Exploratory study of seed spots analysis to characterize dose and linear-energy-transfer effect in adverse event initialization of pencil-beam-scanning proton therapy.
adverse events
dose-LET volume histogram
head and neck
linear energy transfer
seed spot analysis
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2022
Sep 2022
Historique:
revised:
20
06
2022
received:
07
03
2022
accepted:
06
07
2022
pubmed:
13
7
2022
medline:
15
9
2022
entrez:
12
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Both dose and linear energy transfer (LET) could play a substantial role in adverse event (AE) initialization of cancer patients treated with pencil-beam-scanning (PBS) proton therapy. However, not all the voxels within the AE regions are directly induced from the dose and LET effect. It is important to study the synergistic effect of dose and LET in AE initialization by only including a subset of voxels that are dosimetrically important. To perform exploratory investigation of the dose and LET effects upon AE initialization in PBS using seed spots analysis. A total of 113 head-and-neck (H&N) cancer patients receiving curative PBS were included. Among them, 20 patients experienced unanticipated CTCAEv4.0 grade ≥3 AEs (AE group) and 93 patients did not (control group). Within the AE group, 13 AE patients were included in the seed spot analysis to derive the descriptive features of AE initialization and the remaining 7 mandible osteoradionecrosis patients and 93 control patients were used to derive the feature-based volume constraint of mandible osteoradionecrosis. The AE regions were contoured and the corresponding dose-LET volume histograms of AE regions were generated for all patients in the AE group. We selected high LET voxels (the highest 5% of each dose bin) with a range of moderate-to-high dose (≥∼40-Gy relative biological effectiveness) as critical voxels. Critical voxels that were contiguous with each other were grouped into clusters. Each cluster was considered a potential independent seed spot for AE initialization. Seed spots were displayed in a 2D dose-LET plane based on their mean dose and LET to derive the descriptive features of AE initialization. A volume constraint of mandible osteoradionecrosis was then established based on the extracted features using a receiver operating characteristic curve. The product of dose and LET (xBD) was found to be a descriptive feature of seed spots leading to AE initialization in this preliminary study. The derived xBD volume constraint for mandible osteoradionecrosis showed good performance with an area under curve of 0.87 (sensitivity of 0.714 and specificity of 0.807 in the leave-one-out cross-validation) for the very limited patient data included in this study. Our exploratory study showed that both dose and LET were observed to be important in AE initializations. The derived xBD volume constraint could predict mandible osteoradionecrosis reasonably well in the very limited H&N cancer patient data treated with PBS included in this study.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Both dose and linear energy transfer (LET) could play a substantial role in adverse event (AE) initialization of cancer patients treated with pencil-beam-scanning (PBS) proton therapy. However, not all the voxels within the AE regions are directly induced from the dose and LET effect. It is important to study the synergistic effect of dose and LET in AE initialization by only including a subset of voxels that are dosimetrically important.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To perform exploratory investigation of the dose and LET effects upon AE initialization in PBS using seed spots analysis.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 113 head-and-neck (H&N) cancer patients receiving curative PBS were included. Among them, 20 patients experienced unanticipated CTCAEv4.0 grade ≥3 AEs (AE group) and 93 patients did not (control group). Within the AE group, 13 AE patients were included in the seed spot analysis to derive the descriptive features of AE initialization and the remaining 7 mandible osteoradionecrosis patients and 93 control patients were used to derive the feature-based volume constraint of mandible osteoradionecrosis. The AE regions were contoured and the corresponding dose-LET volume histograms of AE regions were generated for all patients in the AE group. We selected high LET voxels (the highest 5% of each dose bin) with a range of moderate-to-high dose (≥∼40-Gy relative biological effectiveness) as critical voxels. Critical voxels that were contiguous with each other were grouped into clusters. Each cluster was considered a potential independent seed spot for AE initialization. Seed spots were displayed in a 2D dose-LET plane based on their mean dose and LET to derive the descriptive features of AE initialization. A volume constraint of mandible osteoradionecrosis was then established based on the extracted features using a receiver operating characteristic curve.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The product of dose and LET (xBD) was found to be a descriptive feature of seed spots leading to AE initialization in this preliminary study. The derived xBD volume constraint for mandible osteoradionecrosis showed good performance with an area under curve of 0.87 (sensitivity of 0.714 and specificity of 0.807 in the leave-one-out cross-validation) for the very limited patient data included in this study.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our exploratory study showed that both dose and LET were observed to be important in AE initializations. The derived xBD volume constraint could predict mandible osteoradionecrosis reasonably well in the very limited H&N cancer patient data treated with PBS included in this study.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6237-6252Subventions
Organisme : Arizona Biomedical Research Commission Investigator Award, the Lawrence W. and Marilyn W. Matteson Fund for Cancer Research, and the Kemper Marley Foundation
Informations de copyright
© 2022 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Machtay M, Moughan J, Trotti A, et al. Factors associated with severe late toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: an RTOG analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(21):3582-3589. [Published online ahead of print 2008/06/19]
Ang KK, Harris J, Wheeler R, et al. Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(1):24-35. [Published online ahead of print 2010/06/10]
Bhangoo RS, DeWees TA, Yu NY, et al. Acute toxicities and short-term patient outcomes after intensity-modulated proton beam radiation therapy or intensity-modulated photon radiation therapy for esophageal carcinoma: a mayo clinic experience. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020;5(5):871-879. [Published online ahead of print 2020/10/22]
Yu NY, DeWees TA, Liu C, et al. Early outcomes of patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy: the Mayo Clinic experience. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2020;5(3):450-458.
Bhangoo RS, Mullikin TC, Ashman JB, et al. Intensity modulated proton therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: initial clinical experience. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2021;6(4):100675.
Patel SH, Ma DJ, Nagel TH, et al. A prospective study of mucosal sparing proton beam therapy in resected oropharyngeal cancer patients: toxicity, quality of life and swallow function. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;108(3):S161-S162.
Sonis ST. Oral mucositis in head and neck cancer: risk, biology, and management. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2013;33:e236-e240. [Published online ahead of print 2013/05/30]. http://doi.org/10.1200/EdBook_AM.2013.33.e236
van de Water TA, Bijl HP, Schilstra C, Pijls-Johannesma M, Langendijk JA. The potential benefit of radiotherapy with protons in head and neck cancer with respect to normal tissue sparing: a systematic review of literature. Oncologist. 2011;16(3):366-377. [Published online ahead of print 2011/02/26]
Lin A, Swisher-McClure S, Millar LB, et al. Proton therapy for head and neck cancer: current applications and future directions. Transl Cancer Res. 2012;1(4):255-263.
Frank SJ, Cox JD, Gillin M, et al. Multifield optimization intensity modulated proton therapy for head and neck tumors: a translation to practice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;89(4):846-853. [Published online ahead of print 2014/05/29]
Schild SE, Rule WG, Ashman JB, et al. Proton beam therapy for locally advanced lung cancer: a review. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5(4):568-575. [Published online ahead of print 2014/10/11]
Pflugfelder D, Wilkens JJ, Oelfke U. Worst case optimization: a method to account for uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(6):1689-1700. [Published online ahead of print 2008/03/28]
Unkelbach J, Bortfeld T, Martin BC, Soukup M. Reducing the sensitivity of IMPT treatment plans to setup errors and range uncertainties via probabilistic treatment planning. Med Phys. 2009;36(1):149-163. [Published online ahead of print 2009/02/25]
Fredriksson A, Forsgren A, Hardemark B. Minimax optimization for handling range and setup uncertainties in proton therapy. Med Phys. 2011;38(3):1672-1684. [Published online ahead of print 2011/04/28]
Liu W, Zhang X, Li Y, Mohan R. Robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy. Med Phys. 2012;39:1079-1091.
Liu W, Li Y, Li X, Cao W, Zhang X. Influence of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy with different dose delivery techniques. Med Phys. 2012;39(6):3089-3101. [Published online ahead of print 2012/07/05]
Chen W, Unkelbach J, Trofimov A, et al. Including robustness in multi-criteria optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57(3):591-608. [Published online ahead of print 2012/01/10]
Liu W, Liao Z, Schild SE, et al. Impact of respiratory motion on worst-case scenario optimized intensity modulated proton therapy for lung cancers. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5(2):e77-e86. [Published online ahead of print 2014/11/22]
Unkelbach J, Alber M, Bangert M, et al. Robust radiotherapy planning. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(22):22TR02. [Published online ahead of print 2018/11/13]
An Y, Liang J, Schild SE, Bues M, Liu W. Robust treatment planning with conditional value at risk chance constraints in intensity-modulated proton therapy. Med Phys. 2017;44(1):28-36. [Published online ahead of print 2017/01/04]
An Y, Shan J, Patel SH, et al. Robust intensity-modulated proton therapy to reduce high linear energy transfer in organs at risk. Med Phys. 2017;44(12):6138-6147. [Published online ahead of print 2017/10/05]
Liu C, Patel SH, Shan J, et al. Robust optimization for intensity modulated proton therapy to redistribute high linear energy transfer from nearby critical organs to tumors in head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;107(1):181-193. [Published online ahead of print 2020/01/29]
Liu C, Yu NY, Shan J, et al. Technical note: treatment planning system (TPS) approximations matter - comparing intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan quality and robustness between a commercial and an in-house developed TPS for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Med Phys. 2019;46(11):4755-4762. [Published online ahead of print 2019/09/10]
Liu C, Schild SE, Chang JY, et al. Impact of spot size and spacing on the quality of robustly optimized intensity modulated proton therapy plans for lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;101(2):479-489. [Published online ahead of print 2018/03/20]
Liu, W, inventor; Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, assignee. US patent US 2016/0059039 A1. March 3, 2016.
Liu W. Robustness quantification and worst-case robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy. In: Rath A, Sahoo N, eds. Particle Radiotherapy: Emerging Technology for Treatment of Cancer. Springer; 2015.
Liu W, Frank SJ, Li X, et al. Effectiveness of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy planning for head and neck cancers. Med Phys. 2013;40(5):051711. [Published online ahead of print 2013/05/03]
Liu W, Frank SJ, Li X, Li Y, Zhu RX, Mohan R. PTV-based IMPT optimization incorporating planning risk volumes vs robust optimization. Med Phys. 2013;40(2):021709. [Published online ahead of print 2013/02/08]
Liu W, Schild SE, Chang JY, et al. Exploratory study of 4D versus 3D robust optimization in intensity modulated proton therapy for lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95(1):523-533. [Published online ahead of print 2016/01/05]
Shan J, Sio TT, Liu C, Schild SE, Bues M, Liu W. A novel and individualized robust optimization method using normalized dose interval volume constraints (NDIVC) for intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2018;46:382-393. [Published online ahead of print 2018/11/06]. http://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13276
Shan J, An Y, Bues M, Schild SE, Liu W. Robust optimization in IMPT using quadratic objective functions to account for the minimum MU constraint. Med Phys. 2018;45(1):460-469. [Published online ahead of print 2017/11/18]
Feng H, Sio TT, Rule WG, et al. Beam angle comparison for distal esophageal carcinoma patients treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21(11):141-152. [Published online ahead of print 2020/10/16]
Li Y, Liu W, Li X, Quan E, Zhang X. Toward a thorough evaluation of IMPT plan sensitivity to uncertainties: revisit the worst-case analysis with an exhaustively sampling approach. Med Phys. 2011;38(6):3853.
Liu C, Bhangoo RS, Sio TT, et al. Dosimetric comparison of distal esophageal carcinoma plans for patients treated with small-spot intensity-modulated proton versus volumetric-modulated arc therapies. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019;20(7):15-27. [Published online ahead of print 2019/05/22]
Liu C, Sio TT, Deng W, et al. Small-spot intensity-modulated proton therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapies for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a dosimetric comparative study. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19(6):140-148. [Published online ahead of print 2018/10/18]
Tryggestad EJ, Liu W, Pepin MD, Hallemeier CL, Sio TT. Managing treatment-related uncertainties in proton beam radiotherapy for gastrointestinal cancers. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2020;11(1):212-224. [Published online ahead of print 2020/03/17]
Zaghian M, Cao W, Liu W, et al. Comparison of linear and nonlinear programming approaches for “worst case dose” and “minmax” robust optimization of intensity-modulated proton therapy dose distributions. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(2):15-25. [Published online ahead of print 2017/03/17]
Zaghian M, Lim G, Liu W, Mohan R. An automatic approach for satisfying dose-volume constraints in linear fluence map optimization for IMPT. J Cancer Ther. 2014;5(2):198-207. [Published online ahead of print 2014/12/17]
Feng H, Shan J, Ashman JB, et al. Technical note: 4D robust optimization in small spot intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for distal esophageal carcinoma. Med Phys. 2021;48(8):4636-4647. [Published online ahead of print 2021/06/01]
Liu W, Mohan R, Park P, et al. Dosimetric benefits of robust treatment planning for intensity modulated proton therapy for base-of-skull cancers. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014;4(6):384-391. [Published online ahead of print 2014/11/20]
Lomax AJ. Intensity modulated proton therapy and its sensitivity to treatment uncertainties 1: the potential effects of calculational uncertainties. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(4):1027-1042. [Published online ahead of print 2008/02/12]
Shan J, Sio TT, Liu C, Schild SE, Bues M, Liu W. A novel and individualized robust optimization method using normalized dose interval volume constraints (NDIVC) for intensity-modulated proton radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2019;46(1):382-393. [Published online ahead of print 2018/11/06]
Paganetti H. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and linear energy transfer. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59(22):R419-R472. [Published online ahead of print 2014/11/02]
Unkelbach J, Botas P, Giantsoudi D, Gorissen BL, Paganetti H. Reoptimization of intensity modulated proton therapy plans based on linear energy transfer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;96(5):1097-1106. [Published online ahead of print 2016/11/22]
Deng W, Yang Y, Liu C, et al. A critical review of LET-based intensity-modulated proton therapy plan evaluation and optimization for head and neck cancer management. Int J Part Ther. 2021;8(1):36-49. [Published online ahead of print 2021/07/22]
Paganetti H, Niemierko A, Ancukiewicz M, et al. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53(2):407-421. [Published online ahead of print 2002/05/23]
Cao W, Khabazian A, Yepes PP, et al. Linear energy transfer incorporated intensity modulated proton therapy optimization. Phys Med Biol. 2017;63(1):015013. [Published online ahead of print 2017/11/14]
Mara E, Clausen M, Khachonkham S, et al. Investigating the impact of alpha/beta and LETD on relative biological effectiveness in scanned proton beams: an in vitro study based on human cell lines. Med Phys. 2020;47:3691-3702.
Gentile MS, Yeap BY, Paganetti H, et al. Brainstem injury in pediatric patients with posterior fossa tumors treated with proton beam therapy and associated dosimetric factors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;100(3):719-729.
Peeler CR, Mirkovic D, Titt U, et al. Clinical evidence of variable proton biological effectiveness in pediatric patients treated for ependymoma. Radiother Oncol. 2016;121(3):395-401. [Published online ahead of print 2016/11/20]
Underwood TSA, Grassberger C, Bass R, et al. Asymptomatic late-phase radiographic changes among chest-wall patients are associated with a proton RBE exceeding 1.1. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;101(4):809-819. [Published online ahead of print 2018/07/07].
Bolsi A, Placidi L, Pica A, et al. Pencil beam scanning proton therapy for the treatment of craniopharyngioma complicated with radiation-induced cerebral vasculopathies: a dosimetric and linear energy transfer (LET) evaluation. Radiother Oncol. 2020;149:197-204. [Published online ahead of print 2020/05/11].
Eulitz J, Lutz B, Wohlfahrt P, et al. A Monte Carlo based radiation response modelling framework to assess variability of clinical RBE in proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(22):225020.
Bahn E, Bauer J, Harrabi S, Herfarth K, Debus J, Alber M. Late contrast enhancing brain lesions in proton-treated patients with low-grade glioma: clinical evidence for increased periventricular sensitivity and variable RBE. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;107(3):571-578.
Yang Y, Muller OM, Shiraishi S, et al. Empirical relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for mandible osteoradionecrosis (ORN) in head and neck cancer patients treated with pencil-beam-scanning proton therapy (PBSPT): a retrospective, case-matched cohort study. Front Oncol. 2022;12:843175.
Dawson LA, Menard C. Imaging in radiation oncology: a perspective. Oncologist. 2010;15(4):338-349. [Published online ahead of print 2010/04/24].
Abolfath R, Peeler C, Mirkovic D, Mohan R, Grosshans D. A DNA damage multiscale model for NTCP in proton and hadron therapy. Med Phys. 2020;47(4):2005-2012.
Niemierko A, Schuemann J, Niyazi M, et al. Brain necrosis in adult patients after proton therapy: is there evidence for dependency on linear energy transfer?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;109(1):109-119. [Published online ahead of print 2020/09/11].
Bertolet A, Abolfath R, Carlson DJ, et al. Correlation of LET with MRI changes in brain and potential implications for normal tissue complication probability for patients with meningioma treated with pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022;112(1):237-246. [Published online ahead of print 2021/08/24].
Eulitz J, Troost E, Raschke F, et al. Predicting late magnetic resonance image changes in glioma patients after proton therapy. Acta Oncol (Madr). 2019;58(10):1536-1539.
Park PC, Zhu XR, Lee AK, et al. A beam-specific planning target volume (PTV) design for proton therapy to account for setup and range uncertainties. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(2):e329-e336. [Published online ahead of print 2011/06/28].
Zhu XR, Poenisch F, Li H, et al. A single-field integrated boost treatment planning technique for spot scanning proton therapy. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9(1):1-12.
Liu W, Patel SH, Harrington DP, et al. Exploratory study of the association of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan robustness with local failure in head and neck cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(4):76-83. [Published online ahead of print 2017/05/16].
Chao KS, Ozyigit G, Tran BN, Cengiz M, Dempsey JF, Low DA. Patterns of failure in patients receiving definitive and postoperative IMRT for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55(2):312-321. [Published online ahead of print 2003/01/16].
Liu W, Patel SH, Harrington DP, et al. Exploratory study of the association of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan robustness with local failure in head and neck cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(4):76-83.
Chao KC, Ozyigit G, Tran BN, Cengiz M, Dempsey JF, Low DA. Patterns of failure in patients receiving definitive and postoperative IMRT for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55(2):312-321.
Souris K, Lee JA, Sterpin E. Fast multipurpose Monte Carlo simulation for proton therapy using multi- and many-core CPU architectures. Med Phys. 2016;43(4):1700. [Published online ahead of print 2016/04/03].
Deng W, Younkin JE, Souris K, et al. Technical note: integrating an open source Monte Carlo code “MCsquare” for clinical use in intensity-modulated proton therapy. Med Phys. 2020;47(6):2558-2574. [Published online ahead of print 2020/03/11].
Deng W, Ding X, Younkin JE, et al. Hybrid 3D analytical linear energy transfer calculation algorithm based on precalculated data from Monte Carlo simulations. Med Phys. 2020;47(2):745-752. [Published online ahead of print 2019/11/24].
Younkin JE, Morales DH, Shen J, et al. Clinical validation of a ray-casting analytical dose engine for spot scanning proton delivery systems. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2019;18:1533033819887182. [Published online ahead of print 2019/11/23].
Holmes J, Shen J, Shan J, et al. Evaluation and second check of a commercial Monte Carlo dose engine for small-field apertures in pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Med Phys. 2022;49(5):3497-3506. [Published online ahead of print 2022/03/20]. http://doi.org/10.1002/mp.15604
Wagenaar D, Tran LT, Meijers A, et al. Validation of linear energy transfer computed in a Monte Carlo dose engine of a commercial treatment planning system. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(2):025006.
Huang S, Souris K, Li S, et al. Validation and application of a fast Monte Carlo algorithm for assessing the clinical impact of approximations in analytical dose calculations for pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Med Phys. 2018;45(12):5631-5642.
Huang S, Kang M, Souris K, et al. Validation and clinical implementation of an accurate Monte Carlo code for pencil beam scanning proton therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19(5):558-572.
Sorriaux J, Testa M, Paganetti H, et al. Experimental assessment of proton dose calculation accuracy in inhomogeneous media. Physica Med. 2017;38:10-15.
Shan J, Yang Y, Schild SE, et al. Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) interplay effect evaluation of asymmetric breathing with simultaneous uncertainty considerations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Med Phys. 2020;47(11):5428-5440. [Published online ahead of print 2020/09/24].
Feng H, Shan J, Anderson JD, et al. Per-voxel constraints to minimize hot spots in linear energy transfer-guided robust optimization for base of skull head and neck cancer patients in IMPT. Med Phys. 2022;49(1):632-647. [Published online ahead of print 2021/11/30].
Yang Y, Vargas CE, Bhangoo RS, et al. Exploratory investigation of dose-linear energy transfer (LET) volume histogram (DLVH) for adverse events study in intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;110(4):1189-1199. [Published online ahead of print 2021/02/24].
Feng H, Patel SH, Wong WW, et al. GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo-based online adaptive proton therapy: a feasibility study. Med Phys. 2022;49(6):3550-3563. [Published online ahead of print 2022/04/21].
Niemierko A, Schuemann J, Niyazi M, et al. Brain necrosis in adult patients after proton therapy: is there evidence for dependency on linear energy transfer?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;109(1):109-119.
Ester M, Kriegel H-P, Sander J, Xu X. A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Portland, Oregon; 1996.
Gu W, Ruan D, Zou W, Dong L, Sheng K. Linear energy transfer weighted beam orientation optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy. Med Phys. 2021;48(1):57-70.
Garbacz M, Cordoni FG, Durante M, et al. Study of relationship between dose, LET and the risk of brain necrosis after proton therapy for skull base tumors. Radiother Oncol. 2021;163:143-149. [Published online ahead of print 2021/08/31].
Engeseth GM, He R, Mirkovic D, et al. Mixed effect modelling of dose and linear energy transfer correlations with brain image changes after intensity modulated proton therapy for skull base head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;111(3):684-692.
Zang Y, Jiang T, Lu Y, He Y, Tian L. Regional homogeneity approach to fMRI data analysis. Neuroimage. 2004;22(1):394-400.