biophysics Department, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | | | | | - Sebastien Incerti
- Université de Bordeaux, CNRS/IN2P3, UMR5797, Centre d’Études Nucléaires de Bordeaux Gradignan, Gradignan, France
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Marco Durante
- Biophysics Department, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
- Institut für Festkörperphysik, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
- Correspondence: Marco Durante,
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Kopp B, Fuglsang Jensen M, Mein S, Hoffmann L, Nyström H, Falk M, Haberer T, Abdollahi A, Debus J, Mairani A. FRoG: An independent dose and LET
d
prediction tool for proton therapy at ProBeam® facilities. Med Phys 2020; 47:5274-5286. [DOI: 10.1002/mp.14417] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2020] [Revised: 06/11/2020] [Accepted: 07/12/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Benedikt Kopp
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg69120 Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology Department of Radiation Oncology Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD)Heidelberg Ion‐Beam Therapy Center (HIT) Heidelberg69120 Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core‐Center Heidelberg German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg69120 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) Heidelberg69120 Germany
- Department of Physics and Astronomy Heidelberg University Heidelberg69120 Germany
| | | | - Stewart Mein
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg69120 Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology Department of Radiation Oncology Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD)Heidelberg Ion‐Beam Therapy Center (HIT) Heidelberg69120 Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core‐Center Heidelberg German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg69120 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) Heidelberg69120 Germany
| | - Lone Hoffmann
- Department of Medical Physics Aarhus University Hospital AarhusDK‐8200 Denmark
| | - Håkan Nyström
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy Aarhus University Hospital AarhusDK‐8200 Denmark
- Skandion Clinic Uppsala752 37 Sweden
| | - Marianne Falk
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy Aarhus University Hospital AarhusDK‐8200 Denmark
| | - Thomas Haberer
- Heidelberg Ion‐Beam Therapy Center (HIT) Department of Radiation Oncology Heidelberg University Hospital Heidelberg69120 Germany
| | - Amir Abdollahi
- Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg69120 Germany
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology Department of Radiation Oncology Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD)Heidelberg Ion‐Beam Therapy Center (HIT) Heidelberg69120 Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core‐Center Heidelberg German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg69120 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) Heidelberg69120 Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core‐Center Heidelberg German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg69120 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) Heidelberg69120 Germany
- Department of Physics and Astronomy Heidelberg University Heidelberg69120 Germany
- Heidelberg Ion‐Beam Therapy Center (HIT) Department of Radiation Oncology Heidelberg University Hospital Heidelberg69120 Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology Heidelberg University Hospital Heidelberg69120 Germany
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Heidelberg Ion‐Beam Therapy Center (HIT) Department of Radiation Oncology Heidelberg University Hospital Heidelberg69120 Germany
- Medical Physics National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO) Pavia27100 Italy
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Resch AF, Heyes PD, Fuchs H, Bassler N, Georg D, Palmans H. Dose- rather than fluence-averaged LET should be used as a single-parameter descriptor of proton beam quality for radiochromic film dosimetry. Med Phys 2020; 47:2289-2299. [PMID: 32166764 PMCID: PMC7318138 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14097] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2019] [Revised: 01/24/2020] [Accepted: 02/05/2020] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The dose response of Gafchromic EBT3 films exposed to proton beams depends on the dose, and additionally on the beam quality, which is often quantified with the linear energy transfer (LET) and, hence, also referred to as LET quenching. Fundamentally different methods to determine correction factors for this LET quenching effect have been reported in literature and a new method using the local proton fluence distribution differential in LET is presented. This method was exploited to investigate whether a more practical correction based on the dose- or fluence-averaged LET is feasible in a variety of clinically possible beam arrangements. METHODS The relative effectiveness (RE) was characterized within a high LET spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) in water made up by the six lowest available energies (62.4-67.5 MeV, configuration " b 1 ") resulting in one of the highest clinically feasible dose-averaged LET distributions. Additionally, two beams were measured where a low LET proton beam (252.7 MeV) was superimposed on " b 1 ", which contributed either 50% of the initial particle fluence or 50% of the dose in the SOBP, referred to as configuration " b 2 " and " b 3 ," respectively. The proton LET spectrum was simulated with GATE/Geant4 at all measurement positions. The net optical density change differential in LET was integrated over the local proton spectrum to calculate the net optical density and therefrom the beam quality correction factor. The LET dependence of the film response was accounted for by an LET dependence of one of the three parameters in the calibration function and was determined from inverse optimization using measurement " b 1 ." This method was then validated on the measurements of " b 2 " and " b 3 " and subsequently used to calculate the RE at 900 positions in nine clinically relevant beams. The extrapolated RE set was used to derive a simple linear correction function based on dose-averaged LET ( L d ) and verify the validity in all points of the comprehensive RE set. RESULTS The uncorrected film dose deviated up to 26% from the reference dose, whereas the corrected film dose agreed within 3% in all three beams in water (" b 1 ", " b 2 " and " b 3 "). The LET dependence of the calibration function started to strongly increase around 5 keV/μm and flatten out around 30 keV/μm. All REs calculated from the proton fluence in the nine simulated beams could be approximated with a linear function of dose-averaged LET (RE = 1.0258-0.0211 μm/keV L d ). However, no functional relationship of RE- and fluence-averaged LET could be found encompassing all beam energies and modulations. CONCLUSIONS The film quenching was found to be nonlinear as a function of proton LET as well as of the dose-averaged LET. However, the linear relation of RE on dose-averaged LET was a good approximation in all cases. In contrast to dose-averaged LET, fluence-averaged LET could not describe the RE when multiple beams were applied.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andreas Franz Resch
- Division Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiotherapy, Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna/AKH Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Paul David Heyes
- Division Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiotherapy, Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna/AKH Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Hermann Fuchs
- Division Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiotherapy, Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna/AKH Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Niels Bassler
- Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Oncology and Pathology, Medical Radiation Physics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Dietmar Georg
- Division Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiotherapy, Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna/AKH Wien, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria
| | - Hugo Palmans
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Centre/EBG MedAustron, Marie-Curie-Straße 5, 2700, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.,Medical Radiation Science, National Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, TW11 0LW, Teddington, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Parisi A, Olko P, Swakoń J, Horwacik T, Jabłoński H, Malinowski L, Nowak T, Struelens L, Vanhavere F. Modeling the radiation-induced cell death in a therapeutic proton beam using thermoluminescent detectors and radiation transport simulations. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2020; 65:015008. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab491f] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
|
25
|
Pfuhl T, Horst F, Schuy C, Weber U. Comment on: “Technical note: Simulation of dose buildup in proton pencil beams” [Med Phys. 46(8): 3734–3738 (2019)]. Med Phys 2019; 46:5876-5877. [DOI: 10.1002/mp.13860] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2019] [Revised: 10/02/2019] [Accepted: 10/07/2019] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Tabea Pfuhl
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung 64291Darmstadt Germany
- Physics Department, Technische Universität Darmstadt 64289Darmstadt Germany
| | - Felix Horst
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung 64291Darmstadt Germany
- Institute of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection University of Applied Sciences 35390Giessen Germany
| | - Christoph Schuy
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung 64291Darmstadt Germany
| | - Uli Weber
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung 64291Darmstadt Germany
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Rørvik E, Thörnqvist S, Ytre-Hauge KS. The experimental dose ranges influence the LETd dependency of the proton minimum RBE (RBEmin). ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2019; 64:195001. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab369a] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
27
|
Mein S, Kopp B, Tessonnier T, Ackermann B, Ecker S, Bauer J, Choi K, Aricò G, Ferrari A, Haberer T, Debus J, Abdollahi A, Mairani A. Dosimetric validation of Monte Carlo and analytical dose engines with raster-scanning 1H, 4He, 12C, and 16O ion-beams using an anthropomorphic phantom. Phys Med 2019; 64:123-31. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.07.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2019] [Revised: 06/30/2019] [Accepted: 07/01/2019] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
|
28
|
Mein S, Dokic I, Klein C, Tessonnier T, Böhlen TT, Magro G, Bauer J, Ferrari A, Parodi K, Haberer T, Debus J, Abdollahi A, Mairani A. Biophysical modeling and experimental validation of relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for 4He ion beam therapy. Radiat Oncol 2019; 14:123. [PMID: 31296232 PMCID: PMC6624994 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-019-1295-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2019] [Accepted: 05/09/2019] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Helium (4He) ion beam therapy provides favorable biophysical characteristics compared to currently administered particle therapies, i.e., reduced lateral scattering and enhanced biological damage to deep-seated tumors like heavier ions, while simultaneously lessened particle fragmentation in distal healthy tissues as observed with lighter protons. Despite these biophysical advantages, raster-scanning 4He ion therapy remains poorly explored e.g., clinical translational is hampered by the lack of reliable and robust estimation of physical and radiobiological uncertainties. Therefore, prior to the upcoming 4He ion therapy program at the Heidelberg Ion-beam Therapy Center (HIT), we aimed to characterize the biophysical phenomena of 4He ion beams and various aspects of the associated models for clinical integration. METHODS Characterization of biological effect for 4He ion beams was performed in both homogenous and patient-like treatment scenarios using innovative models for estimation of relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in silico and their experimental validation using clonogenic cell survival as the gold-standard surrogate. Towards translation of RBE models in patients, the first GPU-based treatment planning system (non-commercial) for raster-scanning 4He ion beams was devised in-house (FRoG). RESULTS Our data indicate clinically relevant uncertainty of ±5-10% across different model simulations, highlighting their distinct biological and computational methodologies. The in vitro surrogate for highly radio-resistant tissues presented large RBE variability and uncertainty within the clinical dose range. CONCLUSIONS Existing phenomenological and mechanistic/biophysical models were successfully integrated and validated in both Monte Carlo and GPU-accelerated analytical platforms against in vitro experiments, and tested using pristine peaks and clinical fields in highly radio-resistant tissues where models exhibit the greatest RBE uncertainty. Together, these efforts mark an important step towards clinical translation of raster-scanning 4He ion beam therapy to the clinic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stewart Mein
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Medical School, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany.,Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core Center, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg University, Faculty of Physics, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Ivana Dokic
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Medical School, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany.,Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core Center, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Carmen Klein
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Medical School, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany.,Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core Center, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Thomas Tessonnier
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany.,Centre François Baclesse, Radiation Oncology, Medical Physics Department, Caen, France
| | - Till Tobias Böhlen
- Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Guiseppe Magro
- National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Medical Physics, Pavia, Italy
| | - Julia Bauer
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Alfredo Ferrari
- European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Katia Parodi
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany.,Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LUM Munich), Munich, Germany
| | - Thomas Haberer
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Jürgen Debus
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Medical School, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany.,Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core Center, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg University, Faculty of Physics, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Amir Abdollahi
- Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Medical School, Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany.,Translational Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core Center, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Heidelberg, Germany. .,National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO), Medical Physics, Pavia, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Kozłowska WS, Böhlen TT, Cuccagna C, Ferrari A, Fracchiolla F, Magro G, Mairani A, Schwarz M, Vlachoudis V, Georg D. FLUKA particle therapy tool for Monte Carlo independent calculation of scanned proton and carbon ion beam therapy. Phys Med Biol 2019; 64:075012. [PMID: 30695766 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab02cb] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
While Monte Carlo (MC) codes are considered as the gold standard for dosimetric calculations, the availability of user friendly MC codes suited for particle therapy is limited. Based on the FLUKA MC code and its graphical user interface (GUI) Flair, we developed an easy-to-use tool which enables simple and reliable simulations for particle therapy. In this paper we provide an overview of functionalities of the tool and with the presented clinical, proton and carbon ion therapy examples we demonstrate its reliability and the usability in the clinical environment and show its flexibility for research purposes. The first, easy-to-use FLUKA MC platform for particle therapy with GUI functionalities allows a user with a minimal effort and reduced knowledge about MC details to apply MC at their facility and is expected to enhance the popularity of the MC for both research and clinical quality assurance and commissioning purposes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wioletta S Kozłowska
- CERN-European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland. Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Paganetti H, Blakely E, Carabe-Fernandez A, Carlson DJ, Das IJ, Dong L, Grosshans D, Held KD, Mohan R, Moiseenko V, Niemierko A, Stewart RD, Willers H. Report of the AAPM TG-256 on the relative biological effectiveness of proton beams in radiation therapy. Med Phys 2019; 46:e53-e78. [PMID: 30661238 DOI: 10.1002/mp.13390] [Citation(s) in RCA: 177] [Impact Index Per Article: 35.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2018] [Revised: 11/21/2018] [Accepted: 01/13/2019] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
The biological effectiveness of proton beams relative to photon beams in radiation therapy has been taken to be 1.1 throughout the history of proton therapy. While potentially appropriate as an average value, actual relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values may differ. This Task Group report outlines the basic concepts of RBE as well as the biophysical interpretation and mathematical concepts. The current knowledge on RBE variations is reviewed and discussed in the context of the current clinical use of RBE and the clinical relevance of RBE variations (with respect to physical as well as biological parameters). The following task group aims were designed to guide the current clinical practice: Assess whether the current clinical practice of using a constant RBE for protons should be revised or maintained. Identifying sites and treatment strategies where variable RBE might be utilized for a clinical benefit. Assess the potential clinical consequences of delivering biologically weighted proton doses based on variable RBE and/or LET models implemented in treatment planning systems. Recommend experiments needed to improve our current understanding of the relationships among in vitro, in vivo, and clinical RBE, and the research required to develop models. Develop recommendations to minimize the effects of uncertainties associated with proton RBE for well-defined tumor types and critical structures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Harald Paganetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Eleanor Blakely
- Biological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA
| | | | - David J Carlson
- Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Indra J Das
- New York University Langone Medical Center & Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Lei Dong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - David Grosshans
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Kathryn D Held
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Radhe Mohan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Vitali Moiseenko
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Andrzej Niemierko
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Robert D Stewart
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Henning Willers
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Abstract
Precision radiotherapy, which accurately delivers the dose on a tumor and confers little or no irradiation to the surrounding normal tissue and organs, results in maximum tumor control and decreases the toxicity to the utmost extent. Proton beam therapy (PBT) provides superior dose distributions and has a dosimetric advantage over photon beam therapy. Initially, the clinical practice and study of proton beam therapy focused on ocular tumor, skull base, paraspinal tumors (chondrosarcoma and chordoma), and unresectable sarcomas, which responded poorly when treated with photon radiotherapy. Then, it is widely regarded as an ideal mode for reirradiation and pediatrics due to reducing unwanted side effects by lessening the dose to normal tissue. During the past decade, the application of PBT has been rapidly increasing worldwide and gradually expanding for the treatment of various malignancies. However, to date, the role of PBT in clinical settings is still controversial, and there are considerable challenges in its application. We systematically review the latest advances of PBT and the challenges for patient treatment in the era of precision medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Man Hu
- Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, China
- Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Shandong Province Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Jinan, China
| | - Liyang Jiang
- Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, China
- Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Shandong Province Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Jinan, China
| | - Xiangli Cui
- Province Key Laboratory of Medical Physics and Technology, Center of Medical Physics and Technology, Hefei Institutes of Physical Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, Anhui, China
| | - Jianguang Zhang
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, Zibo Wanjie Cancer Hospital, Zibo, Shandong, China
| | - Jinming Yu
- Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, China.
- Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China.
- Departments of Radiation Oncology and Shandong Province Key Laboratory of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Jinan, China.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Choi K, Mein SB, Kopp B, Magro G, Molinelli S, Ciocca M, Mairani A. FRoG-A New Calculation Engine for Clinical Investigations with Proton and Carbon Ion Beams at CNAO. Cancers (Basel) 2018; 10:E395. [PMID: 30360576 DOI: 10.3390/cancers10110395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2018] [Revised: 10/15/2018] [Accepted: 10/16/2018] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
A fast and accurate dose calculation engine for hadrontherapy is critical for both routine clinical and advanced research applications. FRoG is a graphics processing unit (GPU)-based forward calculation tool developed at CNAO (Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica) and at HIT (Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center) for fast and accurate calculation of both physical and biological dose. FRoG calculation engine adopts a triple Gaussian parameterization for the description of the lateral dose distribution. FRoG provides dose, dose-averaged linear energy transfer, and biological dose-maps, -profiles, and -volume-histograms. For the benchmark of the FRoG calculation engine, using the clinical settings available at CNAO, spread-out Bragg peaks (SOBPs) and patient cases for both proton and carbon ion beams have been calculated and compared against FLUKA Monte Carlo (MC) predictions. In addition, FRoG patient-specific quality assurance (QA) has been performed for twenty-five proton and carbon ion fields. As a result, for protons, biological dose values, using a relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1, agree on average with MC within ~1% for both SOBPs and patient plans. For carbon ions, RBE-weighted dose (DRBE) agreement against FLUKA is within ~2.5% for the studied SOBPs and patient plans. Both MKM (Microdosimetric Kinetic Model) and LEM (Local Effect Model) DRBE are implemented and tested in FRoG to support the NIRS (National Institute of Radiological Sciences)-based to LEM-based biological dose conversion. FRoG matched the measured QA dosimetric data within ~2.0% for both particle species. The typical calculation times for patients ranged from roughly 1 to 4 min for proton beams and 3 to 6 min for carbon ions on a NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1080 Ti. This works demonstrates FRoG's potential to bolster clinical activity with proton and carbon ion beams at CNAO.
Collapse
|
33
|
Mein S, Choi K, Kopp B, Tessonnier T, Bauer J, Ferrari A, Haberer T, Debus J, Abdollahi A, Mairani A. Fast robust dose calculation on GPU for high-precision 1H, 4He, 12C and 16O ion therapy: the FRoG platform. Sci Rep 2018; 8:14829. [PMID: 30287930 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-33194-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2018] [Accepted: 09/18/2018] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Radiotherapy with protons and heavier ions landmarks a novel era in the field of high-precision cancer therapy. To identify patients most benefiting from this technologically demanding therapy, fast assessment of comparative treatment plans utilizing different ion species is urgently needed. Moreover, to overcome uncertainties of actual in-vivo physical dose distribution and biological effects elicited by different radiation qualities, development of a reliable high-throughput algorithm is required. To this end, we engineered a unique graphics processing unit (GPU) based software architecture allowing rapid and robust dose calculation. FRoG, Fast Recalculation on GPU, currently operates with four particle beams available at Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy center, i.e., raster-scanning proton (1H), helium (4He), carbon (12C) and oxygen ions (16O). FRoG enables comparative analysis of different models for estimation of physical and biological effective dose in 3D within minutes and in excellent agreement with the gold standard Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. This is a crucial step towards development of next-generation patient specific radiotherapy.
Collapse
|
34
|
Rørvik E, Fjæra LF, Dahle TJ, Dale JE, Engeseth GM, Stokkevåg CH, Thörnqvist S, Ytre-Hauge KS. Exploration and application of phenomenological RBE models for proton therapy. Phys Med Biol 2018; 63:185013. [PMID: 30102240 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aad9db] [Citation(s) in RCA: 77] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons varies with multiple physical and biological factors. Phenomenological RBE models have been developed to include such factors in the estimation of a variable RBE, in contrast to the clinically applied constant RBE of 1.1. In this study, eleven published phenomenological RBE models and two plan-based models were explored and applied to simulated patient cases. All models were analysed with respect to the distribution and range of linear energy transfer (LET) and reference radiation fractionation sensitivity ((α/β) x ) of their respective experimental databases. Proton therapy plans for a spread-out Bragg peak in water and three patient cases (prostate adenocarcinoma, pituitary adenoma and thoracic sarcoma) were optimised using an RBE of 1.1 in the Eclipse™ treatment planning system prior to recalculation and modelling in the FLUKA Monte Carlo code. Model estimated dose-volume parameters for the planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OAR) were compared. The experimental in vitro databases for the various models differed greatly in the range of (α/β) x values and dose-averaged LET (LETd). There were significant variations between the model estimations, which arose from fundamental differences in the database definitions and model assumptions. The greatest variations appeared in organs with low (α/β) x and high LETd, e.g. biological doses given to late responding OARs located distal to the target in the treatment field. In general, the variation in maximum dose (D2%) was larger than the variation in mean dose and other dose metrics, with D2% of the left optic nerve ((α/β) x = 2.1 Gy) in the pituitary adenoma case showing the greatest discrepancies between models: 28-52 Gy(RBE), while D2% for RBE1.1 was 30 Gy(RBE). For all patient cases, the estimated mean RBE to the PTV was in the range 1.09-1.29 ((α/β) x = 1.5/3.1/10.6 Gy). There were considerable variations between the estimations of RBE and RBE-weighted doses from the different models. These variations were a consequence of fundamental differences in experimental databases, model assumptions and regression techniques. The results from the implementation of RBE models in dose planning studies should be evaluated in light of these deviations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eivind Rørvik
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Pfuhl T, Horst F, Schuy C, Weber U. Dose build-up effects induced by delta electrons and target fragments in proton Bragg curves—measurements and simulations. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2018; 63:175002. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aad8fc] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
|
36
|
Tessonnier T, Mairani A, Chen W, Sala P, Cerutti F, Ferrari A, Haberer T, Debus J, Parodi K. Proton and helium ion radiotherapy for meningioma tumors: a Monte Carlo-based treatment planning comparison. Radiat Oncol 2018; 13:2. [PMID: 29316969 PMCID: PMC5759862 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-017-0944-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2017] [Accepted: 12/14/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Due to their favorable physical and biological properties, helium ion beams are increasingly considered a promising alternative to proton beams for radiation therapy. Hence, this work aims at comparing in-silico the treatment of brain and ocular meningiomas with protons and helium ions, using for the first time a dedicated Monte Carlo (MC) based treatment planning engine (MCTP) thoroughly validated both in terms of physical and biological models. METHODS Starting from clinical treatment plans of four patients undergoing proton therapy with a fixed relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1 and a fraction dose of 1.8 Gy(RBE), new treatment plans were optimized with MCTP for both protons (with variable and fixed RBE) and helium ions (with variable RBE) under the same constraints derived from the initial clinical plans. The resulting dose distributions were dosimetrically compared in terms of dose volume histograms (DVH) parameters for the planning target volume (PTV) and the organs at risk (OARs), as well as dose difference maps. RESULTS In most of the cases helium ion plans provided a similar PTV coverage as protons with a consistent trend of superior OAR sparing. The latter finding was attributed to the ability of helium ions to offer sharper distal and lateral dose fall-offs, as well as a more favorable differential RBE variation in target and normal tissue. CONCLUSIONS Although more studies are needed to investigate the clinical potential of helium ions for different tumour entities, the results of this work based on an experimentally validated MC engine support the promise of this modality with state-of-the-art pencil beam scanning delivery, especially in case of tumours growing in close proximity of multiple OARs such as meningiomas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Tessonnier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Medical Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
| | - Andrea Mairani
- Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica, Pavia, Italy
| | - Wenjing Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Paola Sala
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Milano, Milan, Italy
- European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Francesco Cerutti
- European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Alfredo Ferrari
- European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland
| | | | - Jürgen Debus
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Katia Parodi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Medical Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Tessonnier T, Böhlen TT, Ceruti F, Ferrari A, Sala P, Brons S, Haberer T, Debus J, Parodi K, Mairani A. Dosimetric verification in water of a Monte Carlo treatment planning tool for proton, helium, carbon and oxygen ion beams at the Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2017. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa7be4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
|
38
|
Mairani A, Magro G, Tessonnier T, Böhlen TT, Molinelli S, Ferrari A, Parodi K, Debus J, Haberer T. Optimizing the modified microdosimetric kinetic model input parameters for proton and4He ion beam therapy application. Phys Med Biol 2017; 62:N244-N256. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa6be9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
|