Lena Heuchel1, Christian Hahn2, Jörg Pawelke3, Brita Singers Sørensen4, Manjit Dosanjh5, Armin Lühr6. 1. Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Germany. 2. Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Germany; OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany; Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany. 3. OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Germany. 4. Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Danish Center for Particle Therapy, DCPT, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. 5. Department of Physics, University of Oxford, UK; CERN, Geneva, Switzerland. 6. Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Germany. Electronic address: Armin.Luehr@tu-dortmund.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) varies along the treatment field. However, in clinical practice, a constant RBE of 1.1 is assumed, which can result in undesirable side effects. This study provides an accurate overview of current clinical practice for considering proton RBE in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was devised and sent to all proton therapy centres in Europe that treat patients. The online questionnaire consisted of 39 questions addressing various aspects of RBE consideration in clinical practice, including treatment planning, patient follow-up and future demands. RESULTS: All 25 proton therapy centres responded. All centres prescribed a constant RBE of 1.1, but also applied measures (except for one eye treatment centre) to counteract variable RBE effects such as avoiding beams stopping inside or in front of an organ at risk and putting restrictions on the minimum number and opening angle of incident beams for certain treatment sites. For the future, most centres (16) asked for more retrospective or prospective outcome studies investigating the potential effect of the effect of a variable RBE. To perform such studies, 18 centres asked for LET and RBE calculation and visualisation tools developed by treatment planning system vendors. CONCLUSION: All European proton centres are aware of RBE variability but comply with current guidelines of prescribing a constant RBE. However, they actively mitigate uncertainty and risk of side effects resulting from increased RBE by applying measures and restrictions during treatment planning. To change RBE-related clinical guidelines in the future more clinical data on RBE are explicitly demanded.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) varies along the treatment field. However, in clinical practice, a constant RBE of 1.1 is assumed, which can result in undesirable side effects. This study provides an accurate overview of current clinical practice for considering proton RBE in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was devised and sent to all proton therapy centres in Europe that treat patients. The online questionnaire consisted of 39 questions addressing various aspects of RBE consideration in clinical practice, including treatment planning, patient follow-up and future demands. RESULTS: All 25 proton therapy centres responded. All centres prescribed a constant RBE of 1.1, but also applied measures (except for one eye treatment centre) to counteract variable RBE effects such as avoiding beams stopping inside or in front of an organ at risk and putting restrictions on the minimum number and opening angle of incident beams for certain treatment sites. For the future, most centres (16) asked for more retrospective or prospective outcome studies investigating the potential effect of the effect of a variable RBE. To perform such studies, 18 centres asked for LET and RBE calculation and visualisation tools developed by treatment planning system vendors. CONCLUSION: All European proton centres are aware of RBE variability but comply with current guidelines of prescribing a constant RBE. However, they actively mitigate uncertainty and risk of side effects resulting from increased RBE by applying measures and restrictions during treatment planning. To change RBE-related clinical guidelines in the future more clinical data on RBE are explicitly demanded.
Keywords:
Current clinical practice; Europe; Linear energy transfer (LET); Proton Beam Therapy; Relative biological effectiveness (RBE); Survey; Treatment planning