Biological Impact of Target Fragments on Proton Treatment Plans: An Analysis Based on the Current Cross-Section Data and a Full Mixed Field Approach.
Monte Carlo
TOPAS
biophysical dose-response models
mixed field model
proton therapy
relative biological effectiveness (RBE)
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Sep 2021
24 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
23
07
2021
revised:
13
09
2021
accepted:
13
09
2021
entrez:
13
10
2021
pubmed:
14
10
2021
medline:
14
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Clinical routine in proton therapy currently neglects the radiobiological impact of nuclear target fragments generated by proton beams. This is partially due to the difficult characterization of the irradiation field. The detection of low energetic fragments, secondary protons and fragments, is in fact challenging due to their very short range. However, considering their low residual energy and therefore high LET, the possible contribution of such heavy particles to the overall biological effect could be not negligible. In this context, we performed a systematic analysis aimed at an explicit assessment of the RBE (relative biological effectiveness, i.e., the ratio of photon to proton physical dose needed to achieve the same biological effect) contribution of target fragments in the biological dose calculations of proton fields. The TOPAS Monte Carlo code has been used to characterize the radiation field, i.e., for the scoring of primary protons and fragments in an exemplary water target. TRiP98, in combination with LEM IV RBE tables, was then employed to evaluate the RBE with a mixed field approach accounting for fragments' contributions. The results were compared with that obtained by considering only primary protons for the pristine beam and spread out Bragg peak (SOBP) irradiations, in order to estimate the relative weight of target fragments to the overall RBE. A sensitivity analysis of the secondary particles production cross-sections to the biological dose has been also carried out in this study. Finally, our modeling approach was applied to the analysis of a selection of cell survival and RBE data extracted from published in vitro studies. Our results indicate that, for high energy proton beams, the main contribution to the biological effect due to the secondary particles can be attributed to secondary protons, while the contribution of heavier fragments is mainly due to helium. The impact of target fragments on the biological dose is maximized in the entrance channels and for small α/β values. When applied to the description of survival data, model predictions including all fragments allowed better agreement to experimental data at high energies, while a minor effect was observed in the peak region. An improved description was also obtained when including the fragments' contribution to describe RBE data. Overall, this analysis indicates that a minor contribution can be expected to the overall RBE resulting from target fragments. However, considering the fragmentation effects can improve the agreement with experimental data for high energy proton beams.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34638254
pii: cancers13194768
doi: 10.3390/cancers13194768
pmc: PMC8507563
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare
ID : MoVe IT CSNV
Références
Med Phys. 2014 Sep;41(9):091706
pubmed: 25186381
Phys Med Biol. 2006 Apr 21;51(8):1959-70
pubmed: 16585839
Phys Med. 2017 Jun;38:66-75
pubmed: 28610699
Acta Oncol. 2013 Apr;52(3):580-8
pubmed: 22909391
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Nov 15;78(4):1177-83
pubmed: 20732758
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Feb 21;62(4):1378-1395
pubmed: 28114106
Phys Med Biol. 2000 Nov;45(11):3299-317
pubmed: 11098905
Med Phys. 2016 Apr;43(4):1995
pubmed: 27036594
Phys Med Biol. 2009 Apr 7;54(7):N101-6
pubmed: 19287080
J Radiat Res. 2013 Jul;54 Suppl 1:i91-6
pubmed: 23824133
Radiat Res. 1980 Sep;83(3):732-9
pubmed: 7413933
J Radiat Res. 2013 May;54(3):494-514
pubmed: 23266948
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Dec 19;64(1):01TR01
pubmed: 30523903
Int J Radiat Biol. 2012 Jan;88(1-2):103-7
pubmed: 21823820
Radiat Res. 1991 Aug;127(2):130-7
pubmed: 1658843
Med Phys. 2008 Sep;35(9):4161-72
pubmed: 18841869
Br J Radiol. 2020 Mar;93(1107):20190601
pubmed: 31529979
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017 Aug;14(8):483-495
pubmed: 28290489
Phys Med Biol. 2011 Oct 21;56(20):6677-91
pubmed: 21965268
Med Phys. 2012 Nov;39(11):6818-37
pubmed: 23127075
Cancers (Basel). 2015 Feb 12;7(1):353-81
pubmed: 25686476
Br J Radiol. 2020 Mar;93(1107):20190428
pubmed: 31556333
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Aug 29;63(17):175002
pubmed: 30088808
Radiat Res. 2020 Feb;193(2):130-142
pubmed: 31804150
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Jul 07;60(13):5053-70
pubmed: 26061666
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jun 1;53(2):407-21
pubmed: 12023146
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Nov 7;60(21):8399-416
pubmed: 26459756
Phys Med Biol. 2014 Dec 7;59(23):7393-417
pubmed: 25386876
Phys Med. 2020 Apr;72:114-121
pubmed: 32247964
Phys Med. 2020 Dec;80:342-346
pubmed: 33271390
Med Dosim. 2018 Summer;43(2):168-176
pubmed: 29650302
CNS Oncol. 2014 Mar;3(2):149-58
pubmed: 25055020
Int J Part Ther. 2018 Winter;4(3):12-22
pubmed: 30159358
Phys Med Biol. 2012 Aug 21;57(16):5169-85
pubmed: 22842768
Phys Med Biol. 2000 Nov;45(11):3319-30
pubmed: 11098906
Radiat Oncol. 2018 May 16;13(1):96
pubmed: 29769103
Br J Radiol. 2020 Mar;93(1107):20190334
pubmed: 31738081
Phys Med. 2015 Jul;31(5):484-92
pubmed: 26032003
Med Phys. 2017 Mar;44(3):810-822
pubmed: 28107554
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Sep 20;62(19):7798-7813
pubmed: 28841579
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Feb 7;62(3):890-908
pubmed: 28072575
Phys Med Biol. 1996 Sep;41(9):1649-63
pubmed: 8884903