Literature DB >> 32234554

Late Contrast Enhancing Brain Lesions in Proton-Treated Patients With Low-Grade Glioma: Clinical Evidence for Increased Periventricular Sensitivity and Variable RBE.

Emanuel Bahn1, Julia Bauer2, Semi Harrabi2, Klaus Herfarth2, Jürgen Debus3, Markus Alber2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Late radiation-induced contrast-enhancing brain lesions (CEBLs) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after proton therapy of brain tumors have been observed to occur frequently in regions of high linear energy transfer (LET) and in proximity to the ventricular system. We analyzed 110 patients with low-grade glioma treated with proton therapy to determine whether the risk for CEBLs is increased in proximity to the ventricular system and if there is a relationship between relative biological effectiveness (RBE) and LET. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We contoured CEBLs identified on follow-up T1-MRI scans and computed dose and dose-averaged LET (LETd) distributions for all patients using the Monte Carlo method. We then performed cross-validated voxel-level logistic regression to predict local risks for image change and to extract model parameters, such as the RBE. From the voxel-level model, we derived a model for patient-level risk prediction based on the treatment plan.
RESULTS: Of 110 patients, 23 exhibited 1 or several CEBLs on follow-up MRI scans. The voxel-level logistic model has an accuracy as follows: area under the curve of 0.94 and Brier score of 2.6 × 10-5. Model predictions are a 3-fold increased risk in the 4 mm region around the ventricular system and an LETd-dependent RBE of, for example, 1.20 for LETd = 2 keV/μm and 1.50 for LETd = 5 keV/μm. The patient-level risk model has an accuracy as follows: area under the curve of 0.78 and Brier score of 0.13.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings present clinical evidence for an increased risk in ventricular proximity and for a proton RBE that increases significantly with increasing LET. We present a voxel-level model that accurately predicts the localization of late MRI contrast change and extrapolate a patient-level model that allows treatment plan-based risk prediction.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32234554     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.03.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  14 in total

Review 1.  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 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.  A Review of Proton Therapy - Current Status and Future Directions.

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

4.  Radiation-induced brain injury in patients with meningioma treated with proton or photon therapy.

Authors:  Jiheon Song; Saif Aljabab; Lulwah Abduljabbar; Yolanda D Tseng; Jason K Rockhill; James R Fink; Lynn Chang; Lia M Halasz
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 5.  Regional Responses in Radiation-Induced Normal Tissue Damage.

Authors:  Daniëlle C Voshart; Julia Wiedemann; Peter van Luijk; Lara Barazzuol
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 6.639

6.  Spatial Agreement of Brainstem Dose Distributions Depending on Biological Model in Proton Therapy for Pediatric Brain Tumors.

Authors:  Lars Fredrik Fjæra; Daniel J Indelicato; Kristian S Ytre-Hauge; Ludvig P Muren; Yasmin Lassen-Ramshad; Laura Toussaint; Olav Dahl; Camilla H Stokkevåg
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-08-28

7.  Treatment plan comparison of proton vs photon radiotherapy for lower-grade gliomas.

Authors:  Camilla S Byskov; Christian R Hansen; Rikke H Dahlrot; Lene Haldbo-Classen; Charlotte A Haslund; Flemming Kjær-Kristoffersen; Thomas O Kristensen; Yasmin Lassen-Ramshad; Slávka Lukacova; Aida Muhic; Petra W Nyström; Britta Weber; Jesper F Kallehauge
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-11-28

8.  The Organ Sparing Potential of Different Biological Optimization Strategies in Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Helge Henjum; Tordis J Dahle; Lars Fredrik Fjæra; Eivind Rørvik; Sara Pilskog; Camilla H Stokkevåg; Andrea Mairani; Kristian S Ytre-Hauge
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-08-17

9.  How can we consider variable RBE and LETd prediction during clinical practice? A pediatric case report at the Normandy Proton Therapy Centre using an independent dose engine.

Authors:  Stewart Mein; Benedikt Kopp; Anthony Vela; Pauline Dutheil; Paul Lesueur; Dinu Stefan; Jürgen Debus; Thomas Haberer; Amir Abdollahi; Andrea Mairani; Thomas Tessonnier
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-02-04       Impact factor: 3.481

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.