Johnson Perry B, Mamalui Maria, Brodin Patrik, Janssens Guillaume
University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, United States; University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.
University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL, United States; University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Radiother Oncol. 2024 Oct;199:110421. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110421. Epub 2024 Jul 10.
Compared to intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), proton arc therapy (PAT) is expected to improve dose conformality, delivery efficiency, and provide a more favorable LET distribution. Alternatively, the low-dose bath is potentially spread over larger volumes, which could impact the likelihood of developing a radiation-induced, secondary cancer (SC). The goal of this study was to evaluate this risk in several anatomical sites using newly developed commercial tools.
Treatment plans encompassing six anatomical sites, five patients per site, and three techniques per patient were created using RayStation. Techniques included PAT and IMPT for protons, and either volumetrically modulated radiotherapy (VMAT) or intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for photons. Risk estimates were based on the organ-equivalent dose (OED) concept using both Schneider's mechanistic dose-response model for carcinoma induction and a linear dose-response model.
With few exceptions, mean and integral dose were lowest with PAT. For protons, the factor OED/OED ranged from 0.7 to 1.8 with both the mechanistic and linear model, while for photons OED/OED ranged from 1.5 to 10 using the mechanistic model and 1.3 to using the linear model. A strong correlation was found between mean dose and OED for organs with significant repopulation/repair (high R value) and less cell death from single hit interactions (low α value).
Based on results from both mechanistic and linear risk models, the transition from IMPT to PAT should not substantially affect SC risk in patients treated with proton therapy. Additionally, when using Schneider's model, the shapes of the dose-response curves can be used as a good predictor of how SC risk will respond to shifts from intermediate dose to low dose as anticipated when moving from IMPT to PAT.
与调强质子治疗(IMPT)相比,质子弧形治疗(PAT)有望改善剂量适形性、提高治疗效率,并提供更有利的传能线密度(LET)分布。另外,低剂量区可能会扩散到更大的体积范围,这可能会影响发生放射性继发癌(SC)的可能性。本研究的目的是使用新开发的商业工具评估几个解剖部位的这种风险。
使用RayStation创建了涵盖六个解剖部位的治疗计划,每个部位五名患者,每名患者三种技术。技术包括质子的PAT和IMPT,以及光子的容积调强放疗(VMAT)或调强放疗(IMRT)。风险评估基于器官等效剂量(OED)概念,使用施奈德的癌症诱发机制剂量反应模型和线性剂量反应模型。
除少数例外情况外,PAT的平均剂量和积分剂量最低。对于质子,使用机制模型和线性模型时,OED/OED因子范围为0.7至1.8,而对于光子,使用机制模型时OED/OED范围为1.5至10,使用线性模型时为1.3至 。对于具有显著再增殖/修复(高R值)且单次打击相互作用导致的细胞死亡较少(低α值)的器官,发现平均剂量与OED之间存在强相关性。
基于机制风险模型和线性风险模型两者的结果,从IMPT过渡到PAT对接受质子治疗的患者的SC风险不应有实质性影响。此外,当使用施奈德模型时,剂量反应曲线的形状可作为一个很好的预测指标,用于预测从IMPT转换到PAT时预期的SC风险如何对从中等剂量到低剂量的变化做出反应。