Literature DB >> 30183674

Impact of potentially variable RBE in liver proton therapy.

Yizheng Chen1, Clemens Grassberger, Junli Li, Theodore S Hong, Harald Paganetti.   

Abstract

Currently, the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) is assumed to be constant with a value of 1.1 in proton therapy. Although trends of RBE variations are well known, absolute values in patients are associated with considerable uncertainties. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a variable proton RBE in proton therapy liver trials using different fractionation schemes. Sixteen liver cancer cases were evaluated assuming two clinical schedules of 40 Gy/5 fractions and 58.05 Gy/15 fractions. The linear energy transfer (LET) and physical dose distribution in patients were simulated using Monte Carlo. The variable RBE distribution was calculated using a phenomenological model, considering the influence of the LET, fraction size and α/β value. Further, models to predict normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and tumor control probability (TCP) were used to investigate potential RBE effects on outcome predictions. Applying the variable RBE model to the 5 and 15 fractions schedules results in an increase in mean fraction-size equivalent dose (FED) to the normal liver of 5.0% and 9.6% respectively. For patients with a mean FED to the normal liver larger than 29.8 Gy, this results in a non-negligible increase in the predicted NTCP of the normal liver averaging 11.6%, ranging from 2.7% to 25.6%. On the other hand, decrease in TCP was less than 5% for both fractionation regimens for all patients when assuming a variable RBE instead of constant. Consequently, the difference in TCP between the two fractionation schedules did not change significantly assuming a variable RBE while the impact on the NTCP difference was highly case specific. In addition, both the NTCP and TCP decrease with increasing α/β value for both fractionation schemes, with the decreases being more pronounced when using a variable RBE compared to using RBE  =  1.1. Assuming a constant RBE of 1.1 most likely overestimates the therapeutic ratio in proton therapy for liver cancer, predominantly due to underestimation of the RBE-weighted dose to the normal liver. The impact of applying a variable RBE (as compared to RBE  =  1.1) on the NTCP difference of the two fractionation regimens is case dependent. A variable RBE results in a slight increase in TCP difference. Variations in patient radiosensitivity increase when using a variable RBE.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30183674      PMCID: PMC6207451          DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aadf24

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


  57 in total

1.  CERR: a computational environment for radiotherapy research.

Authors:  Joseph O Deasy; Angel I Blanco; Vanessa H Clark
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Accurate Monte Carlo simulations for nozzle design, commissioning and quality assurance for a proton radiation therapy facility.

Authors:  H Paganetti; H Jiang; S Y Lee; H M Kooy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 3.  Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and linear energy transfer.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  TOPAS: an innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications.

Authors:  J Perl; J Shin; J Schumann; B Faddegon; H Paganetti
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 5.  Clinical Trial Strategies to Compare Protons With Photons.

Authors:  Johannes A Langendijk; Liesbeth J Boersma; Coen R N Rasch; Marco van Vulpen; Johannes B Reitsma; Arjen van der Schaaf; Ewoud Schuit
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 5.934

6.  The influence of RBE variations in a clinical proton treatment plan for a hypopharynx cancer.

Authors:  N Tilly; J Johansson; U Isacsson; J Medin; E Blomquist; E Grusell; B Glimelius
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2005-05-25       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Accelerated treatment using intensity-modulated radiation therapy plus concurrent capecitabine for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Alyson McIntosh; Klaus D Hagspiel; Abdullah M Al-Osaimi; Patrick Northup; Stephen Caldwell; Carl Berg; J Fritz Angle; Curtis Argo; Geoffrey Weiss; Tyvin A Rich
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-11-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  A prospective feasibility study of respiratory-gated proton beam therapy for liver tumors.

Authors:  Theodore S Hong; Thomas F DeLaney; Harvey J Mamon; Christopher G Willett; Beow Y Yeap; Andrzej Niemierko; John A Wolfgang; Hsiao-Ming Lu; Judith Adams; Elizabeth A Weyman; Ronald S Arellano; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Jill N Allen; Kenneth K Tanabe; David P Ryan; Andrew X Zhu
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-11-22

9.  Viability of Non-Coplanar VMAT for Liver SBRT as Compared to Coplanar VMAT and Beam Orientation Optimized 4π IMRT.

Authors:  Kaley Woods; Dan Nguyen; Angelia Tran; Victoria Y Yu; Minsong Cao; Tianye Niu; Percy Lee; Ke Sheng
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar

10.  Modeling of alpha/beta for late rectal toxicity from a randomized phase II study: conventional versus hypofractionated scheme for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Simona Marzi; Biancamaria Saracino; Maria G Petrongari; Stefano Arcangeli; Sara Gomellini; Giorgio Arcangeli; Marcello Benassi; Valeria Landoni
Journal:  J Exp Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2009-08-19
View more
  4 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.  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

3.  Ganetespib selectively sensitizes cancer cells for proximal and distal spread-out Bragg peak proton irradiation.

Authors:  Simon Deycmar; Elisabeth Mara; Sylvia Kerschbaum-Gruber; Verena Waller; Dietmar Georg; Martin Pruschy
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-04-11       Impact factor: 3.481

Review 4.  Roadmap: proton therapy physics and biology.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti; Chris Beltran; Stefan Both; Lei Dong; Jacob Flanz; Keith Furutani; Clemens Grassberger; David R Grosshans; Antje-Christin Knopf; Johannes A Langendijk; Hakan Nystrom; Katia Parodi; Bas W Raaymakers; Christian Richter; Gabriel O Sawakuchi; Marco Schippers; Simona F Shaitelman; B K Kevin Teo; Jan Unkelbach; Patrick Wohlfahrt; Tony Lomax
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 4.174

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.