Cargando…

Single-fraction 34 Gy Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Using Proton Transmission Beams: FLASH-dose Calculations and the Influence of Different Dose-rate Methods and Dose/Dose-rate Thresholds

PURPOSE: Research suggests that in addition to the dose-rate, a dose threshold is also important for the reduction in normal tissue toxicity with similar tumor control after ultrahigh dose-rate radiation therapy (UHDR-RT). In this analysis we aimed to identify factors that might limit the ability to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Marlen, Patricia, Verbakel, Wilko F.A.R., Slotman, Ben J., Dahele, Max
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9130077/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35634574
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2022.100954
_version_ 1784712909102776320
author van Marlen, Patricia
Verbakel, Wilko F.A.R.
Slotman, Ben J.
Dahele, Max
author_facet van Marlen, Patricia
Verbakel, Wilko F.A.R.
Slotman, Ben J.
Dahele, Max
author_sort van Marlen, Patricia
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Research suggests that in addition to the dose-rate, a dose threshold is also important for the reduction in normal tissue toxicity with similar tumor control after ultrahigh dose-rate radiation therapy (UHDR-RT). In this analysis we aimed to identify factors that might limit the ability to achieve this “FLASH”-effect in a scenario attractive for UHDR-RT (high fractional beam dose, small target, few organs-at-risk): single-fraction 34 Gy lung stereotactic body radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Clinical volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans and transmission beam (TB) plans were compared for 6 small and 1 large lung lesion. The TB-plan dose-rate was calculated using 4 methods and the FLASH-percentage (percentage of dose delivered at dose-rates ≥40/100 Gy/s and ≥4/8 Gy) was determined for various variables: a minimum spot time (minST) of 0.5/2 ms, maximum nozzle current (maxN) of 200/40 0nA, and 2 gantry current (GC) techniques (energy-layer based, spot-based [SB]). RESULTS: Based on absolute doses 5-beam TB and VMAT-plans are similar, but TB-plans have higher rib, skin, and ipsilateral lung dose than IMPT. Dose-rate calculation methods not considering scanning achieve FLASH-percentages between ∼30% to 80%, while methods considering scanning often achieve <30%. FLASH-percentages increase for lower minST/higher maxN and when using SB GC instead of energy-layer based GC, often approaching the percentage of dose exceeding the dose-threshold. For the small lesions average beam irradiation times (including scanning) varied between 0.06 to 0.31 seconds and total irradiation times between 0.28 to 1.57 seconds, for the large lesion beam times were between 0.16 to 1.47 seconds with total irradiation times of 1.09 to 5.89 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: In a theoretically advantageous scenario for FLASH we found that TB-plan dosimetry was similar to that of VMAT, but inferior to that of IMPT, and that decreasing minST or using SB GC increase the estimated amount of FLASH. For the appropriate machine/delivery parameters high enough dose-rates can be achieved regardless of calculation method, meaning that a possible FLASH dose-threshold will likely be the primary limiting factor.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9130077
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91300772022-05-26 Single-fraction 34 Gy Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Using Proton Transmission Beams: FLASH-dose Calculations and the Influence of Different Dose-rate Methods and Dose/Dose-rate Thresholds van Marlen, Patricia Verbakel, Wilko F.A.R. Slotman, Ben J. Dahele, Max Adv Radiat Oncol Scientific Article PURPOSE: Research suggests that in addition to the dose-rate, a dose threshold is also important for the reduction in normal tissue toxicity with similar tumor control after ultrahigh dose-rate radiation therapy (UHDR-RT). In this analysis we aimed to identify factors that might limit the ability to achieve this “FLASH”-effect in a scenario attractive for UHDR-RT (high fractional beam dose, small target, few organs-at-risk): single-fraction 34 Gy lung stereotactic body radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Clinical volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans and transmission beam (TB) plans were compared for 6 small and 1 large lung lesion. The TB-plan dose-rate was calculated using 4 methods and the FLASH-percentage (percentage of dose delivered at dose-rates ≥40/100 Gy/s and ≥4/8 Gy) was determined for various variables: a minimum spot time (minST) of 0.5/2 ms, maximum nozzle current (maxN) of 200/40 0nA, and 2 gantry current (GC) techniques (energy-layer based, spot-based [SB]). RESULTS: Based on absolute doses 5-beam TB and VMAT-plans are similar, but TB-plans have higher rib, skin, and ipsilateral lung dose than IMPT. Dose-rate calculation methods not considering scanning achieve FLASH-percentages between ∼30% to 80%, while methods considering scanning often achieve <30%. FLASH-percentages increase for lower minST/higher maxN and when using SB GC instead of energy-layer based GC, often approaching the percentage of dose exceeding the dose-threshold. For the small lesions average beam irradiation times (including scanning) varied between 0.06 to 0.31 seconds and total irradiation times between 0.28 to 1.57 seconds, for the large lesion beam times were between 0.16 to 1.47 seconds with total irradiation times of 1.09 to 5.89 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: In a theoretically advantageous scenario for FLASH we found that TB-plan dosimetry was similar to that of VMAT, but inferior to that of IMPT, and that decreasing minST or using SB GC increase the estimated amount of FLASH. For the appropriate machine/delivery parameters high enough dose-rates can be achieved regardless of calculation method, meaning that a possible FLASH dose-threshold will likely be the primary limiting factor. Elsevier 2022-04-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9130077/ /pubmed/35634574 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2022.100954 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Scientific Article
van Marlen, Patricia
Verbakel, Wilko F.A.R.
Slotman, Ben J.
Dahele, Max
Single-fraction 34 Gy Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Using Proton Transmission Beams: FLASH-dose Calculations and the Influence of Different Dose-rate Methods and Dose/Dose-rate Thresholds
title Single-fraction 34 Gy Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Using Proton Transmission Beams: FLASH-dose Calculations and the Influence of Different Dose-rate Methods and Dose/Dose-rate Thresholds
title_full Single-fraction 34 Gy Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Using Proton Transmission Beams: FLASH-dose Calculations and the Influence of Different Dose-rate Methods and Dose/Dose-rate Thresholds
title_fullStr Single-fraction 34 Gy Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Using Proton Transmission Beams: FLASH-dose Calculations and the Influence of Different Dose-rate Methods and Dose/Dose-rate Thresholds
title_full_unstemmed Single-fraction 34 Gy Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Using Proton Transmission Beams: FLASH-dose Calculations and the Influence of Different Dose-rate Methods and Dose/Dose-rate Thresholds
title_short Single-fraction 34 Gy Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Using Proton Transmission Beams: FLASH-dose Calculations and the Influence of Different Dose-rate Methods and Dose/Dose-rate Thresholds
title_sort single-fraction 34 gy lung stereotactic body radiation therapy using proton transmission beams: flash-dose calculations and the influence of different dose-rate methods and dose/dose-rate thresholds
topic Scientific Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9130077/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35634574
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2022.100954
work_keys_str_mv AT vanmarlenpatricia singlefraction34gylungstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingprotontransmissionbeamsflashdosecalculationsandtheinfluenceofdifferentdoseratemethodsanddosedoseratethresholds
AT verbakelwilkofar singlefraction34gylungstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingprotontransmissionbeamsflashdosecalculationsandtheinfluenceofdifferentdoseratemethodsanddosedoseratethresholds
AT slotmanbenj singlefraction34gylungstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingprotontransmissionbeamsflashdosecalculationsandtheinfluenceofdifferentdoseratemethodsanddosedoseratethresholds
AT dahelemax singlefraction34gylungstereotacticbodyradiationtherapyusingprotontransmissionbeamsflashdosecalculationsandtheinfluenceofdifferentdoseratemethodsanddosedoseratethresholds