Literature DB >> 30102240

Exploration and application of phenomenological RBE models for proton therapy.

Eivind Rørvik1, Lars Fredrik Fjæra, Tordis J Dahle, Jon Espen Dale, Grete May Engeseth, Camilla H Stokkevåg, Sara Thörnqvist, Kristian S Ytre-Hauge.   

Abstract

The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons varies with multiple physical and biological factors. Phenomenological RBE models have been developed to include such factors in the estimation of a variable RBE, in contrast to the clinically applied constant RBE of 1.1. In this study, eleven published phenomenological RBE models and two plan-based models were explored and applied to simulated patient cases. All models were analysed with respect to the distribution and range of linear energy transfer (LET) and reference radiation fractionation sensitivity ((α/β) x ) of their respective experimental databases. Proton therapy plans for a spread-out Bragg peak in water and three patient cases (prostate adenocarcinoma, pituitary adenoma and thoracic sarcoma) were optimised using an RBE of 1.1 in the Eclipse™ treatment planning system prior to recalculation and modelling in the FLUKA Monte Carlo code. Model estimated dose-volume parameters for the planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OAR) were compared. The experimental in vitro databases for the various models differed greatly in the range of (α/β) x values and dose-averaged LET (LETd). There were significant variations between the model estimations, which arose from fundamental differences in the database definitions and model assumptions. The greatest variations appeared in organs with low (α/β) x and high LETd, e.g. biological doses given to late responding OARs located distal to the target in the treatment field. In general, the variation in maximum dose (D2%) was larger than the variation in mean dose and other dose metrics, with D2% of the left optic nerve ((α/β) x   =  2.1 Gy) in the pituitary adenoma case showing the greatest discrepancies between models: 28-52 Gy(RBE), while D2% for RBE1.1 was 30 Gy(RBE). For all patient cases, the estimated mean RBE to the PTV was in the range 1.09-1.29 ((α/β) x   =  1.5/3.1/10.6 Gy). There were considerable variations between the estimations of RBE and RBE-weighted doses from the different models. These variations were a consequence of fundamental differences in experimental databases, model assumptions and regression techniques. The results from the implementation of RBE models in dose planning studies should be evaluated in light of these deviations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30102240     DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aad9db

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


  15 in total

Review 1.  Proton RBE dependence on dose in the setting of hypofractionation.

Authors:  Thomas Friedrich
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Treatment planning for proton therapy: what is needed in the next 10 years?

Authors:  Hakan Nystrom; Maria Fuglsang Jensen; Petra Witt Nystrom
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  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 4.  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

5.  DNA Dosimeter Measurement of Relative Biological Effectiveness for 160 kVp and 6 MV X Rays.

Authors:  Xiaolei Li; Kristen Alycia McConnell; Jun Che; Chul Soo Ha; Sang Eun Lee; Neil Kirby; Eun Yong Shim
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 3.372

6.  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

7.  The impact of proton LET/RBE modeling and robustness analysis on base-of-skull and pediatric craniopharyngioma proton plans relative to VMAT.

Authors:  A Gutierrez; V Rompokos; K Li; C Gillies; D D'Souza; F Solda; N Fersht; Y-C Chang; G Royle; R A Amos; T Underwood
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 4.089

8.  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

Review 9.  Ionizing Radiation and Complex DNA Damage: Quantifying the Radiobiological Damage Using Monte Carlo Simulations.

Authors:  Konstantinos P Chatzipapas; Panagiotis Papadimitroulas; Dimitris Emfietzoglou; Spyridon A Kalospyros; Megumi Hada; Alexandros G Georgakilas; George C Kagadis
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-03-26       Impact factor: 6.639

10.  Difference in LET-based biological doses between IMPT optimization techniques: Robust and PTV-based optimizations.

Authors:  Shusuke Hirayama; Taeko Matsuura; Koichi Yasuda; Seishin Takao; Takaaki Fujii; Naoki Miyamoto; Kikuo Umegaki; Shinichi Shimizu
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-03-09       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.