12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Critical Review of LET-Based Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Plan Evaluation and Optimization for Head and Neck Cancer Management

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In this review article, we review the 3 important aspects of linear-energy-transfer (LET) in intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for head and neck (H&N) cancer management. Accurate LET calculation methods are essential for LET-guided plan evaluation and optimization, which can be calculated either by analytical methods or by Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Recently, some new 3D analytical approaches to calculate LET accurately and efficiently have been proposed. On the other hand, several fast MC codes have also been developed to speed up the MC simulation by simplifying nonessential physics models and/or using the graphics processor unit (GPU)–acceleration approach. Some concepts related to LET are also briefly summarized including (1) dose-weighted versus fluence-weighted LET; (2) restricted versus unrestricted LET; and (3) microdosimetry versus macrodosimetry. LET-guided plan evaluation has been clinically done in some proton centers. Recently, more and more studies using patient outcomes as the biological endpoint have shown a positive correlation between high LET and adverse events sites, indicating the importance of LET-guided plan evaluation in proton clinics. Various LET-guided plan optimization methods have been proposed to generate proton plans to achieve biologically optimized IMPT plans. Different optimization frameworks were used, including 2-step optimization, 1-step optimization, and worst-case robust optimization. They either indirectly or directly optimize the LET distribution in patients while trying to maintain the same dose distribution and plan robustness. It is important to consider the impact of uncertainties in LET-guided optimization (ie, LET-guided robust optimization) in IMPT, since IMPT is sensitive to uncertainties including both the dose and LET distributions. We believe that the advancement of the LET-guided plan evaluation and optimization will help us exploit the unique biological characteristics of proton beams to improve the therapeutic ratio of IMPT to treat H&N and other cancers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references120

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quantitative Analyses of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC): an introduction to the scientific issues.

          Advances in dose-volume/outcome (or normal tissue complication probability, NTCP) modeling since the seminal Emami paper from 1991 are reviewed. There has been some progress with an increasing number of studies on large patient samples with three-dimensional dosimetry. Nevertheless, NTCP models are not ideal. Issues related to the grading of side effects, selection of appropriate statistical methods, testing of internal and external model validity, and quantification of predictive power and statistical uncertainty, all limit the usefulness of much of the published literature. Synthesis (meta-analysis) of data from multiple studies is often impossible because of suboptimal primary analysis, insufficient reporting and variations in the models and predictors analyzed. Clinical limitations to the current knowledge base include the need for more data on the effect of patient-related cofactors, interactions between dose distribution and cytotoxic or molecular targeted agents, and the effect of dose fractions and overall treatment time in relation to nonuniform dose distributions. Research priorities for the next 5-10 years are proposed. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and linear energy transfer.

            Proton therapy treatments are based on a proton RBE (relative biological effectiveness) relative to high-energy photons of 1.1. The use of this generic, spatially invariant RBE within tumors and normal tissues disregards the evidence that proton RBE varies with linear energy transfer (LET), physiological and biological factors, and clinical endpoint. Based on the available experimental data from published literature, this review analyzes relationships of RBE with dose, biological endpoint and physical properties of proton beams. The review distinguishes between endpoints relevant for tumor control probability and those potentially relevant for normal tissue complication. Numerous endpoints and experiments on sub-cellular damage and repair effects are discussed. Despite the large amount of data, considerable uncertainties in proton RBE values remain. As an average RBE for cell survival in the center of a typical spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP), the data support a value of ~1.15 at 2 Gy/fraction. The proton RBE increases with increasing LETd and thus with depth in an SOBP from ~1.1 in the entrance region, to ~1.15 in the center, ~1.35 at the distal edge and ~1.7 in the distal fall-off (when averaged over all cell lines, which may not be clinically representative). For small modulation widths the values could be increased. Furthermore, there is a trend of an increase in RBE as (α/β)x decreases. In most cases the RBE also increases with decreasing dose, specifically for systems with low (α/β)x. Data on RBE for endpoints other than clonogenic cell survival are too diverse to allow general statements other than that the RBE is, on average, in line with a value of ~1.1. This review can serve as a source for defining input parameters for applying or refining biophysical models and to identify endpoints where additional radiobiological data are needed in order to reduce the uncertainties to clinically acceptable levels.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Factors associated with severe late toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: an RTOG analysis.

              Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) increases both local tumor control and toxicity. This study evaluates clinical factors that are associated with and might predict severe late toxicity after CCRT. Patients were analyzed from a subset of three previously reported Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trials of CCRT for locally advanced SCCHN (RTOG 91-11, 97-03, and 99-14). Severe late toxicity was defined in this secondary analysis as chronic grade 3 to 4 pharyngeal/laryngeal toxicity (RTOG/European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer late toxicity scoring system) and/or requirement for a feeding tube >or= 2 years after registration and/or potential treatment-related death (eg, pneumonia) within 3 years. Case-control analysis was performed, with a multivariable logistic regression model that included pretreatment and treatment potential factors. A total of 230 patients were assessable for this analysis: 99 patients with severe late toxicities and 131 controls; thus, 43% of assessable patients had a severe late toxicity. On multivariable analysis, significant variables correlated with the development of severe late toxicity were older age (odds ratio 1.05 per year; P = .001); advanced T stage (odds ratio, 3.07; P = .0036); larynx/hypopharynx primary site (odds ratio, 4.17; P = .0041); and neck dissection after CRT (odds ratio, 2.39; P = .018). Severe late toxicity after CCRT is common. Older age, advanced T-stage, and larynx/hypopharynx primary site were strong independent risk factors. Neck dissection after CCRT was associated with an increased risk of these complications.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Part Ther
                Int J Part Ther
                ijpt
                Int J Part Ther
                International Journal of Particle Therapy
                The Particle Therapy Co-operative Group
                2331-5180
                Summer 2021
                25 June 2021
                : 8
                : 1
                : 36-49
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
                [2 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
                [3 ]Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
                [4 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Wei Liu, PhD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA, Phone: +1 (480) 342-4215, Fax: +1 (480) 342-3972, Liu.Wei@ 123456mayo.edu
                Article
                THEIJPT-D-20-00049
                10.14338/IJPT-20-00049.1
                8270082
                e2c612d7-e8bd-48eb-b6e2-34cf4b10b0d1
                ©Copyright 2021 The Author(s)

                Distributed under Creative Commons CC-BY ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

                History
                : 31 August 2020
                : 14 October 2020
                Categories
                Physics

                linear-energy-transfer,intensity-modulated proton therapy,relative biological effectiveness

                Comments

                Comment on this article