Proton beam physical processes for improving cancer therapy using a water phantom
Abstract
The aim of this work is a description of quantitatively and qualitatively physical processes for proton therapy when a proton pencil beam passes through a water phantom. Therefore, at first, we determine the absorbed dose with both Maple programming and Geant4 simulation in the suggested water phantom. Then, we used as CSDA method to calculate the proton range and range straggling. Also with the Highland formula the mean scattering angle is calculated and following it we investigate the inelastic cross-section, the ionization, and excitation by protons in the inner and outer shells as well as charge transfer, stripping, and ionization by neutral hydrogen. Finally, we estimate the probabilities of charge state and stopping cross section and straggling and fragmentation. The height, width, and depth of Bragg's peak are discussed through the investigation of collisions, processing, and random phenomena.Miller KD, Nogueira L, Mariotto AB, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2019;69:363–385.
Borras JM, Lievens Y, Barton M, et al. How many new cancer patients in Europe will require radiotherapy by 2025? An estro-hero analysis. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 2016;119:5–11.
Baskar R, Lee KA, Yeo R, et al. Cancer and radiation therapy: current advances and future directions. International Journal of Medical Sciences. 2012;9:193.
Younkin J, Bues M, Sio T, et al. Multiple energy extraction reduces beam delivery time for a synchrotron-based proton spot-scanning system. Advances in Radiation Oncology. 2018;3:412–420.
Shen J, Taylor P, Vargas C, et al. The status and challenges forprostate stereotactic body radiation therapy treatments in united states proton therapy centers: an NRG oncology practice survey.International Journal of Particle Therapy. 2024;11:100020.
Rwigema J-CM, Langendijk JA, van der Laan HP, et al. A model-based approach to predict short-term toxicity benefits with proton therapy for oropharyngeal cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2019;104:553–562.
Blanchard P, Wong AJ, Gunn GB, et al. Toward a model-based patient selection strategy for proton therapy: external validation of photon-derived normal tissue complication probability mod-els in a head and neck proton therapy cohort. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 2016;121:381–386.
Blanchard P, Garden AS, Gunn GB, et al. Intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) versus intensity-modulated photon therapy (IMRT) for patients with oropharynx cancer – a case matched analysis. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 2016;120:48–55.
Water TA, Bijl HP, Schilstra C, et al. The potential benefit of radiotherapy with protons in head and neck cancer with respect to normal tissue sparing: a systematic review of literature. The Oncologist. 2011;16:366–377.
Lin A, Swisher-McClure S, Millar LB, et al. Proton therapy for head and neck cancer: current applications and future directions.Translational Cancer Research. 2012;1(4).
Liu W, Zhang X, Li Y, et al. Robust optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2012;39:1079–1091.
Liu W, Frank SJ, Li X, et al. PTV-based IMPT optimization incorporating planning risk volumes vs robust optimization.Medical Physics. 2013;40:021709.
Chiang J, Nathan Y, Daniels T, et al. Proton beam radiotherapy for patients with early-stage and advanced lung cancer: a narrative review with contemporary clinical recommendations.Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2021;13:1270.
Paganetti H, Niemierko A, Ancukiewicz M, et al. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy.International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2002;53:407–421.
Unkelbach J, Botas P, Giantsoudi D, et al. Reoptimization of intensity modulated proton therapy plans based on linear energy transfer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology,Physics. 2016;96:1097–1106.
Paganetti H, Simone II CB, Bosch W, et al. NRG oncology white paper on the relative biological effectiveness in proton therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology,Physics. 2025;121(1):202–217.
Wang L, Wang X, Li Y, et al. Human papillomavirus status and the relative biological effectiveness of proton radiotherapy in head and neck cancer cells. Head & Neck. 2017;39:708–715.
Wang L, Fossati P, Paganetti H, et al. The biological basis for enhanced effects of proton radiation therapy relative to photon radiation therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. International Journal of Particle Therapy. 2021;8:3–13.
Yepes P, Adair A, Frank SJ, et al. Fixed-versus variable-RBE computations for intensity modulated proton therapy. Advances in Radiation Oncology. 2019;4:156–167.
Von Sonntag C. The chemical basis of radiation biology. Taylor & Francis, London, New York, 1987.
Molière G. Theorie der streuung schneller geladenen teilchen II mehrfach-und vielfachstreuung. Z Naturforschg (1948) 3a:78–97.
Lewis HW. Multiple scattering in an infinite medium. Phys Rev (1950) 78(5):526–9. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.78.526
Highland VL. Some practical remarks on multiple scattering. Nucl Instrum Methods (1975) 129:497–9. doi:10.1016/0029-554X(75)90743-0
Gottschalk B. On the scattering power of radiotherapy protons. Med Phys (2010) 37(1):352–67. doi:10.1118/1.3264177
Cao W, Khabazian A, Yepes PP, et al. Linear energy transfer incorporated intensity modulated proton therapy optimization.Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2017;63:015013.
Niemierko A, Schuemann J, Niyazi M, et al. Brain necrosis in adult patients after proton therapy: is there evidence for dependency on linear energy transfer? International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2021;109:109–119.
Gentile MS, Yeap BY, Paganetti H, et al. Brainstem injury in pediatric patients with posterior fossa tumors treated with proton beam therapy and associated dosimetric factors. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2018;100:719–729.
Peeler CR, Mirkovic D, Titt U, et al. Clinical evidence of variable proton biological effectiveness in pediatric patients treated for ependymoma. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 2016;121:395–401.
Underwood TS, Grassberger C, Bass R, et al. Asymptomatic late-phase radiographic changes among chest-wall patients are associated with a proton RBE exceeding 1.1. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2018;101:809–819.
Bolsi A, Placidi L, Pica A, et al. Pencil beam scanning proton therapy for the treatment of craniopharyngioma complicated with radiation-induced cerebral vasculopathies: a dosimetric and linear energy transfer (LET) evaluation. Radiotherapy & Oncology. 2020;149:197–204.
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. Medical Physics. 2020;47:342–351.
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. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2019;64:225020.
Bauer J, Bahn E, Harrabi S, et al. How can scanned proton beam treatment planning for low-grade glioma cope with increased distal RBE and locally increased radiosensitivity for late MR-detected brain lesions? Medical Physics. 2021;48:1497–1507.
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. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2020;107:571–578.
Marteinsdottir M, Wang C-C, McNamara AL, et al. The impact of variable RBE in proton therapy for left-sided breast cancer when estimating normal tissue complications in the heart and lung. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2021;66(3):035023.
Zhang YY, Huo WL, Goldberg SI, et al. Brain-specific relative biological effectiveness of protons based on long-term outcome of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. International Jour-nal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2021;110:984–992.
Engeseth GM, He R, Mirkovic D, et al. Mixed effect modeling of dose and linear energy transfer correlations with brain image changes after intensity modulated proton therapy for skull base head and neck cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2021;111:684–692.
Garbacz M, Cordoni FG, Durante M, et al. Study of relationship between dose, LET and the risk of brain necrosis after proton therapy for skull base tumors. Radiotherapy & Oncology.2021;163:143–149.
Wang CC, McNamara AL, Shin J, et al. End-of-range radiobiological effect on rib fractures in patients receiving
proton therapy for breast cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2020;107:449–454.
Yang Y, Vargas CE, Bhangoo RS, et al. Exploratory investigation of dose-linear energy transfer (LET) volume histogram (DLVH) for adverse events study in intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2021;110:1189–1199.
Yang Y, Muller OM, Shiraishi S, et al. Empirical relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for osteoradionecrosis (ORN) at the mandible in head and neck cancer patients treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT): a multicenter, retrospective, cohort study. Frontiers in Oncology. 2022;12:843175.
Yang Y, Patel SH, Bridhikitti J, et al. Exploratory study of seed spots analysis to characterize dose and linear-energy-transfer effect in adverse event initialization of pencil-beam-scanning proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2022;49:6237–6252.
Bertolet A, Abolfath R, Carlson DJ, et al. Correlation of LET with MRI changes in brain and potential implications for normal tissue complication probability for patients with meningioma treated with pencil beam scanning proton therapy. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2022;112:237–246.
Wilkens J, Oelfke U. A phenomenological model for the relative biological effectiveness in therapeutic proton beams.Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2004;49:2811.
Carabe A, Moteabbed M, Depauw N, et al. Range uncertainty in proton therapy due to variable biological effectiveness. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2012;57:1159–1172.
Wedenberg M, Lind BK, Hårdemark B. A model for the relative biological effectiveness of protons: the tissue specific parameter a/b of photons is a predictor for the sensitivity to LET changes.Acta Oncologica. 2013;52:580–588.
McNamara AL, Schuemann J, Paganetti H. A phenomenolog-ical relative biological effectiveness (RBE) model for proton therapy based on all published in vitro cell survival data. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2015;60:8399–8416.
Hawkins RB. A microdosimetric-kinetic model for the effect of non-poisson distribution of lethal lesions on the variation of RBE with LET. Radiation Research. 2003;160:61–69.
Schulz-Ertner D, Karger CP, Feuerhake A, et al. Effectiveness of carbon ion radiotherapy in the treatment of skull-base chordomas. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biol-ogy, Physics. 2007;68:449–457.
Elsässer T, Scholz M. Cluster effects within the local effect model. Radiation Research. 2007;167:319–329.
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. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2008;71:866–872.
Elsässer T, Weyrather WK, Friedrich T, et al. 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. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2010;78:1177–1183.
Carlson DJ, Stewart RD, Semenenko VA, et al. Combined use of Monte Carlo DNA damage simulations and deterministic repair models to examine putative mechanisms of cell killing.Radiation Research. 2008;169:447–459.
Stewart RD, Carlson DJ, Butkus MP, et al. A comparison of mechanism-inspired models for particle relative biological effectiveness (RBE). Medical Physics. 2018;45:e925–e952.
Paganetti H. Mechanisms and review of clinical evidence of variations in relative biological effectiveness in proton therapy.International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.2022;112:222–236.
Machtay M, Moughan J, Trotti A, et al. Factors associated with severe late toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: an RTOG analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2008;26:3582–3589.
Dornfeld K, Simmons JR, Karnell L, et al. Radiation doses to structures within and adjacent to the larynx are correlated with long-term diet- and speech-related quality of life. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2007;68:750–757.
Eisbruch A, Schwartz M, Rasch C, et al. Dysphagia and aspiration after chemoradiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: which anatomic structures are affected and can they be spared by IMRT? International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2004;60:1425–1439.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 16 No 4 (2024) | |
| Section | Original Articles | |
| Keywords | ||
| Bragg peak proton therapy radiotherapy depth-dose cross section | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
