A systematic analysis of the particle irradiation data ensemble in the key of the microdosimetric kinetic model: Should clonogenic data be used for clinical relative biological effectiveness?

To perform a systematic analysis of the Particle Irradiation Data Ensemble (PIDE) database for clonogenic survival assays in the context of the Microdosimetric Kinetic Model (MKM). Our study used data from the PIDE database containing data on various cell lines and radiation types. Two main parameters of the MKM were determined experiment-wise: the domain radius, which accounts for the increase of the linear parameter as a function of LET or lineal energy, and the nucleus radius, which accounts for the overkilling effect at LET high enough. We used experiments with LET less and more than 75 keV/μm to determine domain and nucleus radius, respectively. Experiments with cells in asynchronous phase of the cell cycle and monoenergetic beams were considered, and data from 294 out of 461 available experiments with protons, alpha, and carbon beams were used. Domain and nucleus radii were determined for 32 cell lines as the median among cell-specific experiments after filtering experiments using protons, α-particles, and carbon ions, including 28 human cells and 12 rodent cells. The median values found for domain radii were 380 nm for normal human cells, 390 nm for tumor human cells, 295 nm for normal rodent cells, and 525 nm for tumor rodent cells (only one experiment with rodent tumor cells) with large variability across cell lines and across experiments on each cell line. Large inter-experiment variabilities were found for the same cell lines, based on enormous experimental uncertainties and different experimental conditions. Our analysis raises questions about how convenient is to use clonogenic data to feed RBE models to be utilized in the clinical practice in particle therapy.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.