Literature DB >> 27986346

Proton Treatment Techniques for Posterior Fossa Tumors: Consequences for Linear Energy Transfer and Dose-Volume Parameters for the Brainstem and Organs at Risk.

Drosoula Giantsoudi1, Judith Adams2, Shannon M MacDonald2, Harald Paganetti2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In proton therapy of posterior fossa tumors, at least partial inclusion of the brainstem in the target is necessary because of its proximity to the tumor and required margins. Additionally, the preferred beam geometry results in directing the field distal edge toward this critical structure, raising concerns for brainstem toxicity. Some treatment techniques place the beam's distal edge within the brainstem (dose-sparing techniques), and others avoid elevated linear energy transfer (LET) of the proton field by placing the distal edge beyond it (LET-sparing techniques). Hybrid approaches are also being used. We examine the dosimetric efficacy of these techniques, accounting for LET-dependent and dose-dependent variable relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) distributions.
METHODS: Six techniques were applied in ependymoma cases: (a) 3-field dose-sparing; (b) 3-field LET-sparing; (c) 2-field dose-sparing, wide angles; (d) 2-field LET-sparing, wide angles; (e) 2-field LET-sparing, steep angles; and (f) 2-field LET-sparing with feathered distal end. Monte Carlo calculated dose, LET, and RBE-weighted dose distributions were compared.
RESULTS: Decreased LET values in the brainstem by LET-sparing techniques were accompanied by higher, not statistically significant, median dose: 53.6 Gy(RBE), 53.4 Gy(RBE), and 54.3 Gy(RBE) for techniques (b), (d), and (e) versus 52.1 Gy(RBE) for technique (a). Accounting for variable RBE distributions, the brainstem volume receiving at least 55 Gy(RBE) increased from 72.5% for technique (a) to 80.3% for (b) (P<.01) and from 70.7% for technique (c) to 77.6% for (d) (P<.01). Less than 2%, but statistically significant, decrease in maximum variable RBE-weighted brainstem dose was observed for the LET-sparing techniques compared with the corresponding dose-sparing (P=.03 and .004).
CONCLUSIONS: Extending the proton range beyond the brainstem to reduce LET results in clinically comparable maximum radiobiologic effective dose to this sensitive structure. However this method significantly increasing the brainstem volume receiving RBE-weighted dose higher than 55 Gy(RBE) with possible consequences based on known dose-volume parameters for increased toxicity.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27986346     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.09.042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  15 in total

Review 1.  Proton relative biological effectiveness (RBE): a multiscale problem.

Authors:  Tracy Sa Underwood; Stephen J McMahon
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Modelling variable proton relative biological effectiveness for treatment planning.

Authors:  Aimee McNamara; Henning Willers; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-11-18       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

Review 6.  EANO guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of ependymal tumors.

Authors:  Roberta Rudà; Guido Reifenberger; Didier Frappaz; Stefan M Pfister; Anne Laprie; Thomas Santarius; Patrick Roth; Joerg Christian Tonn; Riccardo Soffietti; Michael Weller; Elizabeth Cohen-Jonathan Moyal
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 12.300

7.  Proton Relative Biological Effectiveness - Uncertainties and Opportunities.

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

8.  Linear energy transfer weighted beam orientation optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Wenbo Gu; Dan Ruan; Wei Zou; Lei Dong; Ke Sheng
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Inhibition of ATM Induces Hypersensitivity to Proton Irradiation by Upregulating Toxic End Joining.

Authors:  Qin Zhou; Michelle E Howard; Xinyi Tu; Qian Zhu; Janet M Denbeigh; Nicholas B Remmes; Michael G Herman; Chris J Beltran; Jian Yuan; Patricia T Greipp; Judy C Boughey; Liewei Wang; Neil Johnson; Matthew P Goetz; Jann N Sarkaria; Zhenkun Lou; Robert W Mutter
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 12.701

Review 10.  Relative biological effectiveness in proton beam therapy - Current knowledge and future challenges.

Authors:  Armin Lühr; Cläre von Neubeck; Mechthild Krause; Esther G C Troost
Journal:  Clin Transl Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-02-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.