Literature DB >> 25361443

Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and linear energy transfer.

Harald Paganetti1.   

Abstract

Proton therapy treatments are based on a proton RBE (relative biological effectiveness) relative to high-energy photons of 1.1. The use of this generic, spatially invariant RBE within tumors and normal tissues disregards the evidence that proton RBE varies with linear energy transfer (LET), physiological and biological factors, and clinical endpoint. Based on the available experimental data from published literature, this review analyzes relationships of RBE with dose, biological endpoint and physical properties of proton beams. The review distinguishes between endpoints relevant for tumor control probability and those potentially relevant for normal tissue complication. Numerous endpoints and experiments on sub-cellular damage and repair effects are discussed. Despite the large amount of data, considerable uncertainties in proton RBE values remain. As an average RBE for cell survival in the center of a typical spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP), the data support a value of ~1.15 at 2 Gy/fraction. The proton RBE increases with increasing LETd and thus with depth in an SOBP from ~1.1 in the entrance region, to ~1.15 in the center, ~1.35 at the distal edge and ~1.7 in the distal fall-off (when averaged over all cell lines, which may not be clinically representative). For small modulation widths the values could be increased. Furthermore, there is a trend of an increase in RBE as (α/β)x decreases. In most cases the RBE also increases with decreasing dose, specifically for systems with low (α/β)x. Data on RBE for endpoints other than clonogenic cell survival are too diverse to allow general statements other than that the RBE is, on average, in line with a value of ~1.1. This review can serve as a source for defining input parameters for applying or refining biophysical models and to identify endpoints where additional radiobiological data are needed in order to reduce the uncertainties to clinically acceptable levels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25361443     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/22/R419

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


  182 in total

1.  Analysis of the track- and dose-averaged LET and LET spectra in proton therapy using the geant4 Monte Carlo code.

Authors:  Fada Guan; Christopher Peeler; Lawrence Bronk; Changran Geng; Reza Taleei; Sharmalee Randeniya; Shuaiping Ge; Dragan Mirkovic; David Grosshans; Radhe Mohan; Uwe Titt
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Long-term outcomes and prognostic factors of skull-base chondrosarcoma patients treated with pencil-beam scanning proton therapy at the Paul Scherrer Institute.

Authors:  Damien C Weber; Shahed Badiyan; Robert Malyapa; Francesca Albertini; Alessandra Bolsi; Antony J Lomax; Ralf Schneider
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2015-08-30       Impact factor: 12.300

3.  Effects of Surgery and Proton Therapy on Cerebral White Matter of Craniopharyngioma Patients.

Authors:  Jinsoo Uh; Thomas E Merchant; Yimei Li; Xingyu Li; Noah D Sabin; Daniel J Indelicato; Robert J Ogg; Frederick A Boop; John A Jane; Chiaho Hua
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2015-05-16       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 4.  Robust Proton Treatment Planning: Physical and Biological Optimization.

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

5.  Systematic microdosimetric data for protons of therapeutic energies calculated with Geant4-DNA.

Authors:  Oleg N Vassiliev; Christine B Peterson; Wenhua Cao; David R Grosshans; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 6.  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

7.  Harnessing radiation to improve immunotherapy: better with particles?

Authors:  Marco Durante; Silvia Formenti
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Recent developments and comprehensive evaluations of a GPU-based Monte Carlo package for proton therapy.

Authors:  Nan Qin; Pablo Botas; Drosoula Giantsoudi; Jan Schuemann; Zhen Tian; Steve B Jiang; Harald Paganetti; Xun Jia
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  End-of-Range Radiobiological Effect on Rib Fractures in Patients Receiving Proton Therapy for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Chia-Chun Wang; Aimee L McNamara; Jungwook Shin; Jan Schuemann; Clemens Grassberger; Alphonse G Taghian; Rachel B Jimenez; Shannon M MacDonald; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2020-03-30       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 10.  Proton therapy for paediatric CNS tumours - improving treatment-related outcomes.

Authors:  Vinai Gondi; Torunn I Yock; Minesh P Mehta
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2016-05-20       Impact factor: 42.937

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.