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. 1. Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany. christian2.hahn@tu-dortmund.de. 2. OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany. christian2.hahn@tu-dortmund.de. 3. Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. christian2.hahn@tu-dortmund.de. 4. Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany. 5. RaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. West German Proton Therapy Centre Essen, Essen, Germany. 7. West German Cancer Center (WTZ), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 8. Department of Particle Therapy, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 9. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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