Literature DB >> 36273132

Comparing biological effectiveness guided plan optimization strategies for cranial proton therapy: potential and challenges.

Christian Hahn1,2,3, Lena Heuchel4, Jakob Ödén5, Erik Traneus5, Jörg Wulff6,7, Sandija Plaude6,7, Beate Timmermann6,7,8,9, Christian Bäumer4,6,7,9, Armin Lühr4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To introduce and compare multiple biological effectiveness guided (BG) proton plan optimization strategies minimizing variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) induced dose burden in organs at risk (OAR) while maintaining plan quality with a constant RBE.
METHODS: Dose-optimized (DOSEopt) proton pencil beam scanning reference treatment plans were generated for ten cranial patients with prescription doses ≥ 54 Gy(RBE) and ≥ 1 OAR close to the clinical target volume (CTV). For each patient, four additional BG plans were created. BG objectives minimized either proton track-ends, dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd), energy depositions from high-LET protons or variable RBE-weighted dose (DRBE) in adjacent serially structured OARs. Plan quality (RBE = 1.1) was assessed by CTV dose coverage and robustness (2 mm setup, 3.5% density), dose homogeneity and conformity in the planning target volumes and adherence to OAR tolerance doses. LETd, DRBE (Wedenberg model, α/βCTV = 10 Gy, α/βOAR = 2 Gy) and resulting normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) for blindness and brainstem necrosis were derived. Differences between DOSEopt and BG optimized plans were assessed and statistically tested (Wilcoxon signed rank, α = 0.05).
RESULTS: All plans were clinically acceptable. DOSEopt and BG optimized plans were comparable in target volume coverage, homogeneity and conformity. For recalculated DRBE in all patients, all BG plans significantly reduced near-maximum DRBE to critical OARs with differences up to 8.2 Gy(RBE) (p < 0.05). Direct DRBE optimization primarily reduced absorbed dose in OARs (average ΔDmean = 2.0 Gy; average ΔLETd,mean = 0.1 keV/µm), while the other strategies reduced LETd (average ΔDmean < 0.3 Gy; average ΔLETd,mean = 0.5 keV/µm). LET-optimizing strategies were more robust against range and setup uncertaintes for high-dose CTVs than DRBE optimization. All BG strategies reduced NTCP for brainstem necrosis and blindness on average by 47% with average and maximum reductions of 5.4 and 18.4 percentage points, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: All BG strategies reduced variable RBE-induced NTCPs to OARs. Reducing LETd in high-dose voxels may be favourable due to its adherence to current dose reporting and maintenance of clinical plan quality and the availability of reported LETd and dose levels from clinical toxicity reports after cranial proton therapy. These optimization strategies beyond dose may be a first step towards safely translating variable RBE optimization in the clinics.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dirty dose; Linear energy transfer (LET); Proton therapy; Relative biological effectiveness (RBE); Track ends; Treatment plan optimization

Year:  2022        PMID: 36273132     DOI: 10.1186/s13014-022-02143-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Oncol        ISSN: 1748-717X            Impact factor:   4.309


  31 in total

1.  Predicting late magnetic resonance image changes in glioma patients after proton therapy.

Authors:  J Eulitz; E G C Troost; F Raschke; E Schulz; B Lutz; A Dutz; S Löck; P Wohlfahrt; W Enghardt; C Karpowitz; M Krause; A Lühr
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2019-07-15       Impact factor: 4.089

2.  Report of the AAPM TG-256 on the relative biological effectiveness of proton beams in radiation therapy.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti; Eleanor Blakely; Alejandro Carabe-Fernandez; David J Carlson; Indra J Das; Lei Dong; David Grosshans; Kathryn D Held; Radhe Mohan; Vitali Moiseenko; Andrzej Niemierko; Robert D Stewart; Henning Willers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-02-14       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Asymptomatic Late-phase Radiographic Changes Among Chest-Wall Patients Are Associated With a Proton RBE Exceeding 1.1.

Authors:  Tracy S A Underwood; Clemens Grassberger; Rhedise Bass; Shannon M MacDonald; Nandini M Meyersohn; Beow Y Yeap; Rachel B Jimenez; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Clinical evidence of variable proton biological effectiveness in pediatric patients treated for ependymoma.

Authors:  Christopher R Peeler; Dragan Mirkovic; Uwe Titt; Pierre Blanchard; Jillian R Gunther; Anita Mahajan; Radhe Mohan; David R Grosshans
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 6.280

5.  Clinical use and future requirements of relative biological effectiveness: Survey among all European proton therapy centres.

Authors:  Lena Heuchel; Christian Hahn; Jörg Pawelke; Brita Singers Sørensen; Manjit Dosanjh; Armin Lühr
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 6.280

6.  Radiation induced contrast enhancement after proton beam therapy in patients with low grade glioma - How safe are protons?

Authors:  Semi B Harrabi; Bastian von Nettelbladt; Clemens Gudden; Sebastian Adeberg; Katharina Seidensaal; Julia Bauer; Emanuel Bahn; Andrea Mairani; Markus Alber; Thomas Haberer; Juergen Debus; Klaus Herfarth
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2021-12-29       Impact factor: 6.280

Review 7.  Does the uncertainty in relative biological effectiveness affect patient treatment in proton therapy?

Authors:  Brita S Sørensen; Jörg Pawelke; Julia Bauer; Neil G Burnet; Alexandru Dasu; Morten Høyer; Christian P Karger; Mechthild Krause; Marco Schwarz; Tracy S A Underwood; Dirk Wagenaar; Gillian A Whitfield; Armin Lühr
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 6.280

8.  Study of relationship between dose, LET and the risk of brain necrosis after proton therapy for skull base tumors.

Authors:  Magdalena Garbacz; Francesco Giuseppe Cordoni; Marco Durante; Jan Gajewski; Kamil Kisielewicz; Nils Krah; Renata Kopeć; Paweł Olko; Vincenzo Patera; Ilaria Rinaldi; Marzena Rydygier; Angelo Schiavi; Emanuele Scifoni; Tomasz Skóra; Francesco Tommasino; Antoni Rucinski
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 6.280

9.  End-of-Range Radiobiological Effect on Rib Fractures in Patients Receiving Proton Therapy for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Chia-Chun Wang; Aimee L McNamara; Jungwook Shin; Jan Schuemann; Clemens Grassberger; Alphonse G Taghian; Rachel B Jimenez; Shannon M MacDonald; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2020-03-30       Impact factor: 7.038

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.