Fada Guan1, Lawrence Bronk2, Uwe Titt1, Steven H Lin3, Dragan Mirkovic1, Matthew D Kerr1, X Ronald Zhu1, Jeffrey Dinh2, Mary Sobieski4, Clifford Stephan4, Christopher R Peeler1, Reza Taleei1, Radhe Mohan1, David R Grosshans3. 1. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, U.S.A. 2. Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, U.S.A. 3. 1] Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, U.S.A [2] Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, U.S.A. 4. Center for Translational Cancer Research, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Abstract
The physical properties of particles used in radiation therapy, such as protons, have been well characterized, and their dose distributions are superior to photon-based treatments. However, proton therapy may also have inherent biologic advantages that have not been capitalized on. Unlike photon beams, the linear energy transfer (LET) and hence biologic effectiveness of particle beams varies along the beam path. Selective placement of areas of high effectiveness could enhance tumor cell kill and simultaneously spare normal tissues. However, previous methods for mapping spatial variations in biologic effectiveness are time-consuming and often yield inconsistent results with large uncertainties. Thus the data needed to accurately model relative biological effectiveness to guide novel treatment planning approaches are limited. We used Monte Carlo modeling and high-content automated clonogenic survival assays to spatially map the biologic effectiveness of scanned proton beams with high accuracy and throughput while minimizing biological uncertainties. We found that the relationship between cell kill, dose, and LET, is complex and non-unique. Measured biologic effects were substantially greater than in most previous reports, and non-linear surviving fraction response was observed even for the highest LET values. Extension of this approach could generate data needed to optimize proton therapy plans incorporating variable RBE.
The physical properties of particles used in radiation therapy, such as protons, have been well characterized, and their dose distributions are superior to photon-based treatments. However, proton therapy may also have inherent biologic advantages that have not been capitalized on. Unlike photon beams, the linear energy transfer (LET) and hence biologic effectiveness of particle beams varies along the beam path. Selective placement of areas of high effectiveness could enhance tumor cell kill and simultaneously spare normal tissues. However, previous methods for mapping spatial variations in biologic effectiveness are time-consuming and often yield inconsistent results with large uncertainties. Thus the data needed to accurately model relative biological effectiveness to guide novel treatment planning approaches are limited. We used Monte Carlo modeling and high-content automated clonogenic survival assays to spatially map the biologic effectiveness of scanned proton beams with high accuracy and throughput while minimizing biological uncertainties. We found that the relationship between cell kill, dose, and LET, is complex and non-unique. Measured biologic effects were substantially greater than in most previous reports, and non-linear surviving fraction response was observed even for the highest LET values. Extension of this approach could generate data needed to optimize proton therapy plans incorporating variable RBE.
Interest in particle therapy, particularly proton therapy, has been increasing. The
number of treatment centers in the United States alone is expected to double over the
next 5–10 years. Although initial clinical results are promising, the rapid
expansion of particle therapy is controversial given its high cost and the need for
randomized trials to assess the clinical benefits of proton therapy compared with
standard photon (X-ray) based treatments123.Currently the widespread interest in proton therapy is driven by the physical properties
of particle therapy, which allow greater sparing of normal tissues from excess
radiation. The relevant physical properties stem from the fact that protons and other
charged particles continuously lose energy as they traverse through tissue, with the
rate of energy loss increasing as the particles slow. This phenomenon results in a dose
deposition profile in which doses are low at the entrance into tissue, higher near the
end of the range, and drop to near zero abruptly thereafter. The highest point of the
dose deposition curve is known as the Bragg peak. In principle, these physical
dose-deposition characteristics of particle therapy offer significant potential to
enhance the therapeutic ratio compared with conventional modes of radiation therapy.Although the physical properties of particles such as protons are well understood, much
remains to be learned of their unique biologic effects. A large amount of research has
demonstrated that particles generally have higher relative biological effectiveness
(RBE) than photons (which by definition have an RBE of 1 when produced by Cobalt-60)
towards the end of their range. This increased RBE indicates that particles are more
biologically effective at inducing cell death than are photons, which underscores their
potential for treating radiation-resistant tumors45. Heavier particles,
such as carbon ions, have a significantly higher RBE than photons, with typical values
ranging between 2 and 4 depending on the location along the beam path67. Protons, being relatively light particles, have an RBE closer to that of photons. In
the current clinical practice of proton therapy, the RBE is assumed to have a generic,
spatially invariant, constant value of 1.18.This assumption has been justified based on numerous in vitro and in vivo
experiments carried out under relatively limited conditions using older delivery
techniques (e.g., high doses per fraction, passive scattering)8. Although
numerous, existing experimental data tend to be inconsistent and involve large
uncertainties, a factor that is often used to justify the continued use of averaged RBE
value of 1.19. Even with high uncertainties and inconsistencies, many
experiments have shown that the RBE of proton beams can vary considerably along the beam
path and as a function of dose, but these potential variations in RBE are not accounted
for in clinical treatment planning systems101112. Thus, the concept
of a generic RBE value for proton therapy is increasingly coming under scrutiny. Deeper
understanding of the unique biologic effects of protons, combined with advances in
planning delivery techniques, could considerably expand the therapeutic index of proton
therapy.Further, as delivery modalities progress, the opportunity arises to capitalize on the RBE
variability of both protons and other ions. Historically, most clinical particle
treatments were delivered with passive scattering technology, where a thin beam is
scattered laterally and modulated longitudinally to produce a volume of uniform dose,
comprising superposition of multiple Bragg peaks into what is known as the spread-out
Bragg peak (SOBP)11. This volume is shaped by introducing materials into
the beam to conform it to the three-dimensional shape of the target. In this delivery
method, the highest-intensity Bragg curves contribute most of the dose to the formation
of the distal edges of beams, which commonly lie within normal tissues beyond the target
tumor volume.Newer techniques use magnetically scanned thin pristine beams
(“beamlets”) of particles with sequences of energies to produce
dose distribution patterns to plan and deliver the most advanced form of particle
therapy, intensity-modulated particle therapy (IMPT). IMPT involves sophisticated
optimization techniques to adjust intensities and energies of incident pristine beams to
balance the need to deliver maximum doses to tumor targets while maximally sparing
nearby normal tissues.IMPT has the potential to exploit the higher RBE of protons or other particles around the
Bragg peak by preferentially placing the most biologically effective portions of the
beam inside the target volume and away from normal structures. This is in contrast to
current delivery techniques, in which the treatment is optimized solely to create a
uniform dose in the target volume without consideration of the varying biological
effectiveness of the particles in the beam. This preferential placement approach could
significantly increase the differential between doses to target vs. normal tissues.
However, the incorporation of variable RBE into IMPT optimization requires that accurate
models be developed for computing RBE as a function of dose per fraction, linear energy
transfer (LET), and tissue type, which in turn would require large amounts of accurate
data on RBE. Unfortunately, data for developing these models are limited and have been
difficult to obtain because of numerous complicating factors such as adequate access to
beam time, non-standardized irradiations, variations in experimental techniques and
reporting as well as the large span of reported biologic responses913.In a recent comprehensive review, Paganetti systematically analyzed hundreds of published
clonogenic data points to determine a relevant proton RBE9. That review
stated that although the use of an RBE of 1.1 is acceptable for large clinical SOBPs,
the literature does support increased RBE values of 1.15 at the center, 1.35 at the
distal edge, and 1.7 at the distal falloff of an SOBP. Equally as important, the review
highlights the large spread of the existing clonogenic data and suggests a need for
experimental protocol standardization in addition to more complete reporting of fit
parameters and errors. Although clearer data reporting is relatively straightforward,
the ideal experimental protocol will require optimization owing to the multitude of
complicating factors in a clonogenic assay alone that could contribute to the observed
data spread.In this report, we describe our combined use of basic particle physics and minimization
of biological uncertainty to design a high-throughput system for improving the accuracy
of the acquired biologic data as a function of dose and LET. We report preliminary
results generated with actively scanned monoenergetic proton beams as a demonstration of
the potential of such an approach. We anticipate that this method will continue to
evolve to address multiple experimental needs, not only for proton biology but also for
similar experiments with other ion species.
Results
Monte Carlo–based design of a customized device to accurately
and efficiently map biologic effects
The spatial energy spectra, and hence the LET spectra, of a therapeutic proton
beam depend on several factors including incident energy, SOBP width, and
position of measurement within the SOBP as well as the machine-specific hardware
used for scattering and range modulation. We compared the calculated energy
spectra between passively scattered and scanned beams at three matched locations
along the beam paths and found substantial differences between the two delivery
methods (Fig. 1a–c). The broad energy spectra
of passively scattered beams, particularly the long low-energy tails, could
introduce significant uncertainty in the relationship between biological effect
and LET.
Figure 1
Rationale for using the scanned monoenergetic proton beams for biology
experiments and design of the irradiation device.
(a) Depth-dose profiles for a 79.7-MeV scanned proton beam vs. a matched
passively scattered beam of the same range with a 3-cm spread-out Bragg peak
(SOBP) in water. (b) Energy spectra of protons at three points A, B, C
within the scattered beam marked in panel (a). (c) Corresponding energy
spectra for the monoenergetic 79.7-MeV scanned beam. (d) Schematic diagram
of the irradiation device (jig) concept illustrating the strategy for the
column-by-column simultaneous irradiation of biological samples in the
96-well plate with protons at different points on the pristine Bragg curve.
Gray bars indicate Lucite; red, culture medium. The stepped construction is
designed to match the columns of a 96-well plate and serves to vary position
along the Bragg curve, although only 9 columns are shown in the illustration
and the step dimensions are not to scale. (e) Dose and LET distributions in
the cell layers, positioned atop the jig, were computed using Monte Carlo
simulations. The relative dose results shown were normalized to the entrance
dose in column 1 in the 96-well plate. The LET shown is dose-averaged LET.
The associated errors for both dose and LET were obtained from a sensitivity
analysis of experimental setup uncertainties. The thickness of the 12 steps
in the jig was selected according to the variations of dose and LET along
the Bragg curve. Column 9 was aligned with the Bragg peak by inserting three
films of thickness 268 µm each. An exposed and processed 96-well
plate is shown at the bottom of the panel to illustrate the dose-LET effect
of cell kill. (f) The jig directly mounted onto the scanning beam gantry.
The 96-well plates are inserted into a precisely milled slot in the jig
holder designed to minimize positioning errors. Protons are incident from
below.
To minimize the breadth of the energy and LET spectra, and to facilitate
correlations of biologic effect with LET and dose, we developed a system using
monoenergetic scanned proton beams. Because LET increases as a function of depth
along the Bragg curve, first slowly and then rapidly, we used Monte Carlo (MC)
simulations to design an apparatus (jig) to attenuate proton energy in a
stepwise fashion from the incident energy to the end of the range (schematically
illustrated in Fig. 1d). We chose 96-well plates to allow
the simultaneous irradiation of biologic samples to multiple dose-LET
combinations and automated plate processing. The irradiation jig was designed by
grouping the 96 wells into 12 columns of 8 wells each, such that each of the
columns are simultaneously exposed to a different combination of dose and LET,
thus enabling the acquisition of 12 times the amount of data from a single
exposure. All of the wells in a column are intended to receive the same dose-LET
combination (Fig. 1e). The resulting design can be
considered a multi-step range shifter consisting of 12 steps. The thickness of
steps varies from 0 to a maximum value producing protons of increasing LET; the
thickest steps irradiate the cells with the portion of the Bragg curve from just
before to just beyond the Bragg peak. The jig was custom-fabricated from Lucite
and directly mounts into the snout of the scanning beam gantry. The biologic
sample plate is placed on top of the jig with the beam directed upwards (Fig. 1f). The thickness of the material interposed in the
proton beam path initially varies in large steps and then in increasingly finer
increments as the end of the proton range approaches and at points beyond. This
approach was taken to increase the resolution in regions of high dose and LET
gradients. MC calculations indicated that the jig did not appreciably alter the
profiles of the energy spectra (Supplementary Fig. 1).
Validation of spatial accuracy and irradiation of samples
To verify the precision of the jig setup and radiation delivery in relation to
the Bragg curve, a scan pattern consisting of 441 spots of a 79.7-MeV proton
beam was generated to form a 20 × 20 cm2 field. The
field was found to be uniform over an area of 12 × 13
cm2, large enough to cover the biological sample area of 10.8
× 7.2 cm2 (Fig.
2a&b). The respective column doses to a simulated cell layer
were also found to be within the statistical uncertainty of the MC simulations
(±<1%). To determine the location of the Bragg peak, we
exposed a stack of twelve EBT3 films (each 268 µm thick) placed on
top of an empty 96-well plate inserted into the jig (Fig.
2c). Optical densitometry analysis revealed that the location of the
Bragg peak position changed from film to film depending on the total intervening
thickness. To allow three points of measurement in the high-dose gradient region
beyond the Bragg peak, we sought to place the peak in the cell layer of column
9. We found that the peak was located at column 9 for the fourth film,
indicating that insertion of three films below the sample plate would provide
the desired shift (Fig. 2d). Subsequently, three EBT3
films were placed below the sample plate in all MC simulations and irradiations
for clonogenic assays. In the presence of the jig, the dose varied across the
columns of the plate from entrance to the peak by a factor of 5.5. Two
subsequent validation tests were performed 2 months apart using a calibrated
clinical plane-parallel ionization chamber and the jig setup. The ion chamber
was inserted into a Lucite holder and irradiated atop the exact jig setup to be
used for future biologic sample irradiation. The MC-predicted dose and ion
chamber measurement were found to differ by 0.35%, which is within the expected
setup uncertainty from our sensitivity analysis (Supplementary
Fig. 2; Supplementary Table 2). This setup was
then used to irradiate 96-well plates with biologic samples to a range of
entrance doses, thus producing a set of samples exposed to a matrix of dose-LET
combinations (Fig. 1e).
Figure 2
Uniformity of the scanning field and verification of distal edge
placement.
(a) Dose profile along the central longitudinal axis in the isocenter plane,
resulting from a 20 × 20 cm2 uniform scan pattern
with 3.5-cm full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) spots spaced 1 cm apart,
measured with a 1,020 chamber MatriXX system (IBA I’mRT MatriXX,
Schwarzenbruck, Germany). The field width between the 98% and 100% dose
levels is 12 cm. (b) Dose profile along the central lateral axis in the
isocenter plane. The field width between the 98% and 100% dose levels is 13
cm and is along the direction of the wells of columns; the uniformity over
the 7.2-cm extent of the 8 wells in each column is 99%–100%. (c)
Schematic of the experimental setup for range verification. A stack of 12
EBT3 films (each 268 µm thick) was placed directly on top of an
empty 96-well plate and exposed. (d) Optical densitometry measurements of
individual films made through the center of the well rows indicated that the
Bragg peak was at well column 9 for this film, the fourth in the stack. In
addition to verifying the accuracy of penetration of protons, this
experiment allowed us to determine the number of films needed to position
one of the columns (number 9) at the Bragg peak and have three points of
measurement in the high gradient distal fall-off.
Mapping variations in biologic effect with high-content automated
assays
To establish the feasibility of our approach and relate our findings to those of
historical studies, we used dose-averaged LET-dependent cancer cell line
clonogenic survival as the primary endpoint for our initial experiments. We
adapted high-content screening techniques for higher throughput and used
specific techniques to increase the accuracy of the data generated14. We first benchmarked the high-content system by comparing
clonogenic assay results obtained from both the high-content and traditional
method of manually counting colonies in 6-well plates of cultured H460 non-small
cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cells (Fig. 3a&b). The
H460 cell line was chosen for its exceptional clonogenicity and its doubling
time, which we found to be 19 hours (in agreement with published values)1516. Log-phase H460 cells were plated into either 96-well plates
(0.33 cm2 growth area per well) or 6-well plates (9.5
cm2 growth area per well) from the same stock solution at a
seeding density of 100 cells per well for the 96-well plates and a range of
concentrations for the 6-well plates. The cells were allowed to attach and
normalize for 8–10 hours before being irradiated. Radiation was
delivered with a 137Cs irradiator. Three different passages of
the cell line were used to calculate the average surviving fraction (SF) with a
single 96-well plate at each dose level for the high-content method, or with 6
replicates for each dose per experiment for the traditional method. After
irradiation, the cells were allowed to grow until sufficient colony formation
was observed in the control conditions (5 days for the high-content system and
10–12 days for the traditional method) and then fixed and stained.
Scoring, either by manual counting for the traditional method or with an IN Cell
Analyzer 6000 for the high-content system (Fig. 3b),
showed good correlation between techniques, with a non-statistically significant
difference between the curves (P = 0.315, extra sum-of-squares F
test; Fig. 3c).
Figure 3
High-throughput clonogenic assays of H460 and H1437 NSCLC cells.
(a) As a benchmark for our 96-well system, we compared cultures in that
format, processed and counted with the IN Cell Analyzer 6000, with those in
6-well plates, counted manually. Characteristic images of each plate type
are shown. (b) Representative images of a single well depicting high-content
image processing. (c) Cell survival curves for individual plates of cells
grown in 6-well or 96-well systems, exposed to 137Cs gamma
irradiation, and scored by manual or automated processing. Curves were found
to be not statistically different between the techniques (P = 0.315,
extra sum-of-squares F test). Error bars represent standard error of
the mean (s.e.m.). (d) Clonogenic survival plotted as a function of dose and
LET for proton irradiation experiments with H460 cells. Error bars for dose
were calculated by sensitivity analysis and SF with s.e.m. (e) Clonogenic
survival as a function of dose and LET for proton experiments performed with
H1437 cells. P < 0.0001 for comparisons of 0.9
keV/µm to ≥10.8 keV/µm, extra
sum-of-squares F test.
We next processed plates for exposure to protons using the jig. Exponentially
growing H460 cells were detached, automatically counted, diluted, and plated
into 96-well plates. Plates were seeded at 100 cells per well from the same
stock solution using an automated plater. After either photon
(137Cs) or proton irradiation, plates were cultured until
colony formation, at which time they were stained and prepared for readout and
subsequent survival analysis. The results of our high-content proton experiment
revealed that irradiation with increasing LETs resulted in a marked decrease in
cell survival (Fig. 3d). This trend was either obscured or
not present at the lower LET values in the plateau region of the Bragg curve,
but it was especially pronounced for the LET values at and beyond the Bragg peak
(Fig. 3d). Data fitting found that the SF at a dose of
2 Gy (SF2) for the H460 cells was 0.40 for the lowest LET tested (0.9
keV/µm) and 0.29 for protons with an LET of 10.8 keV/µm
at the Bragg peak. Beyond the Bragg peak, in high-LET areas, we found still
lower SF2 values of 0.10 for 15.2 keV/µm, 0.021 for 17.7
keV/µm, and 0.0037 for 19.0 keV/µm.These initial results with the H460 cell line prompted us to further assess our
method. To obtain higher-dose data we used the p53-mutant NSCLC line, H1437,
which is resistant to apoptosis17. A subsequent experiment with
H1437 cells corroborated the trend seen with the H460 cells (Fig.
3e). Calculated SF2s were between 0.70 and 0.79 for the low LETs
tested (0.9 to 5.1 keV/µm), 0.63 for 10.8 keV/µm, 0.47
for 15.2 keV/µm, 0.29 for 17.7 keV/µm, and 0.16 for 19.0
keV/µm using the data fits to the H1437 dataset. Table 1 contains detailed information on the α and
β fit parameters and the recorded RBE values at 10% SF vs.
137Cs for the clonogenic survival plots. Plotting the RBE vs.
LET for the two cell lines revealed a nonlinear response over the tested range
where the RBE scaled in a biphasic manner (Fig. 4a).
Table 1
α and β fit parameters and RBE values at 10%
surviving fraction.
Cell line:
H460
H1437
LET
[keV/μm]
α
β
RBE
α
β
RBE
0.9
0.268
0.097
1.03
0.077
0.028
0.89
1.2
0.226
0.112
1.04
0.136
0.020
0.88
1.6
0.151
0.134
1.05
0.067
0.027
0.85
1.8
0.150
0.134
1.05
0.059
0.038
0.98
1.9
0.166
0.134
1.06
0.094
0.031
0.96
2.3
0.137
0.146
1.07
0.096
0.032
0.97
3.0
0.206
0.125
1.07
0.111
0.033
1.02
5.1
0.117
0.159
1.10
0.034
0.052
1.10
10.8
0.318
0.154
1.28
0.119
0.054
1.26
15.2
0.446
0.341
1.87
0.180
0.095
1.70
17.7
0.596
0.662
2.58
0.328
0.149
2.33
19.0
0.883
0.956
3.28
0.360
0.272
2.98
Photons(137Cs)
0.290
0.083
1.00
0.050
0.041
1.00
Figure 4
Preliminary analysis of biological assays.
(a) RBE vs LET at 10% SF. A nonlinear trend between biological effect and LET
was observed for both cell lines. RBE error was calculated by propagating
the standard error of the α and β fits from Fig. 3
(Supplementary Table 1). (b) H460 cells were plated
in glass-bottom 96-well plates, irradiated, and processed 2 hours later for
γH2AX foci staining. Representative images are depicted.
Comparing wells exposed to LETs and doses of 4.6 keV/μm, 2.9 Gy
and 17.3 keV/μm, 1.7 Gy, the average nuclear foci per Gy was
significantly increased in the high-LET samples (P <
0.0001, Mann-Whitney unpaired t test). Error bars represent the 95%
confidence level.
To demonstrate the applicability of the developed system for use with assays
other than clonogenic survival, we next compared DNA double-strand break
induction (measured as γH2AX foci formation) between low- and
high-LET regions in the H460 cells. As predicted, in high-LET regions, more foci
were present 2 hours after irradiation (Fig. 4b). The
overall dose-averaged number of γH2AX foci per nucleus was found to
be significantly lower at 3.57 ± 0.25 for 4.6 keV/μm
protons versus an average of 7.02 ± 0.44 foci per nucleus at 17.3
keV/μm (P < 0.0001, Mann-Whitney unpaired t
test).
Discussion
We found that an integrated physics and biology approach, coupled with
high-throughput techniques, can be used to systematically map biologic responses to
actively scanned proton beams as a function of dose and LET. In developing this
method, we attempted to reduce sources of uncertainty while simultaneously
increasing data output.Clonogenic assays have been used to assess cellular reproductive integrity after an
insult for more than 50 years1819. Evolution of the exact method
and understanding of the assay has produced a rich amount of relevant literature to
draw upon. For each of our experiments, cultured cell concentrations were determined
by using an automated cell counter, and all plates were seeded at a constant density
from a single stock solution within 10–15 minutes of one another by using
an automated plater. Use of a single seeding solution was intended to reduce
potential errors in cell counting on colony formation. Even at the ideal theoretical
limit of cell counting accuracy, the associated counting error for a standard cell
solution is approximately 15%–30%2021. This fact alone
contributes intrinsic noise to clonogenic data and introduces compounding
uncertainty when the number of cells per dose are counted separately.All cell lines have inherent biological sensitivities to culturing conditions that
may or may not affect the outcome of a clonogenic experiment. We attempted to remove
or minimize any possible confounding factors from our colony readout as follows. Use
of a single seeding solution per experiment requires a single multiplicity
correction, as applicable22. Plating cells before irradiation and
allowing them to reattach and recover from the stresses induced by plating kept our
focus on the effect of radiation on the clonogenicity of exponentially growing
cells2324. Seeding cells after irradiation adds factors that
contribute to the biological endpoint, resulting in increased uncertainty. Immediate
post-irradiation plating in particular involves the effects of cell detachment
during seeding while the cells are still repairing radiation-induced damage25. In addition to anchorage-dependent signaling and morphologic
changes adherent cells undergo during detachment, enzymatic detachment solutions,
such as trypsin, cleave membrane-bound adhesion molecules that function as major
signalers in cellular stress responses, including apoptosis26272829. Post-irradiation cell detachment can further confound
determination of RBE because photons and ions have different effects on cell
adhesion and motility303132. As such, immediate post-irradiation
plating readouts involve coupling the effect of the radiation treatment with
cellular reattachment, except in the plating efficiency control used to determine
overall SF levels. Another complicating factor of post-irradiation plating is the
possible contribution of potentially lethal damage repair to cell survival depending
on the experimental conditions and timeline19333435. For this
work, we used the minimum number of counting steps for a clonogenic assay, attempted
to minimize relative errors by ensuring the exchangeability of inter-experiment
plates, and removed complicating biological processes from the readout of colony
formation.Our high-throughput method presented here is not without its shortcomings. The
initial jig design was intended to evenly sample the Bragg curve. However, because
of the gradual increase in LET along the entrance plateau, followed by the rapid
rise proximal to and just beyond the Bragg peak, the current jig design resulted in
oversampling of low-LET points (< 5 keV/µm) and undersampling
of LETs in the range of 5–10 keV/µm. Ideally, the design of
the jig could be optimized for uniform LET sampling. The increased throughput gained
by using the 96-well format comes at the cost of limiting the maximum number of
cells that can be seeded without substantial colony overlap in high-SF plates to
about 20014. The seeding density limitation restricts the range of
measureable SFs, making achievable doses cell line-dependent. The infrastructure
required for the high-throughput method is also greater than for the standard method
and may not be universally available. The influence of the bystander effect on the
clonogenic assay is unclear, so we cannot comment on any expected differential
effects between the standard and high-throughput method36.While no studies have been reported that demonstrate a method to map the biological
effect of protons with this type of throughput, other groups have done similar
rigorous investigations using traditional clonogenic assays to map combined LET-dose
effects11121337. As previously noted, direct comparisons
between studies are difficult because of differences between experiments; however,
general observations can be made. Although recent studies have indicated that RBE
and LET scale linearly, our results suggest that the relationship between LET and
biologic effect may not be so straightforward91213. In both cell
lines tested, RBE increased rapidly with LET for values at and beyond the Bragg peak
(>10 keV/µm), but this trend was reduced for the LETs
measured from the entrance to the proximal portion of the Bragg peak (<
10 keV/µm). All SF data fits from our work to the linear-quadratic model
produced curves with substantial ‘sub-lethal’
(β) components, resulting in nonlinear dose-responses even at the
highest LETs (Table 1). Ubiquitous quadratic components are
unusual, as an established hallmark of SF after high-LET irradiation includes
α-dominated survival curves69123738. This
observation results in a nonlinear response between RBE and LET (Fig.
4a). One possible explanation is that in many previous investigations,
the LET values used to quantify the relationship between RBE and LET are determined
by averaging over the broad spectrum of a passively scattered beam rather than the
narrow LET spectrum of a scanned beam. Because different energy and LET spectra can
coincidentally yield the same average value yet result in substantially different
biologic effects, the dose-averaged LET used to estimate RBE may not correlate well
with measured biologic results39. This averaging may obfuscate the
LET effect of cell kill, especially at the end of range for charged particles, where
the LET has a wide spread. For example, in the 12th column of the plate in the
presented setup, MC simulation showed a proton LET range of 3 to 80
keV/µm, resulting in a dose-averaged LET value of about 19
keV/µm. Narrow LET spectra should help to further elucidate the
relationship between RBE and LET.The measured RBEs in the distal falloff region of the beam are considerably higher
than those typically reported in the literature as well as the clinically used value
of 1.1; however, such values are not unheard of or the highest reported8940. Our results imply that the evaluation of biologic effect must
ensure comprehensive characterization and suggest that additional studies using
high-precision methods are required to develop accurate models of biologic
effect.Although applying the results of in vitro assays to in vivo models has
its own complications, clonogenic survival is by far the most commonly used and well
correlated cancer cell line assay for tumor control probability, with substantial
evidence establishing the relation between the two methods941424344. The actual translation of the presented work towards
preclinical evaluation of a biologically weighted treatment in vivo requires
substantial work even in the simplest murinecancer model because of sensitivity to
setup uncertainties and the small scale of the anatomy. Meanwhile, a much larger
knowledge gap exists in the assessment of in vivo normal tissue radiationtoxicity, where cellular clonogenicity is but one of many factors affecting organ
response and function454647. For complete biological
optimization, normal tissue tolerances and responses must also be understood and
quantified in the appropriate biological context for effective modeling.Whereas clonogenic survival was the primary endpoint in the current study, this
system can be easily modified to incorporate more advanced biologic methods and
models. In particular, 3D tissue culture holds great promise to produce settings
that better recapitulate an in vivo normal or tumor environment with
corresponding tissue imitation48495051. Our approach may also
serve as a platform for investigating other measures of biologic response as a
function of LET, including DNA damage response, cell signaling, or epigenetic
alterations. Moreover, the adaptation of other biologic models, facilitated by the
high-content approach, will allow functional assays of surviving cells, which could
be useful for investigating radiation-induced adverse effects on normal tissues.Clinical investigations in Europe and Asia have sparked interest in the use of
heavier ions for cancer therapy, with the rationale that the higher RBE of heavy
particles may be particularly valuable for overcoming the resistance of such tumors
to photon irradiation552. The physical properties of protons have
generally driven the worldwide expansion of proton therapy centers, but the inherent
biologic differences between photon and proton beams have not been capitalized on to
date. The LET values for the scanned proton beams in the current study are moderate
in comparison to those for heavier ions. Interest in carbon ion therapy has
increased because carbon ions have higher LET and higher biologic effectiveness,
which could be useful for radiation-resistant tumors. However, the biologic
uncertainties associated with heavy particles may be even greater than those of
protons. Moreover, both the physical and biologic characteristics of protons and
carbon ions may not make them the best particles for clinical use. Rather,
intermediate particles may hold the greatest potential. Expanding the techniques
developed here for use with other ion sources (helium, carbon, oxygen) would allow
construction of a data matrix describing the interrelation of dose, LET, and
biologic effect. In conjunction with computer modeling of physical properties,
having such data could allow predictions of the biologic effect of other particles,
which in turn could allow the most favorable particles to be identified before the
costly construction of a therapy facility.
Conclusion
Currently, in proton treatment planning, variable biological effectiveness is not
formally accounted for; only physical properties are considered. Newer delivery
technologies, such as spot scanning, allow the delivery of individually
heterogeneous treatment fields by using techniques such as IMPT. In principle,
optimization of IMPT could incorporate variable biological effectiveness to produce
dose distributions in which protons with high biological effectiveness
preferentially deposit dose in the tumor and the ones that pass through normal
tissues are preferentially of low biological effectiveness. However, the substantial
uncertainties associated with existing RBE data may preclude the development of
accurate biologic models for use in such applications. By incorporating data
generated using systems such as that described here, development of more accurate
models and optimization of IMPT based on RBE may be feasible. In theory, this could
enhance the therapeutic potential of particle therapy for numerous types of
cancer.
Methods
Designing an irradiation device with Monte Carlo simulation
We used a calibrated and experimentally validated MC system based on the Geant4
toolkit to design the experimental device5354. Three versions
of Geant4 (9.5.p02, 10.0 and 10.1), with the pre-packaged FTFP_BERT (version 1.3
and 2.0) physics list, were tested and no differences were found for therapeutic
proton simulations. The characteristics of proton beams entering the nozzle
(e.g., energy, angular, and spatial spread) were fine-tuned so that the computed
depth dose and beamlet profiles matched the corresponding measured data55. The thickness of each step of the irradiation jig (Fig. 1f) was selected from a 79.7-MeV spot-scanning beam
depth-dose and depth-LET distribution curves in a Lucite phantom. The device was
fabricated with a high-accuracy (±3 µm) milling machine.
The original template was a cuboid block (21×19×11
cm3) of Lucite.
Monte Carlo Dose and LET calculations in biological samples
A 5-µm cell layer in each well in the 96-well plate was considered to
be the target for dose and LET calculations. Biologic effect is commonly assumed
to be a function of dose-averaged LET (LETd), which was the case in
this report as well. The number of primary source protons was set to 1.1x109 to ensure that the statistical uncertainty in the calculated dose
and LET values in the wells was ±<1%. LET was calculated
on a step-by-step basis in the particle tracking process. The energy deposition
ε over each proton step l within the cell layer
was scored. Because of the stochastic nature of energy deposition by ionizing
radiations, ε/l was treated as a random variable form
of LET. The probability distribution of ε/l was scored
during the simulation to evaluate the statistical uncertainty of LET
calculation. In calculating LETd, ε was treated as
the dose weighting factor of each ε/l of protons for
each cell layer. A dynamic MC technique was used to simulate magnetic steering
of the proton beamlet56. All MC simulations were carried out on
our institutional high-performance computing cluster and the Lonestar cluster at
the Texas Advanced Computational Center.
Comparison of energy spectra for matching scattered and scanned proton
beams
To illustrate the importance of using the scanning beam in contrast with the
previous practice of using passively scattered beams, we selected a passively
scattered beam of 120 MeV, which was broadened laterally with scatterers to form
an 18 × 18 cm2 field and modulated longitudinally by
a range modulation wheel to form an SOBP 3 cm wide. Finally, the beam was passed
through the range shifter to achieve a range equal to that of the 79.7-MeV
spot-scanning beam that we used for the biology experiments. Three points at
depths of 2.15 cm, 4.0 cm, and 4.75 cm (positions A, B and C in Fig. 1a–c and Supplementary Fig. 1)
along the beam path were selected to calculate and compare the proton kinetic
energy spectra.
Hitachi proton therapy system
Proton irradiation was done with the scanning beam gantry of the synchrotron and
the Hitachi ProBeat delivery system (Hitachi, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) at the Proton
Therapy Center in Houston57. This delivery system can provide 94
discrete energies ranging from 72.5 MeV to 221.8 MeV5558. It
uses a step-and-shoot scanning technique in which the beamlet stops at a
specified point and delivers the specified number of monitor units and then
moves to the next position.
Beam characteristics and scan patterns
The above-mentioned monoenergetic scanning beam of 79.7 MeV (range 4.8 cm in
water and 4.1 cm in Lucite), with a spot of size 3.3 cm
full-width-at-half-maximum in air at isocenter, was used for proton
irradiation55. A 20 × 20 cm2 area
was scanned uniformly. It had a 12 × 13 cm2 uniform
high-dose region to ensure the wells in the plate periphery were sufficiently
far from the penumbra to be affected by the lateral fall-off at the field edges
(Fig. 2a&b). The spacing between spots was
set to 1 cm in the isocenter plane. The spot intensity can be set to between
0.005 and 0.04 monitor units; we chose the maximum value for this study.We used the rotational gantry with beam incident upon the bottom of the plate
from below to minimize uncertainties arising from variability in the thickness
of the fluid layer above the cells, setup, and scattering from well walls.
Different incident dose levels were achieved by using multiple repaintings of
the target plates with the scan patterns. The incident dose per repainting is
determined through a calibration process described below. The relative dose
levels per column in the 96-well plate were always maintained (Fig. 1e) to be the same for all irradiation experiments.
System calibration and verification
We calibrated the system by using a calibrated plane-parallel ion chamber
irradiated under reference conditions that excluded the jig. The dose at the
calibrated chamber position under identical conditions was also calculated by MC
simulations. The doses calculated in wells by MC simulations were normalized to
the dose at the reference point. The calibration factor determined in this way
led to the delivery of 2.6 cGy ± 0.1% per painting (requiring 17.64
monitor units) to the cell layer in column 1 in the presence of the jig. Each
time before a set of cell irradiation experiments were done, quality assurance
was done to ensure that the specified dose levels would be delivered.
Positioning of the experimental devices
The geometric setting of the devices and samples was identical for all
experiments. The jig, with the three films on top of it, is inserted into a
holder, which is placed in the last downstream snout slot. The snout end was set
to the same value, 9.1 ± 0.1 cm, for each irradiation, such that the
top of the jig, where the biologic samples sit, was positioned at the isocenter
plane (verified by laser cross markers from two orthogonal directions).
Sensitivity analysis of experimental setup uncertainties
The Lucite jig, three EBT3 films, and well plate bottom constitute the
energy-attenuating components for protons before the cell layer. Hence, the
MC-calculated accuracy of the delivered dose and LET values depends on the
thickness, chemical composition, and density of these materials, especially for
wells located near the end of the beam’s range.Notably, given the geometry we use and the uniformity of the field of
irradiation, the accuracy of the dose delivered to the samples is insensitive to
small changes in position longitudinally or laterally relative to the beam. It
is almost entirely a function of precision of the thicknesses of the jig steps,
well plate, films, and the accuracy of the knowledge the material densities and
compositions. Because we used the same jig and films for all experiments, they
do not contribute to random uncertainties, but they may contribute to systematic
uncertainties. However, since the jig was fabricated with a high-accuracy
milling machine and the vendor-quoted uncertainty in film thickness is very
small (Supplementary Table 2), the overall systematic
uncertainty in dose was estimated to be negligible. However, the scattering
properties of the jig were verified by measuring the dose and range of the
transmitted beam using with films and ion chamber and comparing the results with
MC simulations.Because large numbers of plates were used, manufacturing variability in the
thickness of the well bottom and its composition could contribute non-negligible
uncertainty to dose in the high-gradient distal fall-off region. The chamber and
MC simulations each contributed less than ±1% to uncertainty.Parameters used for estimating uncertainties are given in Supplementary Table 2. The nominal density of the jig material and
96-well plate material was set to 1.19 and 1.09 g/cm3
5960. The estimated uncertainties, dominated by the random
component, are given in Supplementary Table 3. The highest
uncertainties correspond to the high-dose gradient at the distal edge.The MC-calculated dose and LET using the nominal value were treated as the mean
values (Fig. 1e). The average deviation from the nominal
with lower and upper ranges of setups was treated as the uncertainty in the
nominal value to yield the uncertainty in dose and LET values (error bars in
Fig. 1e, Supplementary Table 3).
The effect of uncertainties on protons energy spectra in three of the columns of
the 96-well plate are depicted in Supplementary Fig. 2.
Biologic sample preparation, irradiation, and processing
H460 and H1437 NSCLC cells were cultured in RPMI 1640 medium with 10% fetal
bovine serum and 1% penicillin-streptomycin-L-glutamine at 37°C and
5% CO2. Cells were counted using an automated cell counter and seeded
at concentrations ranging from 100–2000 cells per well for the
standard 6-well clonogenic assay and at 100 cells per well when using the
96-well format. Plating reproducibility was ensured by using a BioTek MultiFlo
FX Microplate Dispenser for automated and rapid cell plating. Cells were allowed
to attach and stabilize in culture for 8–10 hours before irradiation.
Plates were brought into the treatment room one at a time for irradiation and
immediately returned to culture after exposure. Control plates were handled
identically to treatment plates but not irradiated. Two plates per dose level
were irradiated, resulting in 16 replicates per LET-dose combination. After
colonies formed (at 5 days for the H460 cells and 7 days for H1437 cells), cells
were fixed and stained with 0.5% crystal violet in methanol. High-content
automated laser confocal analysis with an IN Cell Analyzer 6000 was used to
identify viable colonies containing ≥50 cells. Briefly, using a 4
× objective, four overlapping fields per well were obtained and the
GE Developer v1.9 software used to create a composite. Colonies and cells were
identified with masks generated from object filters. Cells were linked to
colonies, and only colonies containing 50 or more cells were scored. The
excitation wavelength was 640 nm (red) and the emission wavelength was 706 nm
(Cy5). The 4 × lens has a 0.20 numerical aperture. The IN Cell uses
a 5.5-Mp sCMOS camera (2560 × 2160 pixels) with a 6.5-µm
pixel size. We defined the limit of detection for a clonogenic screen assay as 1
colony per well or an SF of 1/(cells plated*plating efficiency). Dose levels
where the aggregate SF was lower than the limit were omitted from analysis. SFs
were analyzed by normalizing the number of counted colonies at a given dose by
the plating efficiency and by fitting the obtained data to a linear-quadratic
model using weighted non-linear regression.Dose-LET-dependent γH2AX foci formation after proton irradiation was
examined by plating cells into a glass-bottom microplate, irradiating them using
the high-throughput system, and returning to culture. Two hours after
irradiation, cells were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde in phosphate buffered
saline (PBS). The fixative was removed and cells were washed in PBS 3 times
before permeabilization with 0.5% Triton X-100/PBS. Permeabilized cells were
then blocked with a 5% goat serum/0.3% Triton X-100/PBS solution. For primary
labeling, the cells were incubated with a murine γH2AX antibody
(1:1000, clone JBW301, EMD Millipore) in 1% bovineserum albumin (BSA)/0.1%
Triton X-100/PBS. Cells were then washed 3 times with 0.1% Triton X-100/PBS and
incubated with AlexaFluor 488-labeled goat anti-mouse antibody in 1% BSA/0.1%
Triton X-100/PBS (1:1000, Life Technologies). The cells were washed again with
0.1% Triton X-100/PBS before mounting medium was added with the fluorescent dye
4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI). Plates were imaged on an
Olympus IX81 microscope using a 40x water immersion objective. The average
number of γH2AX foci per nucleus was determined by using
CellProfiler (Broad Institute) to identify DAPI-labeled nuclei as image masks
and quantify the number of associated γH2AX foci. Images having the
same average and median number of foci per nucleus matching the respective
condition’s overall pooled value were selected as the representative
images.
Statistical analyses
Statistical analyses were done using GraphPad Prism 6.0. SF data are shown on a
semilog scale as mean ± standard error of the mean. Data were fit
using a weighted (1/Y)-nonlinear regression to the linear-quadratic model. The
extra sum-of-squares F test was used to compare clonogenic survival
curves as a function of LET. The γH2AX foci data are shown as mean
±95% confidence interval. The average numbers of γH2AX
foci for each condition were tested for statistical significance by the
Mann-Whitney unpaired t test. RBE standard deviations were calculated by
propagating the standard error of the α and β fits.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Guan, F. et al.Spatial mapping of the biologic effectiveness of scanned particle beams: towards biologically optimized particle therapy. Sci. Rep.
5, 9850; doi: 10.1038/srep09850 (2015).
Authors: Aaron M Allen; Todd Pawlicki; Lei Dong; Eugene Fourkal; Mark Buyyounouski; Keith Cengel; John Plastaras; Mary K Bucci; Torunn I Yock; Luisa Bonilla; Robert Price; Eleanor E Harris; Andre A Konski Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2012-03-09 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Alfred Smith; Michael Gillin; Martin Bues; X Ronald Zhu; Kazumichi Suzuki; Radhe Mohan; Shiao Woo; Andrew Lee; Ritsko Komaki; James Cox; Kazuo Hiramoto; Hiroshi Akiyama; Takayuki Ishida; Toshie Sasaki; Koji Matsuda Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Annelies Suetens; Marjan Moreels; Roel Quintens; Els Soors; Jasmine Buset; Sabina Chiriotti; Kevin Tabury; Vincent Gregoire; Sarah Baatout Journal: J Radiat Res Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 2.724
Authors: Adam D Yock; Radhe Mohan; Stella Flampouri; Walter Bosch; Paige A Taylor; David Gladstone; Siyong Kim; Jason Sohn; Robert Wallace; Ying Xiao; Jeff Buchsbaum Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-12-15
Authors: Mark Newpower; Darshana Patel; Lawrence Bronk; Fada Guan; Pankaj Chaudhary; Stephen J McMahon; Kevin M Prise; Giuseppe Schettino; David R Grosshans; Radhe Mohan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Radhe Mohan; Christopher R Peeler; Fada Guan; Lawrence Bronk; Wenhua Cao; David R Grosshans Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 4.089