Mohan Radhe
Department of Radiation Physics, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030.
Precis Radiat Oncol. 2022 Jun;6(2):164-176. doi: 10.1002/pro6.1149. Epub 2022 Apr 27.
The original rationale for proton therapy was the highly conformal depth-dose distributions that protons are able to produce, compared to photons, which allow greater sparing of normal tissues and escalation of tumor doses, thus potentially improving outcomes. Additionally, recent research, which is still ongoing, has revealed previously unrecognized advantages of proton therapy. For instance, the higher relative biological effectiveness (RBE) near the end of the proton range can be exploited to increase the difference in biologically effective dose in tumors vs. normal tissues. Moreover, the smaller "dose bath", i.e., the compact nature of proton dose distributions has been found to reduce exposure of circulating lymphocytes and the immune organs at risk. There is emerging evidence that the resulting sparing of the immune system has the potential to improve outcomes. Protons, accelerated to therapeutic energies ranging from 70 to 250 MeV, are transported to the treatment room where they enter the treatment head mounted on a rotating gantry. The initially narrow beams of protons are spread laterally and longitudinally and shaped appropriately to deliver treatments. Spreading and shaping can be achieved by electro-mechanically for "passively-scattered proton therapy' (PSPT); or using magnetic scanning of thin "beamlets" of protons of a sequence of initial energies. The latter technique is used to treat patients with optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), the most powerful proton therapy modality, which is rapidly supplanting PSPT. Treatment planning and plan evaluation for proton therapy require different techniques compared to photon therapy due, in part, to the greater vulnerability of protons to uncertainties, especially those introduced by inter- and intra-fractional variations in anatomy. In addition to anatomic variations, other sources of uncertainty in the treatments delivered include the approximations and assumptions of models used for computing dose distributions and the current practice of proton therapy of assuming the RBE to have a constant value of 1.1. In reality, the RBE is variable and a complex function of proton energy, dose per fraction, tissue and cell type, end point, etc. Despite the high theoretical potential of proton therapy, the clinical evidence supporting its broad use has so far been mixed. The uncertainties and approximations mentioned above, and the technological limitations of proton therapy may have diminished its true clinical potential. It is generally acknowledged that proton therapy is safe, effective and recommended for many types of pediatric cancers, ocular melanomas, chordomas and chondrosarcomas. Promising results have been and continue to be reported for many other types of cancers as well; however, they are based on small studies. At the same time, there have been reports of unforeseen toxicities. Furthermore, because of the high cost of establishing and operating proton therapy centers, questions are often raised about the value of proton therapy. The general consensus is that there is a need for continued improvement in the state of the art of proton therapy. There is also a need to conduct randomized trials and/or collect outcomes data in multi-institutional registries to generate high level evidence of the advantages of protons. Fortuitously, such efforts are taking currently place. Ongoing research is aimed at better understanding the biological and immunomodulatory effects of proton therapy and the consequences of the physical uncertainties on proton therapy and reducing them through image-guidance and adaptive radiotherapy. Since residual uncertainties will remain despite our best efforts, in order to increase the resilience of dose distributions in the face of uncertainties and improve our confidence in dose distributions seen on treatment plans, robust optimization techniques are being developed and implemented and continue to be perfected. Such research and continuing technological advancements in planning and delivery methods are likely to help demonstrate the superiority of protons.
质子治疗最初的理论依据是,与光子相比,质子能够产生高度适形的深度剂量分布,这使得正常组织能得到更好的保护,肿瘤剂量得以提高,从而有可能改善治疗效果。此外,仍在进行中的最新研究揭示了质子治疗此前未被认识到的优势。例如,在质子射程末端附近较高的相对生物效应(RBE)可被利用,以增加肿瘤与正常组织之间生物有效剂量的差异。而且,已发现较小的“剂量池”,即质子剂量分布的紧凑特性,可减少循环淋巴细胞和处于危险中的免疫器官的暴露。越来越多的证据表明,由此对免疫系统的保护有可能改善治疗效果。质子被加速到70至250 MeV的治疗能量后,被输送到治疗室,在那里它们进入安装在旋转机架上的治疗头。最初狭窄的质子束在横向和纵向上展开并进行适当塑形,以实施治疗。展开和塑形可通过机电方式实现“被动散射质子治疗”(PSPT);或使用对一系列初始能量的质子“子束”进行磁扫描。后一种技术用于采用优化强度调制质子治疗(IMPT)治疗患者,这是最强大的质子治疗方式,正在迅速取代PSPT。与光子治疗相比,质子治疗的治疗计划制定和计划评估需要不同的技术,部分原因是质子对不确定性更为敏感,尤其是由分次间和分次内解剖结构变化引入的不确定性。除了解剖结构变化外,所实施治疗中的其他不确定性来源包括用于计算剂量分布的模型的近似值和假设,以及目前质子治疗中假设RBE具有1.1的恒定值的做法。实际上,RBE是可变的,并且是质子能量、分次剂量、组织和细胞类型、终点等的复杂函数。尽管质子治疗具有很高的理论潜力,但目前支持其广泛应用的临床证据参差不齐。上述不确定性和近似值,以及质子治疗的技术限制,可能削弱了其真正的临床潜力。人们普遍认为质子治疗对于许多类型的儿童癌症、眼部黑色素瘤、脊索瘤和软骨肉瘤是安全、有效的,是推荐的治疗方法。对于许多其他类型的癌症也已经并将继续报道有令人鼓舞的结果;然而,这些结果基于小规模研究。与此同时,也有关于意外毒性的报道。此外,由于建立和运营质子治疗中心的成本高昂,人们经常质疑质子治疗的价值。普遍的共识是,质子治疗技术需要持续改进。还需要进行随机试验和/或在多机构登记处收集结果数据,以产生关于质子优势的高级别证据。幸运的是,目前正在进行这样的努力。正在进行的研究旨在更好地理解质子治疗的生物学和免疫调节作用,以及物理不确定性对质子治疗的影响,并通过图像引导和自适应放疗来减少这些影响。尽管我们已尽最大努力,但残余的不确定性仍将存在,为了提高剂量分布面对不确定性时的弹性,并增强我们对治疗计划中所见剂量分布的信心,正在开发、实施并不断完善稳健的优化技术。此类研究以及计划和 delivery方法方面不断的技术进步可能有助于证明质子的优越性。 (注:原文中“delivery methods”直译为“输送方法”,结合语境这里可能是指“治疗实施方法”,但按照要求未做修改)