Literature DB >> 30421808

A comparison of mechanism-inspired models for particle relative biological effectiveness (RBE).

Robert D Stewart1, David J Carlson2, Michael P Butkus2, Roland Hawkins3, Thomas Friedrich4, Michael Scholz4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE: The application of heavy ion beams in cancer therapy must account for the increasing relative biological effectiveness (RBE) with increasing penetration depth when determining dose prescriptions and organ at risk (OAR) constraints in treatment planning. Because RBE depends in a complex manner on factors such as the ion type, energy, cell and tissue radiosensitivity, physical dose, biological endpoint, and position within and outside treatment fields, biophysical models reflecting these dependencies are required for the personalization and optimization of treatment plans. AIM: To review and compare three mechanism-inspired models which predict the complexities of particle RBE for various ion types, energies, linear energy transfer (LET) values and tissue radiation sensitivities.
METHODS: The review of models and mechanisms focuses on the Local Effect Model (LEM), the Microdosimetric-Kinetic (MK) model, and the Repair-Misrepair-Fixation (RMF) model in combination with the Monte Carlo Damage Simulation (MCDS). These models relate the induction of potentially lethal double strand breaks (DSBs) to the subsequent interactions and biological processing of DSB into more lethal forms of damage. A key element to explain the increased biological effectiveness of high LET ions compared to MV x rays is the characterization of the number and local complexity (clustering) of the initial DSB produced within a cell. For high LET ions, the spatial density of DSB induction along an ion's trajectory is much greater than along the path of a low LET electron, such as the secondary electrons produced by the megavoltage (MV) x rays used in conventional radiation therapy. The main aspects of the three models are introduced and the conceptual similarities and differences are critiqued and highlighted. Model predictions are compared in terms of the RBE for DSB induction and for reproductive cell survival. RESULTS AND
CONCLUSIONS: Comparisons of the RBE for DSB induction and for cell survival are presented for proton (1 H), helium (4 He), and carbon (12 C) ions for the therapeutically most relevant range of ion beam energies. The reviewed models embody mechanisms of action acting over the spatial scales underlying the biological processing of potentially lethal DSB into more lethal forms of damage. Differences among the number and types of input parameters, relevant biological targets, and the computational approaches among the LEM, MK and RMF models are summarized and critiqued. Potential experiments to test some of the seemingly contradictory aspects of the models are discussed.
© 2018 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DSB; LEM; MCDS; MK; RBE; RMF; cell survival; hadron therapy

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30421808     DOI: 10.1002/mp.13207

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


  20 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.  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.  Performance Evaluation for Repair of HSGc-C5 Carcinoma Cell Using Geant4-DNA.

Authors:  Dousatsu Sakata; Masao Suzuki; Ryoichi Hirayama; Yasushi Abe; Masayuki Muramatsu; Shinji Sato; Oleg Belov; Ioanna Kyriakou; Dimitris Emfietzoglou; Susanna Guatelli; Sebastien Incerti; Taku Inaniwa
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 6.639

Review 4.  Applications of nanodosimetry in particle therapy planning and beyond.

Authors:  Antoni Rucinski; Anna Biernacka; Reinhard Schulte
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 5.  Understanding the harm of low-dose computed tomography radiation to the body (Review).

Authors:  Hai-Min Shi; Zhi-Chao Sun; Fang-He Ju
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 2.751

6.  Radiosensitivity of colorectal cancer to 90Y and the radiobiological implications for radioembolisation therapy.

Authors:  Boon Q Lee; Elliot M Abbott; Sarah Able; James M Thompson; Mark A Hill; Christiana Kartsonaki; Katherine A Vallis; Nadia Falzone
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 4.174

Review 7.  Carbon Ion Radiobiology.

Authors:  Walter Tinganelli; Marco Durante
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-10-17       Impact factor: 6.575

8.  Mechanistic Modeling of the Relative Biological Effectiveness of Boron Neutron Capture Therapy.

Authors:  Seth W Streitmatter; Robert D Stewart; Gregory Moffitt; Tatjana Jevremovic
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 6.600

9.  Update of the particle irradiation data ensemble (PIDE) for cell survival.

Authors:  Thomas Friedrich; Tabea Pfuhl; Michael Scholz
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2021-07-10       Impact factor: 2.724

10.  Comparative photon and proton dosimetry for patients with mediastinal lymphoma in the era of Monte Carlo treatment planning and variable relative biological effectiveness.

Authors:  Yolanda D Tseng; Shadonna M Maes; Gregory Kicska; Patricia Sponsellor; Erik Traneus; Tony Wong; Robert D Stewart; Jatinder Saini
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.