Literature DB >> 25587741

Radiobiological intercomparison of the 160 MeV and 230 MeV proton therapy beams at the Harvard Cyclotron Laboratory and at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Bradly G Wouters1, Lloyd D Skarsgard, Leo E Gerweck, Alejandro Carabe-Fernandez, Michelle Wong, Ralph E Durand, Deanna Nielson, Marc R Bussiere, Miles Wagner, Peter Biggs, Harald Paganetti, Herman D Suit.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) along the axis of two range-modulated proton beams (160 and 230 MeV). Both the depth and the dose dependence of RBE were investigated. Chinese hamster V79-WNRE cells, suspended in medium containing gelatin and cooled to 2 °C, were used to obtain complete survival curves at multiple positions throughout the entrance and 10 cm spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP). Simultaneous measurements of the survival response to (60)Co gamma rays served as the reference data for the proton RBE determinations. For both beams the RBE increased significantly with depth in the 10 cm SOBP, particularly in the distal half of the SOBP, then rose even more sharply at the distal edge, the most distal position measured. At a 4 Gy dose of gamma radiation (S = 0.34) the average RBE values for the entrance, proximal half, distal half and distal edge were 1.07 ± 0.01, 1.10 ± 0.01, 1.17 ± 0.01 and 1.21 ± 0.01, respectively, and essentially the same for both beams. At a 2 Gy dose of gamma radiation (S = 0.71) the average RBE values rose to 1.13 ± 0.03, 1.15 ± 0.02, 1.26 ± 0.02 and 1.30 ± 0.02, respectively, for the same four regions of the SOBP. The difference between the 4 Gy and 2 Gy RBE values reflects the dose dependence of RBE as measured in these V79-WNRE cells, which have a low α/β value, as do other widely used cell lines that also show dose-dependent RBE values. Late-responding tissues are also characterized by low α/β values, so it is possible that these cell lines may be predictive for the response of such tissues (e.g., spinal cord, optic nerve, kidney, liver, lung). However, in the very small number of studies of late-responding tissues performed to date there appears to be no evidence of an increased RBE for protons at low doses. Similarly, RBE measurements using early responding in vivo systems (mostly mouse jejunum, an early-responding tissue which has a large α/β ∼ 10 Gy) have generally shown little or no detectable dose dependence. It is useful to compare the RBE values reported here to the commonly used generic clinical RBE of 1.1, which assumes no dependence on depth or on dose. Our proximal RBEs obviously avoid the depth-related increase in RBE and for doses of 4 Gy or more, the low-dose increase in RBE is also minimized, as shown in this article. Thus the proximal RBE at a 4 Gy dose of 1.10 ± 0.01, quoted above, represents an interesting point of congruence with the clinical RBE for conditions where it could reasonably be expected in the measurements reported here. The depth dependence of RBE reported here is consistent with the majority of measurements, both in vitro and in vivo, by other investigators. The dose dependence of RBE, on the other hand, is tissue specific but has not yet been demonstrated for protons by RBE values in late-responding normal tissue systems. This indicates a need for additional RBE determination as function of dose, especially in late-responding tissues.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25587741     DOI: 10.1667/RR13795.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Res        ISSN: 0033-7587            Impact factor:   2.841


  13 in total

1.  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 2.  Comparing Photon and Charged Particle Therapy Using DNA Damage Biomarkers.

Authors:  Shayoni Ray; Egle Cekanaviciute; Ivan Paulino Lima; Brita Singers Sørensen; Sylvain V Costes
Journal:  Int J Part Ther       Date:  2018-09-21

Review 3.  Radiation oncology in the era of precision medicine.

Authors:  Michael Baumann; Mechthild Krause; Jens Overgaard; Jürgen Debus; Søren M Bentzen; Juliane Daartz; Christian Richter; Daniel Zips; Thomas Bortfeld
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 60.716

Review 4.  The relative biological effectiveness of proton irradiation in dependence of DNA damage repair.

Authors:  Simon Deycmar; Erica Faccin; Tamara Kazimova; Philip A Knobel; Irma Telarovic; Fabienne Tschanz; Verena Waller; Rona Winkler; Carmen Yong; Dario Zingariello; Martin Pruschy
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Experimental validation of an analytical microdosimetric model based on Geant4-DNA simulations by using a silicon-based microdosimeter.

Authors:  A Bertolet; V Grilj; C Guardiola; A D Harken; M A Cortés-Giraldo; A Baratto-Roldán; A Carabe
Journal:  Radiat Phys Chem Oxf Engl 1993       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 2.858

Review 6.  Applications of nanodosimetry in particle therapy planning and beyond.

Authors:  Antoni Rucinski; Anna Biernacka; Reinhard Schulte
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Biological Effectiveness of Accelerated Protons for Chromosome Exchanges.

Authors:  Kerry A George; Megumi Hada; Francis A Cucinotta
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 6.244

8.  Evaluation of the relative biological effectiveness of spot-scanning proton irradiation in vitro.

Authors:  Kenichiro Maeda; Hironobu Yasui; Taeko Matsuura; Tohru Yamamori; Motofumi Suzuki; Masaki Nagane; Jin-Min Nam; Osamu Inanami; Hiroki Shirato
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 2.724

Review 9.  New insights in the relative radiobiological effectiveness of proton irradiation.

Authors:  K Ilicic; S E Combs; T E Schmid
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-01-16       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  Difference in the relative biological effectiveness and DNA damage repair processes in response to proton beam therapy according to the positions of the spread out Bragg peak.

Authors:  Hidehiro Hojo; Takeshi Dohmae; Kenji Hotta; Ryosuke Kohno; Atsushi Motegi; Atsushi Yagishita; Hideki Makinoshima; Katsuya Tsuchihara; Tetsuo Akimoto
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.