Literature DB >> 29131808

Linear energy transfer incorporated intensity modulated proton therapy optimization.

Wenhua Cao1, Azin Khabazian, Pablo P Yepes, Gino Lim, Falk Poenisch, David R Grosshans, Radhe Mohan.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of incorporating linear energy transfer (LET) into the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans. Because increased LET correlates with increased biological effectiveness of protons, high LETs in target volumes and low LETs in critical structures and normal tissues are preferred in an IMPT plan. However, if not explicitly incorporated into the optimization criteria, different IMPT plans may yield similar physical dose distributions but greatly different LET, specifically dose-averaged LET, distributions. Conventionally, the IMPT optimization criteria (or cost function) only includes dose-based objectives in which the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) is assumed to have a constant value of 1.1. In this study, we added LET-based objectives for maximizing LET in target volumes and minimizing LET in critical structures and normal tissues. Due to the fractional programming nature of the resulting model, we used a variable reformulation approach so that the optimization process is computationally equivalent to conventional IMPT optimization. In this study, five brain tumor patients who had been treated with proton therapy at our institution were selected. Two plans were created for each patient based on the proposed LET-incorporated optimization (LETOpt) and the conventional dose-based optimization (DoseOpt). The optimized plans were compared in terms of both dose (assuming a constant RBE of 1.1 as adopted in clinical practice) and LET. Both optimization approaches were able to generate comparable dose distributions. The LET-incorporated optimization achieved not only pronounced reduction of LET values in critical organs, such as brainstem and optic chiasm, but also increased LET in target volumes, compared to the conventional dose-based optimization. However, on occasion, there was a need to tradeoff the acceptability of dose and LET distributions. Our conclusion is that the inclusion of LET-dependent criteria in the IMPT optimization could lead to similar dose distributions as the conventional optimization but superior LET distributions in target volumes and normal tissues. This may have substantial advantages in improving tumor control and reducing normal tissue toxicities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29131808      PMCID: PMC5815879          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa9a2e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  27 in total

Review 1.  Optimized planning using physical objectives and constraints.

Authors:  T Bortfeld
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 5.934

2.  A phenomenological model for the relative biological effectiveness in therapeutic proton beams.

Authors:  J J Wilkens; U Oelfke
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2004-07-07       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Imaging Changes in Pediatric Intracranial Ependymoma Patients Treated With Proton Beam Radiation Therapy Compared to Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy.

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

4.  Optimization of radiobiological effects in intensity modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Jan J Wilkens; Uwe Oelfke
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Imaging changes in very young children with brain tumors treated with proton therapy and chemotherapy.

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

6.  Incorporating deliverable monitor unit constraints into spot intensity optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy treatment planning.

Authors:  Wenhua Cao; Gino Lim; Xiaoqiang Li; Yupeng Li; X Ronald Zhu; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Linear energy transfer-guided optimization in intensity modulated proton therapy: feasibility study and clinical potential.

Authors:  Drosoula Giantsoudi; Clemens Grassberger; David Craft; Andrzej Niemierko; Alexei Trofimov; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Reoptimization of Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Plans Based on Linear Energy Transfer.

Authors:  Jan Unkelbach; Pablo Botas; Drosoula Giantsoudi; Bram L Gorissen; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 7.038

9.  A robust approach to IMRT optimization.

Authors:  Timothy C Y Chan; Thomas Bortfeld; John N Tsitsiklis
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2006-05-04       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Site-specific range uncertainties caused by dose calculation algorithms for proton therapy.

Authors:  J Schuemann; S Dowdell; C Grassberger; C H Min; H Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 3.609

View more
  17 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Simultaneous optimization of RBE-weighted dose and nanometric ionization distributions in treatment planning with carbon ions.

Authors:  Lucas N Burigo; José Ramos-Méndez; Mark Bangert; Reinhard W Schulte; Bruce Faddegon
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2019-01-04       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  A Review of Proton Therapy - Current Status and Future Directions.

Authors:  Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Precis Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-04-27

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

5.  Comparing biological effectiveness guided plan optimization strategies for cranial proton therapy: potential and challenges.

Authors:  Christian Hahn; Lena Heuchel; Jakob Ödén; Erik Traneus; Jörg Wulff; Sandija Plaude; Beate Timmermann; Christian Bäumer; Armin Lühr
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-10-22       Impact factor: 4.309

6.  Physical parameter optimization scheme for radiobiological studies of charged particle therapy.

Authors:  Changran Geng; Drake Gates; Lawrence Bronk; Duo Ma; Fada Guan
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 2.685

7.  Increased risk of pseudoprogression among pediatric low-grade glioma patients treated with proton versus photon radiotherapy.

Authors:  Ethan B Ludmir; Anita Mahajan; Arnold C Paulino; Jeremy Y Jones; Leena M Ketonen; Jack M Su; David R Grosshans; Mary Frances McAleer; Susan L McGovern; Yasmin A Lassen-Ramshad; Adekunle M Adesina; Robert C Dauser; Jeffrey S Weinberg; Murali M Chintagumpala
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 12.300

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

10.  Dual-storage phosphor proton therapy dosimetry: Simultaneous quantification of dose and linear energy transfer.

Authors:  Jufri Setianegara; Thomas R Mazur; Deshan Yang; H Harold Li
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.