Investigation of the Bragg peak degradation caused by homogeneous and heterogeneous lung tissue substitutes: proton beam experiments and comparison to current clinical dose calculation

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (24) ◽  
pp. 245036
Author(s):  
A Hranek ◽  
A F Resch ◽  
D Georg ◽  
B Knäusl
2017 ◽  
Vol 137 ◽  
pp. 121-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsi-Chian Chao ◽  
Yi-Chun Tsai ◽  
Shih-Kuan Chen ◽  
Shu-Wei Wu ◽  
Chuan-Jong Tung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 1840
Author(s):  
Taisuke Sumiya ◽  
Masashi Mizumoto ◽  
Yoshiko Oshiro ◽  
Keiichiro Baba ◽  
Motohiro Murakami ◽  
...  

Proton beam therapy (PBT) is a curative treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), because it can preserve liver function due to dose targeting via the Bragg peak. However, the degree of direct liver damage by PBT is unclear. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed liver/biliary enzymes and total bilirubin (T-Bil) as markers of direct liver damage during and early after PBT in 300 patients. The levels of these enzymes and bilirubin were almost stable throughout the treatment period. In patients with normal pretreatment levels, aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT), and T-Bil were abnormally elevated in only 2 (1.2%), 1 (0.4%), 0, 2 (1.2%), and 8 (3.5%) patients, respectively, and in 8 of these 13 patients (61.5%) the elevations were temporary. In patients with abnormal pretreatment levels, the levels tended to decrease during PBT. GGT and T-Bil were elevated by 1.62 and 1.57 times in patients who received 66 Gy (RBE) in 10 fractions and 74 Gy (RBE) in 37 fractions, respectively, but again these changes were temporary. These results suggest that direct damage to normal liver caused by PBT is minimal, even if a patient has abnormal pretreatment enzyme levels.


1996 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 2590-2611 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Gurney

PURPOSE To review the current dose-calculation practice and propose a non-body-surface area (BSA)-based dose-calculation method. METHODS Data that supported the introduction of BSA-based dose calculation in the late 1950s were reviewed. Data on 18 drugs that correlated pharmacokinetic (PK) variables for cytotoxic drugs with BSA were examined. Other methods of dose calculation, such as therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and adaptive control, were also examined. RESULTS The BSA-based method of dose calculation was adopted without adequate investigation of its accuracy. BSA fails to standardize the marked interpatient variation in PK for most cytotoxic drugs. A definite correlation was found between PK variables and BSA for only one drug (docetaxel). PK parameters correlate with toxicity, as well as response in some tumors, but do not completely explain the variation in drug effect between individuals. The complexities of TDM may make its universal use impractical. A non-BSA-based dose calculation method is proposed that defines three mandatory steps: prime dose, modified dose, and toxicity-adjusted dose (PMT dosing). Prime dose is the fixed dose of a drug used alone or in combination and is derived from the reanalysis of phase I/II studies and from clinical practice. Modified dose is an adjustment of the prime dose before administration, based on dose-adjustment guidelines that predict the drug-handling ability of an individual. Population pharmacodynamic studies may be used for the development of these guidelines. Subsequent doses are adjusted in each patient according to a target toxicity, such as nadir neutrophil count or other objective toxicity, that serves as a surrogate marker for potential antitumor effect (toxicity-adjusted dose). Patients who are predicted to have very abnormal drug handling should be excluded from such a dosing scheme and TDM may be more suitable. CONCLUSION The routine use of BSA for dose calculation should be reevaluated. Other methods of dose calculation should be investigated. TDM may be impractical in all patients and remains unvalidated. PMT dosing ensures that the condition of each individual is considered, to predict drug effects better. Clinical dose-calculation systems such as PMT dosing should be evaluated prospectively.


Cancers ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 946 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eirini Terpsi Vitti ◽  
Jason L Parsons

Proton beam therapy (PBT) offers significant benefit over conventional (photon) radiotherapy for the treatment of a number of different human cancers, largely due to the physical characteristics. In particular, the low entrance dose and maximum energy deposition in depth at a well-defined region, the Bragg peak, can spare irradiation of proximal healthy tissues and organs at risk when compared to conventional radiotherapy using high-energy photons. However, there are still biological uncertainties reflected in the relative biological effectiveness that varies along the track of the proton beam as a consequence of the increases in linear energy transfer (LET). Furthermore, the spectrum of DNA damage induced by protons, particularly the generation of complex DNA damage (CDD) at high-LET regions of the distal edge of the Bragg peak, and the specific DNA repair pathways dependent on their repair are not entirely understood. This knowledge is essential in understanding the biological impact of protons on tumor cells, and ultimately in devising optimal therapeutic strategies employing PBT for greater clinical impact and patient benefit. Here, we provide an up-to-date review on the radiobiological effects of PBT versus photon radiotherapy in cells, particularly in the context of DNA damage. We also review the DNA repair pathways that are essential in the cellular response to PBT, with a specific focus on the signaling and processing of CDD induced by high-LET protons.


2006 ◽  
Vol 33 (9) ◽  
pp. 3508-3518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haisen S. Li ◽  
H. Edwin Romeijn ◽  
James F. Dempsey

2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (6Part15) ◽  
pp. 2616-2616 ◽  
Author(s):  
W Chen ◽  
Y Liu ◽  
B Guo ◽  
D Jette ◽  
N Papanikolaou

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (15) ◽  
pp. 155005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veronika Flatten ◽  
Kilian-Simon Baumann ◽  
Uli Weber ◽  
Rita Engenhart-Cabillic ◽  
Klemens Zink

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document