title: Maximizing the biological effect of proton dose delivered with scanned beams via inhomogeneous daily dose distributions.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Biological effect of radiation can be enhanced with hypofractionation, localized dose escalation, and, in particle therapy, with optimized distribution of linear energy transfer (LET). The authors describe a method to construct inhomogeneous fractional dose (IFD) distributions, and evaluate the potential gain in the therapeutic effect from their delivery in proton therapy delivered by pencil beam scanning.
  
  
  METHODS
  For 13 cases of prostate cancer, the authors considered hypofractionated courses of 60 Gy delivered in 20 fractions. (All doses denoted in Gy include the proton's mean relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1.) Two types of plans were optimized using two opposed lateral beams to deliver a uniform dose of 3 Gy per fraction to the target by scanning: (1) in conventional full-target plans (FTP), each beam irradiated the entire gland, (2) in split-target plans (STP), beams irradiated only the respective proximal hemispheres (prostate split sagittally). Inverse planning yielded intensity maps, in which discrete position control points of the scanned beam (spots) were assigned optimized intensity values. FTP plans preferentially required a higher intensity of spots in the distal part of the target, while STP, by design, employed proximal spots. To evaluate the utility of IFD delivery, IFD plans were generated by rearranging the spot intensities from FTP or STP intensity maps, separately as well as combined using a variety of mixing weights. IFD courses were designed so that, in alternating fractions, one of the hemispheres of the prostate would receive a dose boost and the other receive a lower dose, while the total physical dose from the IFD course was roughly uniform across the prostate. IFD plans were normalized so that the equivalent uniform dose (EUD) of rectum and bladder did not increase, compared to the baseline FTP plan, which irradiated the prostate uniformly in every fraction. An EUD-based model was then applied to estimate tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). To assess potential local RBE variations, LET distributions were calculated with Monte Carlo, and compared for different plans. The results were assessed in terms of their sensitivity to uncertainties in model parameters and delivery.
  
  
  RESULTS
  IFD courses included equal number of fractions boosting either hemisphere, thus, the combined physical dose was close to uniform throughout the prostate. However, for the entire course, the prostate EUD in IFD was higher than in conventional FTP by up to 14%, corresponding to the estimated increase in TCP to 96% from 88%. The extent of gain depended on the mixing factor, i.e., relative weights used to combine FTP and STP spot weights. Increased weighting of STP typically yielded a higher target EUD, but also led to increased sensitivity of dose to variations in the proton's range. Rectal and bladder EUD were same or lower (per normalization), and the NTCP for both remained below 1%. The LET distributions in IFD also depended strongly on the mixing weights: plans using higher weight of STP spots yielded higher LET, indicating a potentially higher local RBE.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In proton therapy delivered by pencil beam scanning, improved therapeutic outcome can potentially be expected with delivery of IFD distributions, while administering the prescribed quasi-uniform dose to the target over the entire course. The biological effectiveness of IFD may be further enhanced by optimizing the LET distributions. IFD distributions are characterized by a dose gradient located in proximity of the prostate's midplane, thus, the fidelity of delivery would depend crucially on the precision with which the proton range could be controlled.
authors: Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA. Zeng.Chuan@mgh.harvard.edu
authors: Chuan
authors: C
authors: Zeng
authors: Drosoula
authors: D
authors: Giantsoudi
authors: Clemens
authors: C
authors: Grassberger
authors: Saveli
authors: S
authors: Goldberg
authors: Andrzej
authors: A
authors: Niemierko
authors: Harald
authors: H
authors: Paganetti
authors: Jason A
authors: JA
authors: Efstathiou
authors: Alexei
authors: A
authors: Trofimov
mesh_terms: D019583:Dose Fractionation, Radiation; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy; D061766:Proton Therapy / Q000379:methods*; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D047368:Tumor Burden / Q000528:radiation effects
references: Med Phys. 1997 Jan;24(1):103-10
references: 9029544
references: Med Phys. 2009 Jan;36(1):149-63
references: 19235384
references: Radiother Oncol. 1991 Aug;21(4):245-56
references: 1924862
references: Phys Med Biol. 2012 Jun 7;57(11):3371-405
references: 22572603
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Aug 1;80(5):1559-66
references: 21163588
references: Phys Med Biol. 2012 Mar 7;57(5):1159-72
references: 22330133
references: Phys Med Biol. 1999 Jan;44(1):185-205
references: 10071883
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Oct 1;69(2):444-53
references: 17513063
references: Semin Radiat Oncol. 2008 Jan;18(1):41-7
references: 18082587
references: Cancer J. 2009 Jan-Feb;15(1):1-6
references: 19197165
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 May 1;83(1):408-18
references: 22133626
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Mar 15;43(5):1095-101
references: 10192361
references: J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012 May 10;13(3):3639
references: 22584166
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Feb 1;46(3):631-8
references: 10701742
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Feb 1;76(2):624-30
references: 20117294
references: Phys Med Biol. 2011 Jul 7;56(13):4041-57
references: 21677366
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Jul 1;80(3):928-37
references: 20947266
references: Phys Med. 2007 Dec;23(3-4):115-25
references: 17825595
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Jan 1;82(1):e17-24
references: 21324610