Christopher R Peeler1, Dragan Mirkovic2, Uwe Titt2, Pierre Blanchard3, Jillian R Gunther4, Anita Mahajan4, Radhe Mohan2, David R Grosshans5. 1. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States; The University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Houston, United States. 2. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States; Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Department of Radiation Oncology, Villejuif, France. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States. Electronic address: dgrossha@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A constant relative biological effectiveness (RBE) is used for clinical proton therapy; however, experimental evidence indicates that RBE can vary. We analyzed pediatric ependymoma patients who received proton therapy to determine if areas of normal tissue damage indicated by post-treatment image changes were associated with increased biological dose effectiveness. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fourteen of 34 children showed T2-FLAIR hyperintensity on post-treatment magnetic resonance (MR) images. We delineated regions of treatment-related change and calculated dose and linear energy transfer (LET) distributions with Monte Carlo. Voxel-level image change data were fit to a generalized linear model incorporating dose and LET. Cross-validation was used to determine model parameters and for receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Tolerance dose (TD50; dose at which 50% of patients would experience toxicity) was interpolated from the model. RESULTS: Image changes showed dependence on increasing LET and dose. TD50 decreased with increasing LET, indicating an increase in biological dose effectiveness. The cross-validated area under the curve for the model was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.88-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Our correlation of changes on MR images after proton therapy with increased LET constitutes the first clinical evidence of variable proton biological effectiveness.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A constant relative biological effectiveness (RBE) is used for clinical proton therapy; however, experimental evidence indicates that RBE can vary. We analyzed pediatric ependymomapatients who received proton therapy to determine if areas of normal tissue damage indicated by post-treatment image changes were associated with increased biological dose effectiveness. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fourteen of 34 children showed T2-FLAIR hyperintensity on post-treatment magnetic resonance (MR) images. We delineated regions of treatment-related change and calculated dose and linear energy transfer (LET) distributions with Monte Carlo. Voxel-level image change data were fit to a generalized linear model incorporating dose and LET. Cross-validation was used to determine model parameters and for receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Tolerance dose (TD50; dose at which 50% of patients would experience toxicity) was interpolated from the model. RESULTS: Image changes showed dependence on increasing LET and dose. TD50 decreased with increasing LET, indicating an increase in biological dose effectiveness. The cross-validated area under the curve for the model was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.88-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Our correlation of changes on MR images after proton therapy with increased LET constitutes the first clinical evidence of variable proton biological effectiveness.
Authors: Jillian R Gunther; Mariko Sato; Murali Chintagumpala; Leena Ketonen; Jeremy Y Jones; Pamela K Allen; Arnold C Paulino; M Fatih Okcu; Jack M Su; Jeffrey Weinberg; Nicholas S Boehling; Soumen Khatua; Adekunle Adesina; Robert Dauser; William E Whitehead; Anita Mahajan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kathleen J Helton; Michael Edwards; R Grant Steen; Thomas E Merchant; Mark V Sapp; Frederick A Boop; James Langston Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: N D Sabin; T E Merchant; J H Harreld; Z Patay; P Klimo; I Qaddoumi; G T Armstrong; K Wright; J Gray; D J Indelicato; A Gajjar Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-07-19 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Shereef M Elnahal; John Kerstiens; Richard S Helsper; Anthony L Zietman; Peter A S Johnstone Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 7.038
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
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