Fixed- versus Variable-RBE Computations for Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy

Simple item page
dc.citation.firstpage156
dc.citation.issueNumber1
dc.citation.journalTitleAdvances in Radiation Oncology
dc.citation.lastpage167
dc.citation.volumeNumber4
dc.contributor.authorYepes, Pablo
dc.contributor.authorAdair, Antony
dc.contributor.authorFrank, Steven J.
dc.contributor.authorGrosshans, David R.
dc.contributor.authorLiao, Zhongxing
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Amy
dc.contributor.authorMirkovic, Dragan
dc.contributor.authorPoenisch, Falk
dc.contributor.authorTitt, Uwe
dc.contributor.authorWang, Qianxia
dc.contributor.authorMohan, Radhe
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-17T20:09:11Z
dc.date.available2021-12-17T20:09:11Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To evaluate how using models of proton therapy that incorporate variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) versus the current practice of using a fixed RBE of 1.1 affects dosimetric indices on treatment plans for large cohorts of patients treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). Methods and Materials: Treatment plans for 4 groups of patients who received IMPT for brain, head-and-neck, thoracic, or prostate cancer were selected. Dose distributions were recalculated in 4 ways: 1 with a fast-dose Monte Carlo calculator with fixed RBE and 3 with RBE calculated to 3 different models—McNamara, Wedenberg, and repair-misrepair-fixation. Differences among dosimetric indices (D02, D50, D98, and mean dose) for target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) on each plan were compared between the fixed-RBE and variable-RBE calculations. Results: In analyses of all target volumes, for which the main concern is underprediction or RBE less than 1.1, none of the models predicted an RBE less than 1.05 for any of the cohorts. For OARs, the 2 models based on linear energy transfer, McNamara and Wedenberg, systematically predicted RBE >1.1 for most structures. For the mean dose of 25% of the plans for 2 OARs, they predict RBE equal to or larger than 1.4, 1.3, 1.3, and 1.2 for brain, head-and-neck, thorax, and prostate, respectively. Systematically lower increases in RBE are predicted by repair-misrepair-fixation, with a few cases (eg, femur) in which the RBE is less than 1.1 for all plans. Conclusions: The variable-RBE models predict increased doses to various OARs, suggesting that strategies to reduce high-dose linear energy transfer in critical structures should be developed to minimize possible toxicity associated with IMPT.
dc.identifier.citationYepes, Pablo, Adair, Antony, Frank, Steven J., et al.. "Fixed- versus Variable-RBE Computations for Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy." <i>Advances in Radiation Oncology,</i> 4, no. 1 (2019) Elsevier: 156-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2018.08.020.
dc.identifier.digital1-s2-0-S2452109418301647-main
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2018.08.020
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1911/111885
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.rightsThis is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.titleFixed- versus Variable-RBE Computations for Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.dcmiText
dc.type.publicationpublisher version
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
1-s2-0-S2452109418301647-main.pdf
Size:
3.61 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
Collections
Faculty Publications