Proton pencil minibeam irradiation of an in-vivo mouse ear model spares healthy tissue dependent on beam size.


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 27 05 2019
accepted: 23 10 2019
entrez: 26 11 2019
pubmed: 26 11 2019
medline: 18 3 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Proton radiotherapy using minibeams of sub-millimeter dimensions reduces side effects in comparison to conventional proton therapy due to spatial fractionation. Since the proton minibeams widen with depth, the homogeneous irradiation of a tumor can be ensured by adjusting the beam distances to tumor size and depth to maintain tumor control as in conventional proton therapy. The inherent advantages of protons in comparison to photons like a limited range that prevents a dosage of distal tissues are maintained by proton minibeams and can even be exploited for interlacing from different beam directions. A first animal study was conducted to systematically investigate and quantify the tissue-sparing effects of proton pencil minibeams as a function of beam size and dose distributions, using beam widths between σ = 95, 199, 306, 411, 561 and 883 μm (standard deviation) at a defined center-to-center beam distance (ctc) of 1.8 mm. The average dose of 60 Gy was distributed in 4x4 minibeams using 20 MeV protons (LET ~ 2.7 keV/μm). The induced radiation toxicities were measured by visible skin reactions and ear swelling for 90 days after irradiation. The largest applied beam size to ctc ratio (σ/ctc = 0.49) is similar to a homogeneous irradiation and leads to a significant 3-fold ear thickness increase compared to the control group. Erythema and desquamation was also increased significantly 3-4 weeks after irradiation. With decreasing beam sizes and thus decreasing σ/ctc, the maximum skin reactions are strongly reduced until no ear swelling or other visible skin reactions should occur for σ/ctc < 0.032 (extrapolated from data). These results demonstrate that proton pencil minibeam radiotherapy has better tissue-sparing for smaller σ/ctc, corresponding to larger peak-to-valley dose ratios PVDR, with the best effect for σ/ctc < 0.032. However, even quite large σ/ctc (e.g. σ/ctc = 0.23 or 0.31, i.e. PVDR = 10 or 2.7) show less acute side effects than a homogeneous dose distribution. This suggests that proton minibeam therapy spares healthy tissue not only in the skin but even for dose distributions appearing in deeper layers close to the tumor enhancing its benefits for clinical proton therapy.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31765436
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224873
pii: PONE-D-19-14988
pmc: PMC6876838
doi:

Substances chimiques

Protons 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e0224873

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Oct 1;84(2):514-9
pubmed: 22342299
Med Phys. 2010 Oct;37(10):5330-40
pubmed: 21089768
Med Phys. 2017 Nov;44(11):6096-6104
pubmed: 28880369
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):234-241
pubmed: 26692028
Med Phys. 2003 Apr;30(4):583-9
pubmed: 12722810
Cancers (Basel). 2019 May 25;11(5):
pubmed: 31130616
Med Phys. 2013 Mar;40(3):031712
pubmed: 23464307
Med Phys. 2003 May;30(5):979-85
pubmed: 12773007
Radiat Environ Biophys. 2004 Feb;42(4):237-45
pubmed: 14735370
Front Oncol. 2015 Dec 01;5:269
pubmed: 26649281
Radiat Environ Biophys. 2011 Aug;50(3):339-44
pubmed: 21556847
Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 31;7(1):14403
pubmed: 29089533
Radiat Environ Biophys. 2008 Nov;47(4):415-22
pubmed: 18648840
Med Phys. 2009 Nov;36(11):4897-902
pubmed: 19994498
Radiat Res. 2017 Apr;187(4):454-464
pubmed: 28406748
PLoS One. 2019 Sep 4;14(9):e0221454
pubmed: 31483811
Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 7;8(1):16479
pubmed: 30405188
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jun 1;53(2):407-21
pubmed: 12023146
Radiat Environ Biophys. 2013 Mar;52(1):123-33
pubmed: 23271171
J Synchrotron Radiat. 2012 Jan;19(Pt 1):60-5
pubmed: 22186645

Auteurs

Matthias Sammer (M)

Institut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.

Esther Zahnbrecher (E)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU), Oberschleißheim, Germany.

Sophie Dobiasch (S)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU), Oberschleißheim, Germany.
Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Germany.

Stefanie Girst (S)

Institut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.

Christoph Greubel (C)

Institut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.

Katarina Ilicic (K)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU), Oberschleißheim, Germany.
Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Germany.

Judith Reindl (J)

Institut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.

Benjamin Schwarz (B)

Institut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.

Christian Siebenwirth (C)

Institut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.

Dietrich W M Walsh (DWM)

Institut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.

Stephanie E Combs (SE)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU), Oberschleißheim, Germany.
Deutsches Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Germany.

Günther Dollinger (G)

Institut für Angewandte Physik und Messtechnik (LRT2), Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany.

Thomas E Schmid (TE)

Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Department of Radiation Sciences (DRS), Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU), Oberschleißheim, Germany.

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice
Animals Tail Swine Behavior, Animal Animal Husbandry

Classifications MeSH