In Silico Models of DNA Damage and Repair in Proton Treatment Planning: A Proof of Concept.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 12 2019
27 12 2019
Historique:
received:
20
02
2019
accepted:
29
11
2019
entrez:
29
12
2019
pubmed:
29
12
2019
medline:
11
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is strong in vitro cell survival evidence that the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of protons is variable, with dependence on factors such as linear energy transfer (LET) and dose. This is coupled with the growing in vivo evidence, from post-treatment image change analysis, of a variable RBE. Despite this, a constant RBE of 1.1 is still applied as a standard in proton therapy. However, there is a building clinical interest in incorporating a variable RBE. Recently, correlations summarising Monte Carlo-based mechanistic models of DNA damage and repair with absorbed dose and LET have been published as the Manchester mechanistic (MM) model. These correlations offer an alternative path to variable RBE compared to the more standard phenomenological models. In this proof of concept work, these correlations have been extended to acquire RBE-weighted dose distributions and calculated, along with other RBE models, on a treatment plan. The phenomenological and mechanistic models for RBE have been shown to produce comparable results with some differences in magnitude and relative distribution. The mechanistic model found a large RBE for misrepair, which phenomenological models are unable to do. The potential of the MM model to predict multiple endpoints presents a clear advantage over phenomenological models.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31882690
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56258-5
pii: 10.1038/s41598-019-56258-5
pmc: PMC6934522
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
19870Références
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Apr 1;91(5):1057-64
pubmed: 25832696
Med Phys. 2014 Sep;41(9):091706
pubmed: 25186381
Radiat Res. 2017 Dec;188(6):690-703
pubmed: 28792846
Sci Rep. 2018 Feb 8;8(1):2654
pubmed: 29422642
Med Phys. 2014 Jun;41(6):064301
pubmed: 24877844
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Nov 7;60(21):8399-416
pubmed: 26459756
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan;7(1):37-43
pubmed: 19949433
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 May 1;101(1):152-168
pubmed: 29619963
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 Dec 1;96(5):1097-1106
pubmed: 27869082
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):56-58
pubmed: 27084627
Mutat Res. 2011 Jun 3;711(1-2):28-40
pubmed: 21281649
Cell Cycle. 2008 Sep 15;7(18):2902-6
pubmed: 18769152
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):287-296
pubmed: 26691786
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Jul 21;60(14):N283-91
pubmed: 26147442
Int J Radiat Biol. 2007 Jan;83(1):27-39
pubmed: 17357437
Med Phys. 1998 Jul;25(7 Pt 1):1157-70
pubmed: 9682201
Acta Oncol. 2013 Apr;52(3):580-8
pubmed: 22909391
Phys Med Biol. 2014 Nov 21;59(22):R419-72
pubmed: 25361443
Phys Med. 2015 Dec;31(8):861-874
pubmed: 26653251
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Aug 1;80(5):1559-66
pubmed: 21163588
Radiother Oncol. 2016 Dec;121(3):395-401
pubmed: 27863964
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Jul 15;101(4):809-819
pubmed: 29976493
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):70-77
pubmed: 27084630
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Sep 7;53(17):4825-53
pubmed: 18701772
Adv Space Res. 1996;18(1-2):5-14
pubmed: 11538986
Med Phys. 2017 Jun;44(6):2586-2594
pubmed: 28295379
Nat Cell Biol. 2016 Dec 23;19(1):1-9
pubmed: 28008184
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Apr 7;60(7):2645-69
pubmed: 25768028