Literature DB >> 23470339

Clinical consequences of relative biological effectiveness variations in proton radiotherapy of the prostate, brain and liver.

Alejandro Carabe1, Samuel España, Clemens Grassberger, Harald Paganetti.   

Abstract

Proton relative biological effectiveness (RBE) is known to depend on the (α/β)x of irradiated tissues, with evidence of ∼60% variation over (α/β)x values from 1-10 Gy. The range of (α/β)x values reported for prostate tumors (1.2-5.0 Gy), brain tumors (10-15 Gy) and liver tumors (13-17 Gy) imply that the proton RBE for these tissues could vary significantly compared to the commonly used generic value of 1.1. Our aim is to evaluate the impact of this uncertainty on the proton dose in Gy(RBE) absorbed in normal and tumor tissues. This evaluation was performed for standard and hypofractionated regimens. RBE-weighted total dose (RWTD) distributions for 15 patients (five prostate tumors, five brain tumors and five liver tumors) were calculated using an in-house developed RBE model as a function of dose, dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd) and (α/β)x. Variations of the dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for the gross tumor volume (GTV) and the organs at risk due to changes of (α/β)x and fractionation regimen were calculated and the RWTD received by 10% and 90% of the organ volume reported. The goodness of the plan, bearing the uncertainties, was then evaluated compared to the delivered plan, which considers a constant RBE of 1.1. For standard fractionated regimens, the prostate tumors, liver tumors and all critical structures in the brain showed typically larger RBE values than 1.1. However, in hypofractionated regimens lower values of RBE than 1.1 were observed in most cases. Based on DVH analysis we found that the RBE variations were clinically significant in particular for the prostate GTV and the critical structures in the brain. Despite the uncertainties in the biological input parameters when estimating RBE values, the results show that the use of a variable RBE with dose, LETd and (α/β)x could help to further optimize the target dose in proton treatment planning. Most importantly, this study shows that the consideration of RBE variations could influence the comparison of proton and photon treatments in clinical trials, in particular in the case of the prostate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23470339     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/7/2103

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


  19 in total

Review 1.  New challenges in high-energy particle radiobiology.

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

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  Mechanisms and Review of Clinical Evidence of Variations in Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2021-08-15       Impact factor: 8.013

4.  Quantifying the risk and dosimetric variables of symptomatic brainstem injury after proton beam radiation in pediatric brain tumors.

Authors:  Rituraj Upadhyay; Kaiping Liao; David R Grosshans; Susan L McGovern; Mary Frances McAleer; Wafik Zaky; Murali M Chintagumpala; Anita Mahajan; Debra Nana Yeboa; Arnold C Paulino
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 13.029

Review 5.  National Cancer Institute Workshop on Proton Therapy for Children: Considerations Regarding Brainstem Injury.

Authors:  Daphne Haas-Kogan; Daniel Indelicato; Harald Paganetti; Natia Esiashvili; Anita Mahajan; Torunn Yock; Stella Flampouri; Shannon MacDonald; Maryam Fouladi; Kry Stephen; John Kalapurakal; Stephanie Terezakis; Hanne Kooy; David Grosshans; Mike Makrigiorgos; Kavita Mishra; Tina Young Poussaint; Kenneth Cohen; Thomas Fitzgerald; Vinai Gondi; Arthur Liu; Jeff Michalski; Dragan Mirkovic; Radhe Mohan; Stephanie Perkins; Kenneth Wong; Bhadrasain Vikram; Jeff Buchsbaum; Larry Kun
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  A phenomenological relative biological effectiveness (RBE) model for proton therapy based on all published in vitro cell survival data.

Authors:  Aimee L McNamara; Jan Schuemann; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Proton Relative Biological Effectiveness - Uncertainties and Opportunities.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Part Ther       Date:  2018-09-21

8.  Range modulation in proton therapy planning: a simple method for mitigating effects of increased relative biological effectiveness at the end-of-range of clinical proton beams.

Authors:  Jeffrey C Buchsbaum; Mark W McDonald; Peter A S Johnstone; Ted Hoene; Marc Mendonca; Chee-Wei Cheng; Indra J Das; Kevin P McMullen; Mark R Wolanski
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-01-02       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  Validation of the physical and RBE-weighted dose estimator based on PHITS coupled with a microdosimetric kinetic model for proton therapy.

Authors:  Kenta Takada; Tatsuhiko Sato; Hiroaki Kumada; Junichi Koketsu; Hideyuki Takei; Hideyuki Sakurai; Takeji Sakae
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 2.724

10.  Variable RBE in proton therapy: comparison of different model predictions and their influence on clinical-like scenarios.

Authors:  Giulia Giovannini; Till Böhlen; Gonzalo Cabal; Julia Bauer; Thomas Tessonnier; Kathrin Frey; Jürgen Debus; Andrea Mairani; Katia Parodi
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.