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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |