Literature DB >> 28295379

A phenomenological biological dose model for proton therapy based on linear energy transfer spectra.

Eivind Rørvik1, Sara Thörnqvist1,2, Camilla H Stokkevåg2, Tordis J Dahle1, Lars Fredrik Fjaera1,2, Kristian S Ytre-Hauge1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons varies with the radiation quality, quantified by the linear energy transfer (LET). Most phenomenological models employ a linear dependency of the dose-averaged LET (LETd ) to calculate the biological dose. However, several experiments have indicated a possible non-linear trend. Our aim was to investigate if biological dose models including non-linear LET dependencies should be considered, by introducing a LET spectrum based dose model.
METHOD: The RBE-LET relationship was investigated by fitting of polynomials from 1st to 5th degree to a database of 85 data points from aerobic in vitro experiments. We included both unweighted and weighted regression, the latter taking into account experimental uncertainties. Statistical testing was performed to decide whether higher degree polynomials provided better fits to the data as compared to lower degrees. The newly developed models were compared to three published LETd based models for a simulated spread out Bragg peak (SOBP) scenario.
RESULTS: The statistical analysis of the weighted regression analysis favored a non-linear RBE-LET relationship, with the quartic polynomial found to best represent the experimental data (P = 0.010). The results of the unweighted regression analysis were on the borderline of statistical significance for non-linear functions (P = 0.053), and with the current database a linear dependency could not be rejected. For the SOBP scenario, the weighted non-linear model estimated a similar mean RBE value (1.14) compared to the three established models (1.13-1.17). The unweighted model calculated a considerably higher RBE value (1.22).
CONCLUSION: The analysis indicated that non-linear models could give a better representation of the RBE-LET relationship. However, this is not decisive, as inclusion of the experimental uncertainties in the regression analysis had a significant impact on the determination and ranking of the models. As differences between the models were observed for the SOBP scenario, both non-linear LET spectrum- and linear LETd based models should be further evaluated in clinically realistic scenarios.
© 2017 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  LET spectrum; biological dose modelling; linear energy transfer; mixed field radiation; proton therapy; relative biological effectiveness

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28295379     DOI: 10.1002/mp.12216

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  10 in total

1.  Using the Proton Energy Spectrum and Microdosimetry to Model Proton Relative Biological Effectiveness.

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

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

3.  Inter-patient variations in relative biological effectiveness for cranio-spinal irradiation with protons.

Authors:  Kristian S Ytre-Hauge; Lars Fredrik Fjæra; Eivind Rørvik; Tordis J Dahle; Jon Espen Dale; Sara Pilskog; Camilla H Stokkevåg
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-04-10       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Investigating the impact of alpha/beta and LETd on relative biological effectiveness in scanned proton beams: An in vitro study based on human cell lines.

Authors:  Elisabeth Mara; Monika Clausen; Suphalak Khachonkham; Simon Deycmar; Clara Pessy; Wolfgang Dörr; Peter Kuess; Dietmar Georg; Sylvia Gruber
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Spatial Agreement of Brainstem Dose Distributions Depending on Biological Model in Proton Therapy for Pediatric Brain Tumors.

Authors:  Lars Fredrik Fjæra; Daniel J Indelicato; Kristian S Ytre-Hauge; Ludvig P Muren; Yasmin Lassen-Ramshad; Laura Toussaint; Olav Dahl; Camilla H Stokkevåg
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-08-28

6.  Quantifying Systematic RBE-Weighted Dose Uncertainty Arising from Multiple Variable RBE Models in Organ at Risk.

Authors:  Wei Yang Calvin Koh; Hong Qi Tan; Yan Yee Ng; Yen Hwa Lin; Khong Wei Ang; Wen Siang Lew; James Cheow Lei Lee; Sung Yong Park
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-11-11

Review 7.  Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Challenges and Opportunities.

Authors:  Darren M C Poon; Stephen Wu; Leon Ho; Kin Yin Cheung; Ben Yu
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-13       Impact factor: 6.639

8.  The Organ Sparing Potential of Different Biological Optimization Strategies in Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Helge Henjum; Tordis J Dahle; Lars Fredrik Fjæra; Eivind Rørvik; Sara Pilskog; Camilla H Stokkevåg; Andrea Mairani; Kristian S Ytre-Hauge
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-08-17

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.  In Silico Models of DNA Damage and Repair in Proton Treatment Planning: A Proof of Concept.

Authors:  Edward A K Smith; N T Henthorn; J W Warmenhoven; S P Ingram; A H Aitkenhead; J C Richardson; P Sitch; A L Chadwick; T S A Underwood; M J Merchant; N G Burnet; N F Kirkby; K J Kirkby; R I Mackay
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-12-27       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.