Session Item

Radiomics, modelling and statistical methods
Poster (digital)
Physics
16:55 - 17:05
European multi-centric study on variable proton RBE dose calculations for multiple anatomical sites
Christian Hahn, Germany
OC-0418

Abstract

European multi-centric study on variable proton RBE dose calculations for multiple anatomical sites
Authors:

Christian Hahn1,2,3,4, Jakob Ödén5, Alexandru Dasu6,7, Anne Vestergaard8, Jesper Folsted Kallehauge8, Claudia Pardi9, Faiza Bourhaleb9, Amélia Leite10, Ludovic de Marzi10,11, Edward Smith12,13, Adam Aitkenhead12,13, Michael Merchant12,13, Karen Kirkby12,13, Esther G. C. Troost1,2,3,14,15, Armin Lühr1,3,4,14

1OncoRay – National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Dresden, Germany; 2Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; 3German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; 4Medical Physics and Radiotherapy, Faculty of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany; 5RaySearch Laboratories AB, Research, Stockholm, Sweden; 6The Skandion Clinic, Radiation Oncology, Uppsala, Sweden; 7Medical Radiation Sciences, Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; 8Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; 9I-SEE, Internet-Simulation Evaluation Envision, Torino, Italy; 10Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Radiation Oncology Department, Proton Therapy Centre, Centre Universitaire, 91898 Orsay, France; 11Institut Curie, PSL Research University, University Paris Saclay, Inserm LITO, 91898 Orsay, France; 12Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; 13Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; 14Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology – OncoRay, Dresden, Germany; 15National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Germany: German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany; Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany , and; Helmholtz Association / Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf (HZDR), Dresden, Germany

Show Affiliations
Purpose or Objective

An increasing number of publications has reported on a variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in proton therapy (PT) challenging the clinically applied constant RBE. Since no standard for clinical variable RBE calculations exists, many PT centres independently account for RBE variability. This multi-centric study compared variable RBE dose calculations from different PT institutions towards developing a consistent clinical RBE implementation.

Material and Methods

Each of six European PT institutions generated clinically acceptable robust pencil beam scanning treatment plans for five cases, comprised of the sites: brain, base of skull (BoS), head and neck, pancreas and prostate. For plan optimisation, centres used their beam model, treatment planning software and an RBE of 1.1 (D1.1). All centres used the same patient-specific prescriptions, fractionation, clinical goals and beam directions. Then, each centre recalculated the corresponding variable RBE weighted dose (DvarRBE) according to their local procedure, including choice of variable RBE model and parameters. Here, an analysis of differences in volume-histogram parameters in clinical target volumes (CTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) is presented for all five anatomical sites and three of the six centres.

Results

Each of the three centres applied a different in-vitro data-based linear energy transfer (LET) driven variable RBE model, including tissue-specific radiosensitivity (α/β) as model parameter (McNamara and Wedenberg models) or without α/β dependency (McMahon model), respectively (Fig.1). For the CTVs, volume-histogram parameters of D1.1 and LET were comparable among the centres for each patient. Considering DvarRBE instead of D1.1 increased inter-institutional differences in dosimetric parameters by 1-7 Gy(RBE) in the CTVs (Fig.2). Additionally, mean DvarRBE deviated from prescribed D1.1 by up to 5 Gy(RBE) for each anatomical site. For OARs, inter-institutional dose differences remained comparable when using DvarRBE instead of D1.1 and all variable RBE models consistently predicted an increase of DvarRBE by 3-9 Gy(RBE) in OARs located at the distal beam edge and for treatment plans with small angles between single incident beams (brain, BoS, pancreas). There, DvarRBE also exceeded OAR near-maximum tolerance doses at all centres. The main drivers of inter-centre DvarRBE variance were differences in the considered centre- and treatment site-specific α/β as well as the model-specific handling of α/β. When all centres used the same variable RBE model and α/β value, inter-centre differences in DvarRBE distributions essentially reduced to the order of those for D1.1.

Conclusion

Clinical DvarRBE calculations are readily available at multiple institutions and already inform clinicians on treatment plan safety. However, to ensure future comparability of results between PT centres and to realize the full potential of PT, it remains a critical task to collectively agree on how to utilize variable RBE models in clinical practise.