No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Disregarding RBE variation in treatment plan comparison may lead to bias in favor of proton plans
3. T. A. van de Water, H. P. Bijl, C. Schilstra, M. Pijls-Johannesma, and J. A. Langendijk, “The potential benefit of radiotherapy with protons in head and neck cancer with respect to normal tissue sparing: A systematic review of literature,” Oncologist 16(3), 366–377 (2011).
4. E. Roelofs et al., “Results of a multicentric in silico clinical trial (ROCOCO): Comparing radiotherapy with photons and protons for non-small cell lung cancer,” J. Thorac. Oncol. 7(1), 165–176 (2012).
7. J. J. Wilkens and U. Oelfke, “Optimization of radiobiological effects in intensity modulated proton therapy,” Med. Phys. 32(2), 455–465 (2005).
8. M. C. Frese, J. J. Wilkens, P. E. Huber, A. D. Jensen, U. Oelfke, and Z. Taheri-Kadkhoda, “Application of constant vs. variable relative biological effectiveness in treatment planning of intensity-modulated proton therapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 79(1), 80–88 (2011).
9. A. Carabe, S. Espana, C. Grassberger, and H. Paganetti, “Clinical consequences of relative biological effectiveness variations in proton radiotherapy of the prostate, brain and liver,” Phys. Med. Biol. 58(7), 2103–2117 (2013).
10. M. Wedenberg, B. K. Lind, and B. Hårdemark, “A model for the relative biological effectiveness of protons: The tissue specific parameter α/β of photons is a predictor for the sensitivity to LET changes,” Acta Oncol. 52(3), 580–588 (2013).
11. A. K. Ågren-Cronqvist, “Quantification of the response of heterogeneous tumours and organized normal tissues to fractionated radiotherapy,” Ph.D. thesis (Stockholm University, 1995).
12. P. Källman, B. K. Lind, and A. Brahme, “An algorithm for maximizing the probability of complication-free tumour control in radiation therapy,” Phys. Med. Biol. 37(4), 871–890 (1992).
13. A. Dasu and I. Toma-Dasu, “What is the clinically relevant relative biologic effectiveness? A warning for fractionated treatments with high linear energy transfer radiation,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 70(3), 867–874 (2008).
Article metrics loading...
Currently in proton radiation therapy, a constant relative biological effectiveness (RBE) equal to 1.1 is assumed. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of disregarding variations in RBE on the comparison of proton and photon treatment plans.
Intensity modulated treatment plans using photons and protons were created for three brain tumor cases with the target situated close to organs at risk. The proton plans were optimized assuming a standard RBE equal to 1.1, and the resulting linear energy transfer (LET) distribution for the plans was calculated. In the plan evaluation, the effect of a variable RBE was studied. The RBE model used considers the RBE variation with dose, LET, and the tissue specific parameter α/β of photons. The plan comparison was based on dose distributions, DVHs and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs).
Under the assumption of RBE = 1.1, higher doses to the tumor and lower doses to the normal tissues were obtained for the proton plans compared to the photon plans. In contrast, when accounting for RBE variations, the comparison showed lower doses to the tumor and hot spots in organs at risk in the proton plans. These hot spots resulted in higher estimated NTCPs in the proton plans compared to the photon plans.
Disregarding RBE variations might lead to suboptimal proton plans giving lower effect in the tumor and higher effect in normal tissues than expected. For cases where the target is situated close to structures sensitive to hot spot doses, this trend may lead to bias in favor of proton plans in treatment plan comparisons.
Full text loading...
Most read this month