The physical properties of particles used in radiation therapy, such as protons, have been well characterized, and their dose distributions are superior to photon-based treatments. However, proton therapy may also have inherent biologic advantages that have not been capitalized on. Unlike photon beams, the linear energy transfer (LET) and hence biologic effectiveness of particle beams varies along the beam path. Selective placement of areas of high effectiveness could enhance tumor cell kill and simultaneously spare normal tissues. However, previous methods for mapping spatial variations in biologic effectiveness are time-consuming and often yield inconsistent results with large uncertainties. Thus the data needed to accurately model relative biological effectiveness to guide novel treatment planning approaches are limited. We used Monte Carlo modeling and high-content automated clonogenic survival assays to spatially map the biologic effectiveness of scanned proton beams with high accuracy and throughput while minimizing biological uncertainties. We found that the relationship between cell kill, dose, and LET, is complex and non-unique. Measured biologic effects were substantially greater than in most previous reports, and non-linear surviving fraction response was observed even for the highest LET values. Extension of this approach could generate data needed to optimize proton therapy plans incorporating variable RBE.
Background We investigated differences in radiation-induced grade 3+ lymphopenia (G3+L), defined as an absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) nadir of <500 cells/µL, after proton therapy (PT) or X-ray (photon) therapy (XRT) for patients with glioblastoma (GBM). Methods Patients enrolled in a randomized phase II trial received PT (n=28) or XRT (n=56), concomitantly with temozolomide. ALC was measured before, weekly during, and within 1 month after radiotherapy. Whole-brain mean dose (WBMD) and brain dose-volume indices were extracted from planned dose distributions. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify independent predictive variables. The resulting model was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results Rates of G3+L were lower in men (7/47 [15%] vs. women (19/37 [51%], P<0.001)), and for PT (4/28 [14%] vs. XRT (22/56 [39%], P=0.024)). G3+L was significantly associated with baseline ALC, WBMD, and brain volumes receiving 5‒40 Gy(RBE) or higher (i.e., V5 through V40). Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis identified being female (odds ratio [OR] 6.2, 05% confidence interval [CI] 1.95‒22.4, P=0.003), baseline ALC (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05‒0.51, P=0.003) and whole brain V20 (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03‒1.13, P=0.002) as the strongest predictors. ROC analysis yielded an area under the curve of 0.86 (95% CI 0.79-0.94) for the final G3+L prediction model. Conclusions Sex, baseline ALC, and whole brain V20 were the strongest predictors of G3+L for patients with GBM treated with radiation and temozolomide. PT reduced brain volumes receiving low and intermediate doses and, consequently, reduced G3+L.
These results demonstrate that radiation causes rapid, dynamic changes in synaptic structural plasticity, implicate abnormal glutamate signaling in cognitive dysfunction following brain irradiation, and describe a protective mechanism of memantine.
BackgroundFor treatment of the entire cranium using passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT) compensators are often employed in order to reduce lens and cochlear exposure. We sought to assess the advantages and consequences of utilizing compensators for the treatment of the whole brain as a component of craniospinal radiation (CSI) with PSPT. Moreover, we evaluated the potential benefits of spot scanning beam delivery in comparison to PSPT.MethodsPlanning computed tomography scans for 50 consecutive CSI patients were utilized to generate passive scattering proton therapy treatment plans with and without Lucite compensators (PSW and PSWO respectively). A subset of 10 patients was randomly chosen to generate scanning beam treatment plans for comparison. All plans were generated using an Eclipse treatment planning system and were prescribed to a dose of 36 Gy(RBE), delivered in 20 fractions, to the whole brain PTV. Plans were normalized to ensure equal whole brain target coverage. Dosimetric data was compiled and statistical analyses performed using a two-tailed Student’s t-test with Bonferroni corrections to account for multiple comparisons.ResultsWhole brain target coverage was comparable between all methods. However, cribriform plate coverage was superior in PSWO plans in comparison to PSW (V95%; 92.9 ± 14 vs. 97.4 ± 5, p < 0.05). As predicted, PSWO plans had significantly higher lens exposure in comparison to PSW plans (max lens dose Gy(RBE): left; 24.8 ± 0.8 vs. 22.2 ± 0.7, p < 0.05, right; 25.2 ± 0.8 vs. 22.8 ± 0.7, p < 0.05). However, PSW plans demonstrated no significant cochlear sparing vs. PSWO (mean cochlea dose Gy(RBE): 36.4 ± 0.2 vs. 36.7 ± 0.1, p = NS). Moreover, dose homogeneity was inferior in PSW plans in comparison to PSWO plans as reflected by significant alterations in both whole brain and brainstem homogeneity index (HI) and inhomogeneity coefficient (IC). In comparison to both PSPT techniques, multi-field optimized intensity modulated (MFO-IMPT) spot scanning treatment plans displayed superior sparing of both lens and cochlea (max lens: 12.5 ± 0.6 and 12.9 ± 0.7 right and left respectively; mean cochlea 28.6 ± 0.5 and 27.4 ± 0.2), although heterogeneity within target volumes was comparable to PSW plans.ConclusionsFor PSPT treatments, the addition of a compensator imparts little clinical advantage. In contrast, the incorporation of spot scanning technology as a component of CSI treatments, offers additional normal tissue sparing which is likely of clinical significance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.