Cargando…

In Vitro Comparison of Passive and Active Clinical Proton Beams

Nowadays, the irradiation methodology in proton therapy is switching from the use of passively scattered beams to active pencil beams due to the possibility of more conformal dose distributions. The dose rates of active pencil beams are much higher than those of passive beams. The purpose of this st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Michaelidesová, Anna, Vachelová, Jana, Klementová, Jana, Urban, Tomáš, Pachnerová Brabcová, Kateřina, Kaczor, Stanislav, Falk, Martin, Falková, Iva, Depeš, Daniel, Vondráček, Vladimír, Davídková, Marie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7460593/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32781754
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms21165650
_version_ 1783576638124982272
author Michaelidesová, Anna
Vachelová, Jana
Klementová, Jana
Urban, Tomáš
Pachnerová Brabcová, Kateřina
Kaczor, Stanislav
Falk, Martin
Falková, Iva
Depeš, Daniel
Vondráček, Vladimír
Davídková, Marie
author_facet Michaelidesová, Anna
Vachelová, Jana
Klementová, Jana
Urban, Tomáš
Pachnerová Brabcová, Kateřina
Kaczor, Stanislav
Falk, Martin
Falková, Iva
Depeš, Daniel
Vondráček, Vladimír
Davídková, Marie
author_sort Michaelidesová, Anna
collection PubMed
description Nowadays, the irradiation methodology in proton therapy is switching from the use of passively scattered beams to active pencil beams due to the possibility of more conformal dose distributions. The dose rates of active pencil beams are much higher than those of passive beams. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there is any difference in the biological effectiveness of these passive and active irradiation modes. The beam qualities of double scattering and pencil beam scanning were measured dosimetrically and simulated using the Monte Carlo code. Using the medulloblastoma cell line DAOY, we performed an in vitro comparison of the two modes in two positions along the dose–deposition curve plateau and inside the Bragg peak. We followed the clonogenic cell survival, apoptosis, micronuclei, and γH2AX assays as biological endpoints. The Monte Carlo simulations did not reveal any difference between the beam qualities of the two modes. Furthermore, we did not observe any statistically significant difference between the two modes in the in vitro comparison of any of the examined biological endpoints. Our results do not show any biologically relevant differences related to the different dose rates of passive and active proton beams.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7460593
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74605932020-09-03 In Vitro Comparison of Passive and Active Clinical Proton Beams Michaelidesová, Anna Vachelová, Jana Klementová, Jana Urban, Tomáš Pachnerová Brabcová, Kateřina Kaczor, Stanislav Falk, Martin Falková, Iva Depeš, Daniel Vondráček, Vladimír Davídková, Marie Int J Mol Sci Article Nowadays, the irradiation methodology in proton therapy is switching from the use of passively scattered beams to active pencil beams due to the possibility of more conformal dose distributions. The dose rates of active pencil beams are much higher than those of passive beams. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there is any difference in the biological effectiveness of these passive and active irradiation modes. The beam qualities of double scattering and pencil beam scanning were measured dosimetrically and simulated using the Monte Carlo code. Using the medulloblastoma cell line DAOY, we performed an in vitro comparison of the two modes in two positions along the dose–deposition curve plateau and inside the Bragg peak. We followed the clonogenic cell survival, apoptosis, micronuclei, and γH2AX assays as biological endpoints. The Monte Carlo simulations did not reveal any difference between the beam qualities of the two modes. Furthermore, we did not observe any statistically significant difference between the two modes in the in vitro comparison of any of the examined biological endpoints. Our results do not show any biologically relevant differences related to the different dose rates of passive and active proton beams. MDPI 2020-08-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7460593/ /pubmed/32781754 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms21165650 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Michaelidesová, Anna
Vachelová, Jana
Klementová, Jana
Urban, Tomáš
Pachnerová Brabcová, Kateřina
Kaczor, Stanislav
Falk, Martin
Falková, Iva
Depeš, Daniel
Vondráček, Vladimír
Davídková, Marie
In Vitro Comparison of Passive and Active Clinical Proton Beams
title In Vitro Comparison of Passive and Active Clinical Proton Beams
title_full In Vitro Comparison of Passive and Active Clinical Proton Beams
title_fullStr In Vitro Comparison of Passive and Active Clinical Proton Beams
title_full_unstemmed In Vitro Comparison of Passive and Active Clinical Proton Beams
title_short In Vitro Comparison of Passive and Active Clinical Proton Beams
title_sort in vitro comparison of passive and active clinical proton beams
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7460593/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32781754
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms21165650
work_keys_str_mv AT michaelidesovaanna invitrocomparisonofpassiveandactiveclinicalprotonbeams
AT vachelovajana invitrocomparisonofpassiveandactiveclinicalprotonbeams
AT klementovajana invitrocomparisonofpassiveandactiveclinicalprotonbeams
AT urbantomas invitrocomparisonofpassiveandactiveclinicalprotonbeams
AT pachnerovabrabcovakaterina invitrocomparisonofpassiveandactiveclinicalprotonbeams
AT kaczorstanislav invitrocomparisonofpassiveandactiveclinicalprotonbeams
AT falkmartin invitrocomparisonofpassiveandactiveclinicalprotonbeams
AT falkovaiva invitrocomparisonofpassiveandactiveclinicalprotonbeams
AT depesdaniel invitrocomparisonofpassiveandactiveclinicalprotonbeams
AT vondracekvladimir invitrocomparisonofpassiveandactiveclinicalprotonbeams
AT davidkovamarie invitrocomparisonofpassiveandactiveclinicalprotonbeams