Technical note: Investigation of dose and LET
dose averaged linear energy transfer
dose-LETd volume histogram
pencil-beam-scanning proton therapy
posterior oblique angle
prostate cancer
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
revised:
02
09
2022
received:
01
06
2022
accepted:
22
09
2022
pubmed:
9
10
2022
medline:
28
12
2022
entrez:
8
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Parallel-opposed lateral beams are the conventional beam arrangements in proton therapy for prostate cancer. However, when considering linear energy transfer (LET) and RBE effects, alternative beam arrangements should be investigated. To investigate the dose and dose averaged LET (LET Twenty patients with localized prostate cancer were included in this study. Four proton treatment plans for each patient were generated utilizing 0°, 5°, 10°, and 15° posterior oblique beam pairs relative to parallel-opposed lateral beams. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) from posterior oblique beams were analyzed. Dose-LET Rotating beam angles from laterals to slightly posterior by 5°-15° reduced high LET Posterior oblique angle plans improved LET
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Parallel-opposed lateral beams are the conventional beam arrangements in proton therapy for prostate cancer. However, when considering linear energy transfer (LET) and RBE effects, alternative beam arrangements should be investigated.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the dose and dose averaged LET (LET
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty patients with localized prostate cancer were included in this study. Four proton treatment plans for each patient were generated utilizing 0°, 5°, 10°, and 15° posterior oblique beam pairs relative to parallel-opposed lateral beams. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) from posterior oblique beams were analyzed. Dose-LET
RESULTS
RESULTS
Rotating beam angles from laterals to slightly posterior by 5°-15° reduced high LET
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Posterior oblique angle plans improved LET
Substances chimiques
Hydrogels
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7428-7437Subventions
Organisme : Kemper Marley Foundation
Informations de copyright
© 2022 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Slater JD, Rossi CJ Jr., Yonemoto LT, et al. Proton therapy for prostate cancer: the initial Loma Linda University experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;59(2):348-352.
Trofimov A, Nguyen PL, Coen JJ, et al. Radiotherapy treatment of early-stage prostate cancer with IMRT and protons: a treatment planning comparison. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69(2):444-453.
Kirk ML, Tang S, Zhai H, et al. Comparison of prostate proton treatment planning technique, interfraction robustness, and analysis of single-field treatment feasibility. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5(2):99-105.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [published online ahead of print 2021/07/22]. Int J Part Ther. 2021;8(1):36-49.
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 [published online ahead of print 2020/01/29]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;107(1):181-193.
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? [published online ahead of print 2020/09/11]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;109(1):109-119.
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 [published online ahead of print 2016/11/20]. Radiother Oncol. 2016;121(3):395-401.
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 [published online ahead of print 2018/07/07]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;101(4):809-819.
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 [published online ahead of print 2020/05/11]. Radiother Oncol. 2020;149:197-204.
Ödén J, Toma-Dasu I, Witt Nyström P, Traneus E, Dasu A. Spatial correlation of linear energy transfer and relative biological effectiveness with suspected treatment-related toxicities following proton therapy for intracranial tumors. Medical physics. 2020;47(2):342-351.
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.
Eulitz J, Troost E, Raschke F, et al. Predicting late magnetic resonance image changes in glioma patients after proton therapy. Acta Oncologica. 2019;58(10):1536-1539.
Bauer J, Bahn E, Harrabi S, Herfarth K, Debus J, Alber M. How can scanned proton beam treatment planning for low-grade glioma cope with increased distal RBE and locally increased radiosensitivity for late MR-detected brain lesions? Med Phys. 2021;48(4):1497-1507.
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.
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.
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 [published online ahead of print 2020/04/03]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;107(3):571-578.
Marteinsdottir M, Wang CC, McNamara AL, Depauw N, Shin J, Paganetti H. The impact of variable RBE in proton therapy for left-sided breast cancer when estimating normal tissue complications in the heart and lung [published online ahead of print 2020/12/10]. Phys Med Biol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/abd230
Zhang YY, Huo WL, Goldberg SI, et al. Brain-specific relative biological effectiveness of protons based on long-term outcome of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma [published online ahead of print 2021/02/19]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;110(4):984-992.
Engeseth GM, He R, Mirkovic D, et al. 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 [published online ahead of print 2021/06/22]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;111(3):684-692.
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 [published online ahead of print 2021/08/31]. Radiother Oncol. 2021;163:143-149.
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) [published online ahead of print 2021/02/24]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;110(4):1189-1199.
Yang Y, Patel SH, Bridhikitti J, et al. Exploratory study of seed spots analysis to characterize dose and linear-energy-transfer effect in adverse event initialization of pencil-beam-scanning proton therapy [published online ahead of print 2022/07/13]. Med Phys. 2022;49(9):6237-6252. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.15859
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 [published online ahead of print 2021/11/30]. Med Phys. 2022;49(1):632-647.
Liu W, Li Y, Li X, Cao W, Zhang X. Influence of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy with different dose delivery techniques [published online ahead of print 2012/07/05]. Med Phys. 2012;39(6):3089-3101.
Liu W, Zhang X, Li Y, Mohan R. Robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy. Med Phys. 2012;39:1079-1091.
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 [published online ahead of print 2019/05/22]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019;20(7):15-27.
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 [published online ahead of print 2018/10/18]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19(6):140-148.
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) [published online ahead of print 2019/09/10]. Med Phys. 2019;46(11):4755-4762.
Feng H, Sio TT, Rule WG, et al. Beam angle comparison for distal esophageal carcinoma patients treated with intensity-modulated proton therapy [published online ahead of print 2020/10/16]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020;21(11):141-152.
Zhu XR, Poenisch F, Song X, et al. Patient-specific quality assurance for prostate cancer patients receiving spot scanning proton therapy using single-field uniform dose [published online ahead of print 2011/02/09]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(2):552-559.
Quan M, Liu W, Wu R, et al. Preliminary evaluation of multi-field and single-field optimization for the treatment planning of spot-scanning proton therapy of head and neck cancer. Med Phys. 2013;40:081709.
Liu W. Robustness quantification and 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 [published online ahead of print 2013/05/03]. Med Phys. 2013;40(5):051711.
Liu W, Frank SJ, Li X, Li Y, Zhu RX, Mohan R. PTV-based IMPT optimization incorporating planning risk volumes vs robust optimization [published online ahead of print 2013/02/08]. Med Phys. 2013;40(2):021709.
Liu W, Liao Z, Schild SE, et al. Impact of respiratory motion on worst-case scenario optimized intensity modulated proton therapy for lung cancers [published online ahead of print 2014/11/22]. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5(2):e77-86.
Liu W, Mohan R, Park P, et al. Dosimetric benefits of robust treatment planning for intensity modulated proton therapy for base-of-skull cancers [published online ahead of print 2014/11/20]. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014;4(6):384-391.
Liu W, Patel SH, Shen JJ, et al. Robustness quantification methods comparison in volumetric modulated arc therapy to treat head and neck cancer [published online ahead of print 2016/03/31]. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016;6(6):e269-e275.
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 [published online ahead of print 2017/01/04]. Med Phys. 2017;44(1):28-36.
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 [published online ahead of print 2018/03/20]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;101(2):479-489.
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 [published online ahead of print 2017/05/16]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(4):76-83.
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 [published online ahead of print 2017/11/18]. Med Phys. 2018;45(1):460-469.
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 [published online ahead of print 2018/11/06]. Med Phys. 2019;46(1):382-393.
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 [published online ahead of print 2020/09/24]. Med Phys. 2020;47(11):5428-5440.
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 [published online ahead of print 2021/06/01]. Med Phys. 2021;48(8):4636-4647.
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 [published online ahead of print 2017/03/17]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(2):15-25.
Zaghian M, Lim G, Liu W, Mohan R. An Automatic Approach for Satisfying Dose-Volume Constraints in Linear Fluence Map Optimization for IMPT [published online ahead of print 2014/12/17]. J Cancer Ther. 2014;5(2):198-207.
Matney J, Park PC, Bluett J, et al. Effects of respiratory motion on passively scattered proton therapy versus intensity modulated photon therapy for stage III lung cancer: are proton plans more sensitive to breathing motion? [published online ahead of print 2013/10/01]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(3):576-582.
Matney JE, Park PC, Li H, et al. Perturbation of water-equivalent thickness as a surrogate for respiratory motion in proton therapy [published online ahead of print 2016/04/14]. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016;17(2):368-378.
Tryggestad EJ, Liu W, Pepin MD, Hallemeier CL, Sio TT. Managing treatment-related uncertainties in proton beam radiotherapy for gastrointestinal cancers [published online ahead of print 2020/03/17]. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2020;11(1):212-224.
Schild SE, Rule WG, Ashman JB, et al. Proton beam therapy for locally advanced lung cancer: a review [published online ahead of print 2014/10/11]. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5(4):568-575.
Liu W. Inventor. System and method for robust intensity-modulated proton therapy planning. 2014.
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-+.
Souris K, Lee JA, Sterpin E. Fast multipurpose Monte Carlo simulation for proton therapy using multi- and many-core CPU architectures [published online ahead of print 2016/04/03]. Med Phys. 2016;43(4):1700.
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 [published online ahead of print 2020/03/11]. Med Phys. 2020;47(6):2558-2574.
Holmes J, Shen J, Shan J, et al. Technical note: Evaluation and second check of a commercial Monte Carlo dose engine for small-field apertures in pencil beam scanning proton therapy [published online ahead of print 2022/03/20]. Med Phys. 2022;49(5):3497-3506.
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 [published online ahead of print 2019/12/05]. 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 [published online ahead of print 2017/06/15]. Phys Med. 2017;38:10-15.
Feng H PS, Wong WW, Younkin JE, et al. GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo-based online adaptive proton therapy - a feasibility study. Med Phys. 2022;49(6):3550-3563.
Younkin JE, Morales DH, Shen J, et al. Clinical validation of a ray-casting analytical dose engine for spot scanning proton delivery systems [published online ahead of print 2019/11/23]. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2019;18:1533033819887182.
Deng W, Ding X, Younkin JE, et al. Hybrid 3D analytical linear energy transfer calculation algorithm based on precalculated data from Monte Carlo simulations [published online ahead of print 2019/11/24]. Med Phys. 2020;47(2):745-752.
Olsson CE, Jackson A, Deasy JO, Thor M. A systematic post-QUANTEC review of tolerance doses for late toxicity after prostate cancer radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;102(5):1514-1532.
Rancati T, Fiorino C, Fellin G, et al. Inclusion of clinical risk factors into NTCP modelling of late rectal toxicity after high dose radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2011;100(1):124-130.
Michalski JM, Gay H, Jackson A, Tucker SL, Deasy JO. Radiation dose-volume effects in radiation-induced rectal injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76(3):S123-S129.
Colaco RJ, Hoppe BS, Flampouri S, et al. Rectal toxicity after proton therapy for prostate cancer: an analysis of outcomes of prospective studies conducted at the University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;91(1):172-181.
Dinh T-KT, Lee Jr. HJ, Macomber MW, et al. Rectal hydrogel spacer improves late gastrointestinal toxicity compared to rectal balloon immobilization after proton beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: A retrospective observational study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;108(3):635-643.
Vargas C, Martinez A, Kestin LL, et al. Dose-volume analysis of predictors for chronic rectal toxicity after treatment of prostate cancer with adaptive image-guided radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62(5):1297-1308.
Bai X, Lim G, Grosshans D, Mohan R, Cao W. Robust optimization to reduce the impact of biological effect variation from physical uncertainties in intensity-modulated proton therapy [published online ahead of print 2018/12/14]. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(2):025004.
Traneus E, Oden J. Introducing proton track-end objectives in intensity modulated proton therapy optimization to reduce linear energy transfer and relative biological effectiveness in critical structures [published online ahead of print 2018/11/06]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;103(3):747-757.
Giantsoudi D, Grassberger C, Craft D, Niemierko A, Trofimov A, Paganetti H. Linear energy transfer-guided optimization in intensity modulated proton therapy: feasibility study and clinical potential [published online ahead of print 2013/06/25]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(1):216-222.
Wan Chan Tseung HS, Ma J, Kreofsky CR, Ma DJ, Beltran C. Clinically applicable Monte Carlo-based biological dose optimization for the treatment of head and neck cancers with spot-scanning proton therapy [published online ahead of print 2016/06/22]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95(5):1535-1543.
Inaniwa T, Kanematsu N, Noda K, Kamada T. Treatment planning of intensity modulated composite particle therapy with dose and linear energy transfer optimization [published online ahead of print 2017/03/24]. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(12):5180-5197.
Cao W, Khabazian A, Yepes PP, et al. Linear energy transfer incorporated intensity modulated proton therapy optimization [published online ahead of print 2017/11/14]. Phys Med Biol. 2017;63(1):015013.
Cella L, Lomax A, Miralbell R. Potential role of intensity-modulated proton beams in prostate cancer radiotherapy [published online ahead of print 2001/02/13]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;49(1):217-223.