Towards harmonizing clinical linear energy transfer (LET) reporting in proton radiotherapy: a European multi-centric study

References

• Paganetti H, Blakely E, Carabe-Fernandez A, et al. Report of the AAPM TG-256 on the relative biological effectiveness of proton beams in radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2019;46(3):e53–e78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peeler CR, Mirkovic D, Titt U, et al. Clinical evidence of variable proton biological effectiveness in pediatric patients treated for ependymoma. Radiother Oncol. 2016;121(3):395–401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Underwood TSA, Grassberger C, Bass R, et al. Asymptomatic late-phase radiographic changes among chest-wall patients are associated with a proton RBE exceeding 1.1. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;101(4):809–819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eulitz J, Troost EGC, Raschke F, et al. Predicting late magnetic resonance image changes in glioma patients after proton therapy. Acta Oncol. 2019;58(10):1536–1539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eulitz J, Lutz B, Wohlfahrt P, et al. A Monte Carlo based radiation response modelling framework to assess variability of clinical RBE in proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(22):225020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahn E, Bauer J, Harrabi S, et al. Late contrast enhancing brain lesions in proton-treated patients with low-grade glioma: clinical evidence for increased periventricular sensitivity and variable RBE. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;107(3):571–578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang C-C, McNamara AL, Shin J, et al. End-of-range radiobiological effect on rib fractures in patients receiving proton therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;107(3):449–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenaar D, Tran LT, Meijers A, et al. Validation of linear energy transfer computed in a Monte Carlo dose engine of a commercial treatment planning system. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(2):025006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lühr A, von Neubeck C, Pawelke J, et al. “Radiobiology of Proton Therapy”: results of an international expert workshop. Radiother Oncol. 2018;128(1):56–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seltzer SM, Bartlett DT, Burns DT, et al. The international commission on radiation units and measurements. J ICRU. 2011;11(1):NP.1–NP.
   Google Scholar
• Granville DA, Sawakuchi GO. Comparison of linear energy transfer scoring techniques in Monte Carlo simulations of proton beams. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(14):N283–N291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortés-Giraldo MA, Carabe A. A critical study of different Monte Carlo scoring methods of dose average linear-energy-transfer maps calculated in voxelized geometries irradiated with clinical proton beams. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(7):2645–2669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guan F, Peeler C, Bronk L, et al. Analysis of the track- and dose-averaged LET and LET spectra in proton therapy using the geant4 Monte Carlo code . Med Phys. 2015;42(11):6234–6247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mairani A, Dokic I, Magro G, et al. A phenomenological relative biological effectiveness approach for proton therapy based on an improved description of the mixed radiation field. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(4):1378–1395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grzanka L, Ardenfors O, Bassler N. Monte Carlo simulations of spatial LET distributions in clinical proton beams. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2018;180(1–4):296–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koh WYC, Tan HQ, Ang KW, et al. Standardizing Monte Carlo simulation parameters for a reproducible dose-averaged linear energy transfer. Br J Radiol. 2020;93(1112):20200122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalholm F, Grzanka L, Traneus E, et al. A systematic review on the usage of averaged LET in radiation biology for particle therapy. Radiother Oncol. 2021;161:211–221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sørensen BS, Pawelke J, Bauer J, et al. Does the uncertainty in relative biological effectiveness affect patient treatment in proton therapy? Radiother Oncol. 2021;163:177–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahn C, Eulitz J, Peters N, et al. Impact of range uncertainty on clinical distributions of linear energy transfer and biological effectiveness in proton therapy. Med Phys. 2020;47(12):6151–6162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ödén J, Toma‐Dasu I, Witt Nyström P, et al. Spatial correlation of linear energy transfer and relative biological effectiveness with suspected treatment-related toxicities following proton therapy for intracranial tumors . Med Phys. 2020;47(2):342–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mein S, Choi K, Kopp B, et al. Fast robust dose calculation on GPU for high-precision 1H, 4He, 12C and 16O ion therapy: the FRoG platform. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi K, Mein SB, Kopp B, et al. FRoG—a new calculation engine for clinical investigations with proton and carbon ion beams at CNAO. Cancers. 2018;10(11):314–395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perl J, Shin J, Schümann J, et al. TOPAS: an innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications. Med Phys. 2012;39(11):6818–6837.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faddegon B, Ramos-Méndez J, Schuemann J, et al. The TOPAS tool for particle simulation, a Monte Carlo simulation tool for physics, biology and clinical research. Phys Med. 2020;72:114–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allison J, Amako K, Apostolakis J, et al. Recent developments in GEANT4. Nucl Instruments Methods Phys Res Sect A Accel Spectrometers Detect Assoc Equip. 2016;835:186–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarrut D, Bardiès M, Boussion N, et al. A review of the use and potential of the GATE Monte Carlo simulation code for radiation therapy and dosimetry applications. Med Phys. 2014;41(6):064301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grevillot L, Boersma DJ, Fuchs H, et al. Technical note: GATE-RTion: a GATE/Geant4 release for clinical applications in scanned ion beam therapy. Med Phys. 2020;47(8):3675–3681.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aitkenhead AH, Sitch P, Richardson JC, et al. Automated Monte-Carlo re-calculation of proton therapy plans using Geant4/Gate: implementation and comparison to plan-specific quality assurance measurements. BJR. 2020;93(1114):20200228.
   Google Scholar
• Russo G, Attili A, Battistoni G, et al. A novel algorithm for the calculation of physical and biological irradiation quantities in scanned ion beam therapy: the beamlet superposition approach. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(1):183–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourhaleb F, Attili A, Russo G. Monte Carlo simulations for beam delivery line design in radiation therapy with heavy ion beams. In: Mode CJ, editor. Applications of Monte Carlo methods in biology, medicine and other fields of science. Rijeka: InTech; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Krämer M, Jäkel O, Haberer T, et al. Treatment planning for heavy-ion radiotherapy: physical beam model and dose optimization. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45(11):3299–3317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wohlfahrt P, Möhler C, Enghardt W, et al. Refinement of the Hounsfield look-up table by retrospective application of patient-specific direct proton stopping-power prediction from dual-energy CT. Med Phys. 2020;0:1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Permatasari FF, Eulitz J, Richter C, et al. Material assignment for proton range prediction in Monte Carlo patient simulations using stopping-power datasets. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(18):185004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopp B, Fuglsang Jensen M, Mein S, et al. FRoG: an independent dose and LETd prediction tool for proton therapy at ProBeam® facilities. Med Phys. 2020;47(10):5274–5286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romano F, Cirrone GAP, Cuttone G, et al. A Monte Carlo study for the calculation of the average linear energy transfer (LET) distributions for a clinical proton beam line and a radiobiological carbon ion beam line. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59(12):2863–2882.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinrich W, Wiegel B, Kraft G. β, Zeff, dE/dx, range and restricted energy loss energy loss of heavy ions in the region 1 ≤ E ≤ 1000 MeV/u. GSI Prepr. 1991;30:1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Wendling M, Zijp LJ, McDermott LN, et al. A fast algorithm for gamma evaluation in 3D. Med Phys. 2007;34(5):1647–1654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wedenberg M, Lind BK, Hårdemark B. A model for the relative biological effectiveness of protons: the tissue specific parameter α/β of photons is a predictor for the sensitivity to LET changes. Acta Oncol. 2013;52(3):580–588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grün R, Friedrich T, Traneus E, et al. Is the dose-averaged LET a reliable predictor for the relative biological effectiveness? Med Phys. 2019;46(2):1064–1074.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resch AF, Heyes PD, Fuchs H, et al. Dose- rather than fluence-averaged LET should be used as a single-parameter descriptor of proton beam quality for radiochromic film dosimetry. Med Phys. 2020;47(5):2289–2299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rørvik E, Fjaera LF, Dahle TJ, et al. Exploration and application of phenomenological RBE models for proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(18):185013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grassberger C, Paganetti H. Elevated LET components in clinical proton beams. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(20):6677–6691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paganetti H. Dose to water versus dose to medium in proton beam therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54(14):4399–4421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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–R472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giantsoudi D, Grassberger C, Craft D, et al. Linear energy transfer-guided optimization in intensity modulated proton therapy: feasibility study and clinical potential. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87(1):216–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran LT, Chartier L, Bolst D, et al. Characterization of proton pencil beam scanning and passive beam using a high spatial resolution solid-state microdosimeter. Med Phys. 2017;44(11):6085–6095.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carabe A, España S, Grassberger C, et al. Clinical consequences of relative biological effectiveness variations in proton radiotherapy of the prostate, brain and liver. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58(7):2103–2117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wedenberg M, Toma-Dasu I. Disregarding RBE variation in treatment plan comparison may lead to bias in favor of proton plans. Med Phys. 2014;41(9):091706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ödén J, Eriksson K, Toma-Dasu I. Inclusion of a variable RBE into proton and photon plan comparison for various fractionation schedules in prostate radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2017;44(3):810–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ödén J, Eriksson K, Toma-Dasu I. Incorporation of relative biological effectiveness uncertainties into proton plan robustness evaluation. Acta Oncol. 2017;56(6):769–778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fjaera LF, Li Z, Ytre-Hauge KS, et al. Linear energy transfer distributions in the brainstem depending on tumour location in intensity-modulated proton therapy of paediatric cancer. Acta Oncol. 2017;56(6):763–768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resch AF, Landry G, Kamp F, et al. Quantification of the uncertainties of a biological model and their impact on variable RBE proton treatment plan optimization. Phys Med. 2017;36:91–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar