Literature DB >> 29726722

Can differences in linear energy transfer and thus relative biological effectiveness compromise the dosimetric advantage of intensity-modulated proton therapy as compared to passively scattered proton therapy?

Drosoula Giantsoudi1, Judith Adams1, Shannon MacDonald1, Harald Paganetti1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of differences in linear energy transfer (LET) and thus the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) between passively scattered proton therapy (PS) and pencil-beam scanning intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT).
METHODS: IMPT treatment plans were generated for six ependymoma patients, originally treated with PS, using the original plan's computed tomography image sets and beam directions, and its dose-volume values as optimization constraints. Two beam spot sizes and both single-field optimization (SFO) and multi-field optimization (MFO) techniques were used for each patient. Three-dimensional variable-RBE-weighted dose distributions were computed, using Monte Carlo calculated dose and LET distributions, and a linear dose and LET-based RBE model, and were compared between the two delivery methods.
RESULTS: Increased target dose coverage and decreased mean and maximum dose to the OARs was achieved with IMPT compared to PS, for constant RBE value of 1.1. Nevertheless, the maximum variable-RBE-weighted dose to the brainstem, was increased up to 6% for the IMPT plans compared to the corresponding PS plans.
CONCLUSIONS: IMPT can be dosimetrically superior to PS for ependymoma patients. However, caution should be exercised so that the increased dose conformity is not counteracted by an increase in radiobiological effect in adjacent critical structures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29726722     DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2018.1468090

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Oncol        ISSN: 0284-186X            Impact factor:   4.089


  4 in total

1.  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

2.  Patient reported outcomes following proton pencil beam scanning vs. passive scatter/uniform scanning for localized prostate cancer: Secondary analysis of PCG 001-09.

Authors:  Mark V Mishra; Rahul Khairnar; Søren M Bentzen; Gary Larson; Henry Tsai; Christopher Sinesi; Carlos Vargas; George Laramore; Carl Rossi; Lane Rosen; Kai Sun; William Hartsell
Journal:  Clin Transl Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-03-07

3.  Proton beam therapy delivered using pencil beam scanning vs. passive scattering/uniform scanning for localized prostate cancer: Comparative toxicity analysis of PCG 001-09.

Authors:  Mark V Mishra; Rahul Khairnar; Søren M Bentzen; Gary Larson; Henry Tsai; Christopher Sinesi; Carlos Vargas; George Laramore; Carl Rossi; Lane Rosen; Mingyao Zhu; William Hartsell
Journal:  Clin Transl Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-08-31

4.  Mixed Effect Modeling of Dose and Linear Energy Transfer Correlations With Brain Image Changes After Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Skull Base Head and Neck Cancer.

Authors:  Grete May Engeseth; Renjie He; Dragan Mirkovic; Pablo Yepes; Abdallah Sherif Radwan Mohamed; Sonja Stieb; Clifton Dave Fuller; Richard Wu; Xiadong Zhang; Liv Bolstad Hysing; Helge Egil Seime Pettersen; Camilla Hanquist Stokkevåg; Radhe Mohan; Steven Jay Frank; Gary Brandon Gunn
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2021-06-19       Impact factor: 7.038

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.