Literature DB >> 22330133

Range uncertainty in proton therapy due to variable biological effectiveness.

Alejandro Carabe1, Maryam Moteabbed, Nicolas Depauw, Jan Schuemann, Harald Paganetti.   

Abstract

Traditionally, dose in proton radiotherapy is prescribed as Gy(RBE) by scaling up the physical dose by 10%. The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons is considered to vary with dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LET(d)), dose (d) and (α/β)(x). The increase of RBE with depth causes a shift of the falloff of the beam, i.e. a change of the beam range. The magnitude of this shift will depend on dose and (α/β)(x). The aim of this project was to quantify the dependence of the range shift on these parameters. Three double-scattered beams of different ranges incident on a computational phantom consisting of different regions of interest (ROIs) were used. Each ROI was assigned with (α/β)(x) values between 0.5 and 20 Gy. The distribution of LET(d) within each ROI was obtained from a Monte Carlo simulation. The LET(d) distribution depends on the beam energy and thus its nominal range. The RBE values within the ROIs were calculated for doses between 1 and 15 Gy using an in-house developed biophysical model. Dose-volume histograms of the RBE-weighted doses were extracted for each ROI for a 'fixed RBE' (RBE = 1.1) and a 'variable RBE' (RBE = f (d, α/β, LET(d))), and the percentage difference in range was obtained from the difference of the percentage volumes at the distal 80% of the dose. Range differences in normal tissue ((α/β)(x) = 3 Gy) of the order of 3-2 mm were obtained, respectively, for a shallow (physical range 4.8 cm) and a deep (physical range 12.8 cm) beam, when a dose of 1 Gy normalized to the mid-SOBP was delivered. As the dose increased to 15 Gy, the variable RBE decreases below 1.1 which induces ranges of about 1 mm shorter than those obtained with an RBE of 1.1. The shift in the range of an SOBP when comparing biological dose distributions obtained with a fixed or a variable RBE was quantified as a function of dose, (α/β)(x) and physical range (as a surrogate of the initial beam energy). The shift increases with the physical range but decreases with increasing dose or (α/β)(x). The results of our study allow a quantitative consideration of RBE-caused range uncertainties as a function of treatment site and dose in treatment planning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22330133     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/5/1159

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  41 in total

Review 1.  Robust Proton Treatment Planning: Physical and Biological Optimization.

Authors:  Jan Unkelbach; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 5.934

Review 2.  New challenges in high-energy particle radiobiology.

Authors:  M Durante
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  Proton RBE dependence on dose in the setting of hypofractionation.

Authors:  Thomas Friedrich
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Extension of TOPAS for the simulation of proton radiation effects considering molecular and cellular endpoints.

Authors:  Lisa Polster; Jan Schuemann; Ilaria Rinaldi; Lucas Burigo; Aimee L McNamara; Robert D Stewart; Andrea Attili; David J Carlson; Tatsuhiko Sato; José Ramos Méndez; Bruce Faddegon; Joseph Perl; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 5.  Treatment planning optimisation in proton therapy.

Authors:  S E McGowan; N G Burnet; A J Lomax
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 6.  Proton therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: Current knowledges and future perspectives.

Authors:  Gyu Sang Yoo; Jeong Il Yu; Hee Chul Park
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-07-28       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Comparative Risk Predictions of Second Cancers After Carbon-Ion Therapy Versus Proton Therapy.

Authors:  John G Eley; Thomas Friedrich; Kenneth L Homann; Rebecca M Howell; Michael Scholz; Marco Durante; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 8.  Modelling variable proton relative biological effectiveness for treatment planning.

Authors:  Aimee McNamara; Henning Willers; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Relative biological effectiveness in canine osteosarcoma cells irradiated with accelerated charged particles.

Authors:  Junko Maeda; Ian M Cartwright; Jeremy S Haskins; Yoshihiro Fujii; Hiroshi Fujisawa; Hirokazu Hirakawa; Mitsuru Uesaka; Hisashi Kitamura; Akira Fujimori; Douglas H Thamm; Takamitsu A Kato
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 2.967

10.  Relative biological effectiveness of the 60-MeV therapeutic proton beam at the Institute of Nuclear Physics (IFJ PAN) in Kraków, Poland.

Authors:  Dorota Słonina; Beata Biesaga; Jan Swakoń; Damian Kabat; Leszek Grzanka; Marta Ptaszkiewicz; Urszula Sowa
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2014-07-19       Impact factor: 1.925

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.