Cargando…

Comparative photon and proton dosimetry for patients with mediastinal lymphoma in the era of Monte Carlo treatment planning and variable relative biological effectiveness

BACKGROUND: Existing pencil beam analytical (PBA) algorithms for proton therapy treatment planning are not ideal for sites with heterogeneous tissue density and do not account for the spatial variations in proton relative biological effectiveness (vRBE). Using a commercially available Monte Carlo (M...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tseng, Yolanda D., Maes, Shadonna M., Kicska, Gregory, Sponsellor, Patricia, Traneus, Erik, Wong, Tony, Stewart, Robert D., Saini, Jatinder
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6937683/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31888769
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1432-8
_version_ 1783483912911060992
author Tseng, Yolanda D.
Maes, Shadonna M.
Kicska, Gregory
Sponsellor, Patricia
Traneus, Erik
Wong, Tony
Stewart, Robert D.
Saini, Jatinder
author_facet Tseng, Yolanda D.
Maes, Shadonna M.
Kicska, Gregory
Sponsellor, Patricia
Traneus, Erik
Wong, Tony
Stewart, Robert D.
Saini, Jatinder
author_sort Tseng, Yolanda D.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Existing pencil beam analytical (PBA) algorithms for proton therapy treatment planning are not ideal for sites with heterogeneous tissue density and do not account for the spatial variations in proton relative biological effectiveness (vRBE). Using a commercially available Monte Carlo (MC) treatment planning system, we compared various dosimetric endpoints between proton PBA, proton MC, and photon treatment plans among patients with mediastinal lymphoma. METHODS: Eight mediastinal lymphoma patients with both free breathing (FB) and deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) CT simulation scans were analyzed. The original PBA plans were re-calculated with MC. New proton plans that used MC for both optimization and dose calculation with equivalent CTV/ITV coverage were also created. A vRBE model, which uses a published model for DNA double strand break (DSB) induction, was applied on MC plans to study the potential impact of vRBE on cardiac doses. Comparative photon plans were generated on the DIBH scan. RESULTS: Re-calculation of FB PBA plans with MC demonstrated significant under coverage of the ITV V99 and V95. Target coverage was recovered by re-optimizing the PT plan with MC with minimal change to OAR doses. Compared to photons with DIBH, MC-optimized FB and DIBH proton plans had significantly lower dose to the mean lung, lung V5, breast tissue, and spinal cord for similar target coverage. Even with application of vRBE in the proton plans, the putative increase in RBE at the end of range did not decrease the dosimetric advantages of proton therapy in cardiac substructures. CONCLUSIONS: MC should be used for PT treatment planning of mediastinal lymphoma to ensure adequate coverage of target volumes. Our preliminary data suggests that MC-optimized PT plans have better sparing of the lung and breast tissue compared to photons. Also, the potential for end of range RBE effects are unlikely to be large enough to offset the dosimetric advantages of proton therapy in cardiac substructures for mediastinal targets, although these dosimetric findings require validation with late toxicity data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6937683
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69376832019-12-31 Comparative photon and proton dosimetry for patients with mediastinal lymphoma in the era of Monte Carlo treatment planning and variable relative biological effectiveness Tseng, Yolanda D. Maes, Shadonna M. Kicska, Gregory Sponsellor, Patricia Traneus, Erik Wong, Tony Stewart, Robert D. Saini, Jatinder Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: Existing pencil beam analytical (PBA) algorithms for proton therapy treatment planning are not ideal for sites with heterogeneous tissue density and do not account for the spatial variations in proton relative biological effectiveness (vRBE). Using a commercially available Monte Carlo (MC) treatment planning system, we compared various dosimetric endpoints between proton PBA, proton MC, and photon treatment plans among patients with mediastinal lymphoma. METHODS: Eight mediastinal lymphoma patients with both free breathing (FB) and deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) CT simulation scans were analyzed. The original PBA plans were re-calculated with MC. New proton plans that used MC for both optimization and dose calculation with equivalent CTV/ITV coverage were also created. A vRBE model, which uses a published model for DNA double strand break (DSB) induction, was applied on MC plans to study the potential impact of vRBE on cardiac doses. Comparative photon plans were generated on the DIBH scan. RESULTS: Re-calculation of FB PBA plans with MC demonstrated significant under coverage of the ITV V99 and V95. Target coverage was recovered by re-optimizing the PT plan with MC with minimal change to OAR doses. Compared to photons with DIBH, MC-optimized FB and DIBH proton plans had significantly lower dose to the mean lung, lung V5, breast tissue, and spinal cord for similar target coverage. Even with application of vRBE in the proton plans, the putative increase in RBE at the end of range did not decrease the dosimetric advantages of proton therapy in cardiac substructures. CONCLUSIONS: MC should be used for PT treatment planning of mediastinal lymphoma to ensure adequate coverage of target volumes. Our preliminary data suggests that MC-optimized PT plans have better sparing of the lung and breast tissue compared to photons. Also, the potential for end of range RBE effects are unlikely to be large enough to offset the dosimetric advantages of proton therapy in cardiac substructures for mediastinal targets, although these dosimetric findings require validation with late toxicity data. BioMed Central 2019-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6937683/ /pubmed/31888769 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1432-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Tseng, Yolanda D.
Maes, Shadonna M.
Kicska, Gregory
Sponsellor, Patricia
Traneus, Erik
Wong, Tony
Stewart, Robert D.
Saini, Jatinder
Comparative photon and proton dosimetry for patients with mediastinal lymphoma in the era of Monte Carlo treatment planning and variable relative biological effectiveness
title Comparative photon and proton dosimetry for patients with mediastinal lymphoma in the era of Monte Carlo treatment planning and variable relative biological effectiveness
title_full Comparative photon and proton dosimetry for patients with mediastinal lymphoma in the era of Monte Carlo treatment planning and variable relative biological effectiveness
title_fullStr Comparative photon and proton dosimetry for patients with mediastinal lymphoma in the era of Monte Carlo treatment planning and variable relative biological effectiveness
title_full_unstemmed Comparative photon and proton dosimetry for patients with mediastinal lymphoma in the era of Monte Carlo treatment planning and variable relative biological effectiveness
title_short Comparative photon and proton dosimetry for patients with mediastinal lymphoma in the era of Monte Carlo treatment planning and variable relative biological effectiveness
title_sort comparative photon and proton dosimetry for patients with mediastinal lymphoma in the era of monte carlo treatment planning and variable relative biological effectiveness
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6937683/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31888769
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-019-1432-8
work_keys_str_mv AT tsengyolandad comparativephotonandprotondosimetryforpatientswithmediastinallymphomaintheeraofmontecarlotreatmentplanningandvariablerelativebiologicaleffectiveness
AT maesshadonnam comparativephotonandprotondosimetryforpatientswithmediastinallymphomaintheeraofmontecarlotreatmentplanningandvariablerelativebiologicaleffectiveness
AT kicskagregory comparativephotonandprotondosimetryforpatientswithmediastinallymphomaintheeraofmontecarlotreatmentplanningandvariablerelativebiologicaleffectiveness
AT sponsellorpatricia comparativephotonandprotondosimetryforpatientswithmediastinallymphomaintheeraofmontecarlotreatmentplanningandvariablerelativebiologicaleffectiveness
AT traneuserik comparativephotonandprotondosimetryforpatientswithmediastinallymphomaintheeraofmontecarlotreatmentplanningandvariablerelativebiologicaleffectiveness
AT wongtony comparativephotonandprotondosimetryforpatientswithmediastinallymphomaintheeraofmontecarlotreatmentplanningandvariablerelativebiologicaleffectiveness
AT stewartrobertd comparativephotonandprotondosimetryforpatientswithmediastinallymphomaintheeraofmontecarlotreatmentplanningandvariablerelativebiologicaleffectiveness
AT sainijatinder comparativephotonandprotondosimetryforpatientswithmediastinallymphomaintheeraofmontecarlotreatmentplanningandvariablerelativebiologicaleffectiveness