Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Radiation Oncology
Published in: Radiation Oncology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Review

New insights in the relative radiobiological effectiveness of proton irradiation

Authors: K. Ilicic, S. E. Combs, T. E. Schmid

Published in: Radiation Oncology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Proton radiotherapy is a form of charged particle therapy that is preferentially applied for the treatment of tumors positioned near to critical structures due to their physical characteristics, showing an inverted depth-dose profile. The sparing of normal tissue has additional advantages in the treatment of pediatric patients, in whom the risk of secondary cancers and late morbidity is significantly higher. Up to date, a fixed relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of 1.1 is commonly implemented in treatment planning systems with protons in order to correct the physical dose. This value of 1.1 comes from averaging the results of numerous in vitro experiments, mostly conducted in the middle of the spread-out Bragg peak, where RBE is relatively constant. However, the use of a constant RBE value disregards the experimental evidence which clearly demonstrates complex RBE dependency on dose, cell- or tissue type, linear energy transfer and biological endpoints. In recent years, several in vitro studies indicate variations in RBE of protons which translate to an uncertainty in the biological effective dose delivery to the patient. Particularly for regions surrounding the Bragg peak, the more localized pattern of energy deposition leads to more complex DNA lesions. These RBE variations of protons bring the validity of using a constant RBE into question.

Main body

This review analyzes how RBE depends on the dose, different biological endpoints and physical properties. Further, this review gives an overview of the new insights based on findings made during the last years investigating the variation of RBE with depth in the spread out Bragg peak and the underlying differences in radiation response on the molecular and cellular levels between proton and photon irradiation. Research groups such as the Klinische Forschergruppe Schwerionentherapie funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, KFO 214) have included work on this topic and the present manuscript highlights parts of the preclinical work and summarizes the research activities in this context.

Short conclusion

In summary, there is an urgent need for more coordinated in vitro and in vivo experiments that concentrate on a realistic dose range of in clinically relevant tissues like lung or spinal cord.
Literature
1.
2.
Durante M, Orecchia R, Loeffler JS. Charged-particle therapy in cancer: clinical uses and future perspectives. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(8):483–95.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Loeffler JS, Durante M. Charged particle therapy--optimization, challenges and future directions. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013;10(7):411–24.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Alan Mitteer R, et al. Proton beam radiation induces DNA damage and cell apoptosis in glioma stem cells through reactive oxygen species. Sci Rep. 2015;5:13961.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
6.
Gerweck LE, Kozin SV. Relative biological effectiveness of proton beams in clinical therapy. Radiother Oncol. 1999;50(2):135–42.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Paganetti H. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and linear energy transfer. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59(22):R419–72.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Gudjonsson O, et al. Stereotactic irradiation of skull base meningiomas with high energy protons. Acta Neurochir. 1999;141(9):933–40.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Chang JY, et al. Phase 2 study of high-dose proton therapy with concurrent chemotherapy for unresectable stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer. 2011;117(20):4707–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Britten RA, et al. Variations in the RBE for cell killing along the depth-dose profile of a modulated proton therapy beam. Radiat Res. 2013;179(1):21–8.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Chaudhary P, et al. Relative biological effectiveness variation along monoenergetic and modulated Bragg peaks of a 62-MeV therapeutic proton beam: a preclinical assessment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;90(1):27–35.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Cuaron JJ, et al. Exponential increase in relative biological effectiveness along distal edge of a proton Bragg peak as measured by deoxyribonucleic acid double-strand breaks. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95(1):62–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
14.
IAEA. Relative Biological Effectiveness in Ion Beam Therapy, Technical Report Series, 2008, ISSN 0074–1914; no. 461.
15.
Finnberg N, et al. Gamma-radiation (GR) triggers a unique gene expression profile associated with cell death compared to proton radiation (PR) in mice in vivo. Cancer Biol Ther. 2008;7(12):2023–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Calugaru V, et al. Radiobiological characterization of two therapeutic proton beams with different initial energy spectra used at the Institut Curie Proton Therapy Center in Orsay. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81(4):1136–43.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Hada M, Sutherland BM. Spectrum of complex DNA damages depends on the incident radiation. Radiat Res. 2006;165(2):223–30.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Tommasino F, Durante M. Proton radiobiology. Cancers (Basel). 2015;7(1):353–81.CrossRef
19.
Grosse N, et al. Deficiency in homologous recombination renders mammalian cells more sensitive to proton versus photon irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88(1):175–81.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Pietro DC, et al. Cellular and molecular effects of protons: apoptosis induction and potential implications for cancer therapy. Apoptosis. 2006;11:57.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Manti L, et al. Measurements of metaphase and interphase chromosome aberrations transmitted through early cell replication rounds in human lymphocytes exposed to low-LET protons and high-LET 12C ions. Mutat Res. 2006;596(1–2):151–65.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Green LM, et al. Response of thyroid follicular cells to gamma irradiation compared to proton irradiation. I. Initial characterization of DNA damage, micronucleus formation, apoptosis, cell survival, and cell cycle phase redistribution. Radiat Res. 2001;155(1 Pt 1):32–42.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Goetz W, Morgan MN, Baulch JE. The effect of radiation quality on genomic DNA methylation profiles in irradiated human cell lines. Radiat Res. 2011;175(5):575–87.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Wouters BG, et al. Radiobiological intercomparison of the 160 MeV and 230 MeV proton therapy beams at the Harvard Cyclotron Laboratory and at Massachusetts General Hospital. Radiat Res. 2015;183(2):174–87.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Paganetti H, et al. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53(2):407–21.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Girdhani S, Sachs R, Hlatky L. Biological effects of proton radiation: an update. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2015;166(1–4):334–8.CrossRef
27.
Girdhani S, Sachs R, Hlatky L. Biological effects of proton radiation: what we know and don't know. Radiat Res. 2013;179(3):257–72.CrossRefPubMed
28.
29.
Lühr A, et al. Does the RBE depend on ion type? Radiother Oncol. 2017;123(S1):123.CrossRef
30.
El Shafie RA, et al. In vitro evaluation of photon and raster-scanned carbon ion radiotherapy in combination with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer cell lines. J Radiat Res. 2013;54(Suppl 1):i113–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Combs SE, et al. In vitro evaluation of photon and carbon ion radiotherapy in combination with chemotherapy in glioblastoma cells. Radiat Oncol. 2012;7:9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Naumann P, et al. Sulforaphane enhances irradiation effects in terms of perturbed cell cycle progression and increased DNA damage in pancreatic cancer cells. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0180940.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Habermehl D, et al. The relative biological effectiveness for carbon and oxygen ion beams using the raster-scanning technique in hepatocellular carcinoma cell lines. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e113591.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Goodhead DT. Mechanisms for the biological effectiveness of high-LET radiations. J Radiat Res. 1999;40(Suppl):1–13.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Rorvik E, et al. A phenomenological biological dose model for proton therapy based on linear energy transfer spectra. Med Phys. 2017;44(6):2586–94.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Weyrather WK, Kraft G. RBE of carbon ions: experimental data and the strategy of RBE calculation for treatment planning. Radiother Oncol. 2004;73(Suppl 2):S161–9.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Elsässer T, Krämer M, Scholz M. Accuracy of the local effect model for the prediction of biologic effects of carbon ion beams in vitro and in vivo. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(3):866–72.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Friedland W, et al. Simulation of DNA damage after proton irradiation. Radiat Res. 2003;159(3):401–10.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Friedland W, et al. Simulation of DNA damage after proton and low LET irradiation. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2002;99(1–4):99–102.CrossRef
40.
Friedland W, et al. Track structures, DNA targets and radiation effects in the biophysical Monte Carlo simulation code PARTRAC. Mutat Res. 2011;711(1–2):28–40.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Scholz M, Kraft G. Track structure and the calculation of biological effects of heavy charged particles. Adv Space Res. 1996;18:5.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Elsässer T, Weyrather WK, Friedrich T. Quantification of the relative biological effectiveness for ion beam radiotherapy: direct experimental comparison of proton and carbon ion beams and a novel approach for treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78:1177.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Friedrich T, et al. Calculation of the biological effects of ion beams based on the microscopic spatial damage distribution pattern. Int J Radiat Biol. 2012;88(1–2):103–7.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Schmid TE, et al. Sub-micrometer 20MeV protons or 45MeV lithium spot irradiation enhances yields of dicentric chromosomes due to clustering of DNA double-strand breaks. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2015;793:30–40.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Schmid TE, et al. Low LET protons focused to submicrometer shows enhanced radiobiological effectiveness. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57(19):5889–907.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Kellerer AM, Lam YM, Rossi HH. Biophysical studies with spatially correlated ions. 4. Analysis of cell survival data for diatomic deuterium. Radiat Res. 1980;83(3):511–28.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Rossi HH. Biophysical studies with spatially correlated ions. 1. Background and theoretical considerations. Radiat Res. 1979;78(2):185–91.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Ilicic K, Greubel C, Walsh D, Siebenwirth C, Girst S, Reindl J, Zlobinskaya O, Dollinger G, Multhoff G, Schmid TE. 20 MeV protons focused to sub-micrometer show enhanced radiobiological effectiveness in the clonogenic survival assay. In: 20th annual congress of the German Society for Radiation Oncology. Düsseldorf: Strahlentherapie und Onkologie; 2014.
49.
50.
Bettega D, et al. Radiobiological studies on the 65 MeV therapeutic proton beam at Nice using human tumour cells. Int J Radiat Biol. 2000;76(10):1297–303.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Petrovic I, et al. Response of a radioresistant human melanoma cell line along the proton spread-out Bragg peak. Int J Radiat Biol. 2010;86(9):742–51.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Hojo H, et al. Difference in the relative biological effectiveness and DNA damage repair processes in response to proton beam therapy according to the positions of the spread out Bragg peak. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12(1):111.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
54.
Slabbert J, et al. Increased proton relative biological effectiveness at the very end of a spread-out Bragg peak for jejunum irradiated ex vivo. Int J Part Ther. 2015;2:37–43.CrossRef
55.
Marshall TI, et al. Investigating the implications of a variable RBE on proton dose fractionation across a clinical pencil beam scanned spread-out Bragg peak. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95(1):70–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Chaudhary P, et al. Variations in the processing of DNA double-strand breaks along 60-MeV therapeutic proton beams. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95(1):86–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Guan F, et al. Spatial mapping of the biologic effectiveness of scanned particle beams: towards biologically optimized particle therapy. Sci Rep. 2015;5:9850.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Grun R, et al. Systematics of relative biological effectiveness measurements for proton radiation along the spread out Bragg peak: experimental validation of the local effect model. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(3):890–908.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Peeler CR, et al. Clinical evidence of variable proton biological effectiveness in pediatric patients treated for ependymoma. Radiother Oncol. 2016;121(3):395–401.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
New insights in the relative radiobiological effectiveness of proton irradiation
Authors
K. Ilicic
S. E. Combs
T. E. Schmid
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Radiation Oncology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1748-717X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-0954-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Radiation Oncology 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research

HyperArc VMAT planning for single and multiple brain metastases stereotactic radiosurgery: a new treatment planning approach

Research

A practical approach to estimating optic disc dose and macula dose without treatment planning in ocular brachytherapy using 125I COMS plaques

Research

Tangent-based volumetric modulated arc therapy for advanced left breast cancer

Research

Outcomes of re-irradiation for brain recurrence after prophylactic or therapeutic whole-brain irradiation for small cell lung Cancer: a retrospective analysis

Research

Clinical outcome of elderly patients (≥ 70 years) with esophageal cancer undergoing definitive or neoadjuvant radio(chemo)therapy: a retrospective single center analysis

Letter to the Editor

Response to “in regard to “Tran A, Zhang J, Woods K, Yu V, Nguyen D, Gustafson G, Rosen L, Sheng K. Treatment planning comparison of IMPT, VMAT and 4π radiotherapy for prostate cases””