碳离子放射治疗中核碎片对剂量和RBE的贡献。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 BIOLOGY
Shannon Hartzell, Fada Guan, Giuseppe Magro, Paige Taylor, Phillip J Taddei, Christine B Peterson, Stephen Kry
{"title":"碳离子放射治疗中核碎片对剂量和RBE的贡献。","authors":"Shannon Hartzell, Fada Guan, Giuseppe Magro, Paige Taylor, Phillip J Taddei, Christine B Peterson, Stephen Kry","doi":"10.1667/RADE-24-00164.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of carbon radiotherapy may be calculated using several models, including the microdosimetric kinetic model (MKM), stochastic MKM (SMKM), repair-misrepair-fixation (RMF) model, and local effect model I (LEM), which have not been thoroughly compared. In this work, we compared how these four models handle carbon beam fragmentation, providing insight into where model differences arise. Monoenergetic and spread-out Bragg peak carbon beams incident on a water phantom were simulated using Monte Carlo. Using these beams, input parameters for each model (microdosimetric spectra, DNA double-strand break yield, kinetic energy spectra, physical dose fragment contributions) were calculated for each contributing carbon beam fragment (hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, secondary carbon, primary carbon, electrons, and \"other\"). Scored input parameters for each fragment were used to calculate linear (α) and quadratic (β) parameters according to each model, which were combined with reference α and β values and absorbed physical dose to calculate RBE. Contributions from secondary fragments were found to exceed 30% of the total physical dose. Using identical beam parameters, the four models produced not only different RBE values but also different RBE trends. In all models, RBE was highest for secondary carbon ions. Beyond secondary carbons, the RBE magnitude typically increased with the atomic number of the fragment, but RBE trends differed dramatically by model and beamline region (entrance, spread-out Bragg peak, and tail). Variations in fragment RBE were large enough to be apparent in biological dose predictions. This study demonstrated that fragmentation is a nonnegligible consideration in carbon radiotherapy. Our findings identified differences in RBE among specific fragments and the four models, contributing to variability in the total biological dose across models. Because these findings emphasize differences in how various models handle carbon beam fragments, greater care should be taken in characterization of secondary fragments in particle therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":20903,"journal":{"name":"Radiation research","volume":" ","pages":"96-106"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contribution of Nuclear Fragmentation to Dose and RBE in Carbon-Ion Radiotherapy.\",\"authors\":\"Shannon Hartzell, Fada Guan, Giuseppe Magro, Paige Taylor, Phillip J Taddei, Christine B Peterson, Stephen Kry\",\"doi\":\"10.1667/RADE-24-00164.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of carbon radiotherapy may be calculated using several models, including the microdosimetric kinetic model (MKM), stochastic MKM (SMKM), repair-misrepair-fixation (RMF) model, and local effect model I (LEM), which have not been thoroughly compared. In this work, we compared how these four models handle carbon beam fragmentation, providing insight into where model differences arise. Monoenergetic and spread-out Bragg peak carbon beams incident on a water phantom were simulated using Monte Carlo. Using these beams, input parameters for each model (microdosimetric spectra, DNA double-strand break yield, kinetic energy spectra, physical dose fragment contributions) were calculated for each contributing carbon beam fragment (hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, secondary carbon, primary carbon, electrons, and \\\"other\\\"). Scored input parameters for each fragment were used to calculate linear (α) and quadratic (β) parameters according to each model, which were combined with reference α and β values and absorbed physical dose to calculate RBE. Contributions from secondary fragments were found to exceed 30% of the total physical dose. Using identical beam parameters, the four models produced not only different RBE values but also different RBE trends. In all models, RBE was highest for secondary carbon ions. Beyond secondary carbons, the RBE magnitude typically increased with the atomic number of the fragment, but RBE trends differed dramatically by model and beamline region (entrance, spread-out Bragg peak, and tail). Variations in fragment RBE were large enough to be apparent in biological dose predictions. This study demonstrated that fragmentation is a nonnegligible consideration in carbon radiotherapy. Our findings identified differences in RBE among specific fragments and the four models, contributing to variability in the total biological dose across models. Because these findings emphasize differences in how various models handle carbon beam fragments, greater care should be taken in characterization of secondary fragments in particle therapy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20903,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiation research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"96-106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiation research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1667/RADE-24-00164.1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiation research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1667/RADE-24-00164.1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

碳放射治疗的可变相对生物有效性(RBE)可以通过几种模型来计算,包括微剂量动力学模型(MKM)、随机MKM (SMKM)、修复-错修复-固定(RMF)模型和局部效应模型I (LEM),这些模型尚未得到充分的比较。在这项工作中,我们比较了这四种模型如何处理碳束碎片,从而深入了解模型差异产生的地方。利用蒙特卡罗模拟了单能和展开布拉格峰碳光束入射到水影上的过程。使用这些光束,计算每个模型的输入参数(微剂量谱、DNA双链断裂率、动能谱、物理剂量片段贡献),为每个贡献碳束片段(氢、氦、锂、铍、硼、仲碳、伯碳、电子和“其他”)。将每个片段的评分输入参数根据每个模型计算线性(α)和二次(β)参数,并结合参考α、β值和吸收物理剂量计算RBE。发现次生碎片的贡献超过总物理剂量的30%。在相同的光束参数下,4种模型不仅得到了不同的RBE值,而且得到了不同的RBE趋势。在所有模型中,仲碳离子的RBE最高。除仲碳原子外,RBE的量级一般随原子序数的增加而增加,但随模型和光束线区域(入口、展开布拉格峰和尾)的不同,RBE的趋势有显著差异。片段RBE的变化足够大,在生物剂量预测中是明显的。本研究表明碎片化是碳放射治疗中不可忽视的考虑因素。我们的研究结果确定了特定片段和四种模型之间RBE的差异,这导致了模型之间总生物剂量的差异。由于这些发现强调了不同模型处理碳束碎片的方式的差异,因此在粒子治疗中对次级碎片的表征应该更加小心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Contribution of Nuclear Fragmentation to Dose and RBE in Carbon-Ion Radiotherapy.

Variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of carbon radiotherapy may be calculated using several models, including the microdosimetric kinetic model (MKM), stochastic MKM (SMKM), repair-misrepair-fixation (RMF) model, and local effect model I (LEM), which have not been thoroughly compared. In this work, we compared how these four models handle carbon beam fragmentation, providing insight into where model differences arise. Monoenergetic and spread-out Bragg peak carbon beams incident on a water phantom were simulated using Monte Carlo. Using these beams, input parameters for each model (microdosimetric spectra, DNA double-strand break yield, kinetic energy spectra, physical dose fragment contributions) were calculated for each contributing carbon beam fragment (hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, secondary carbon, primary carbon, electrons, and "other"). Scored input parameters for each fragment were used to calculate linear (α) and quadratic (β) parameters according to each model, which were combined with reference α and β values and absorbed physical dose to calculate RBE. Contributions from secondary fragments were found to exceed 30% of the total physical dose. Using identical beam parameters, the four models produced not only different RBE values but also different RBE trends. In all models, RBE was highest for secondary carbon ions. Beyond secondary carbons, the RBE magnitude typically increased with the atomic number of the fragment, but RBE trends differed dramatically by model and beamline region (entrance, spread-out Bragg peak, and tail). Variations in fragment RBE were large enough to be apparent in biological dose predictions. This study demonstrated that fragmentation is a nonnegligible consideration in carbon radiotherapy. Our findings identified differences in RBE among specific fragments and the four models, contributing to variability in the total biological dose across models. Because these findings emphasize differences in how various models handle carbon beam fragments, greater care should be taken in characterization of secondary fragments in particle therapy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Radiation research
Radiation research 医学-核医学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.80%
发文量
179
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Radiation Research publishes original articles dealing with radiation effects and related subjects in the areas of physics, chemistry, biology and medicine, including epidemiology and translational research. The term radiation is used in its broadest sense and includes specifically ionizing radiation and ultraviolet, visible and infrared light as well as microwaves, ultrasound and heat. Effects may be physical, chemical or biological. Related subjects include (but are not limited to) dosimetry methods and instrumentation, isotope techniques and studies with chemical agents contributing to the understanding of radiation effects.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信