Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende Patientenratgeber
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Radiological Physics and Technology
Erschienen in:

02.05.2023 | Review Article

Creation, evolution, and future challenges of ion beam therapy from a medical physicist’s viewpoint (Part 2). Chapter 2. Biophysical model, treatment planning system and image guided radiotherapy

verfasst von: Masahiro Endo

Erschienen in: Radiological Physics and Technology | Ausgabe 2/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

When an ion beam penetrates deeply into the body, its kinetic energy decreases, and its biological effect increases due to the change of the beam quality. To give a uniform biological effect to the target, it is necessary to reduce the absorbed dose with the depth. A bio-physical model estimating the relationship between ion beam quality and biological effect is necessary to determine the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of the ion beam that changes with depth. For this reason, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) and GSI have each developed their own model at the starting of the ion beam therapy. Also, NIRS developed a new model at the starting of the scanning irradiation. Although the Local Effect Model (LEM) at the GSI and the modified Microdosimetric Kinetic Model (MKM) at the NIRS, the both are currently used, can similarly predict radiation quality-induced changes in surviving fraction of cultured cell, the clinical RBE-weighted doses for the same absorbed dose are different. This is because the LEM uses X-rays as a reference for clinical RBE, whereas the modified MKM uses carbon ion beam as a reference and multiplies it by a clinical factor of 2.41. Therefore, both are converted through the absorbed dose. In PART 2, I will describe the development of such a bio-physical model, as well as the birth and evolution of a treatment planning system and image guided radiotherapy.
Literatur
1.
Endo M. Construction of Heavy Ion Accelerator in Chiba (HIMAC) and its consequences—from medical physics viewpoint: Part 1. Period until treatment start (1975–1994). Jpn J Med Phys. 2020;40:61–7 (in Japanese).
2.
Endo M. Construction of Heavy Ion Accelerator in Chiba (HIMAC) and its consequences—From medical physics viewpoint: Part 2. Advancement of broad beam irradiation and development of a new compact-sized therapy accelerator (1994–2010). Jpn J Med Phys. 2020;40:97–105 (in Japanese).
3.
Endo M. Construction of heavy ion accelerator in Chiba (HIMAC) and its consequences- From medical physics viewpoint: Part 3. Development of scanning irradiation and construction of new facility (2006–). Jpn J Med Phys. 2020;40:126–38 (in Japanese).
4.
Endo M. Construction of heavy ion accelerator in Chiba (HIMAC) and its consequences—From medical physics viewpoint: Part 4. Outline of clinical research and future prospects. Jpn J Med Phys. 2021;41:10–21 (in Japanese).
5.
Endo M. Creation, evolution, and future challenges of ion beam therapy from a medical physicist’s viewpoint (part 1). Introduction and Chapter 1. Accelerator and beam delivery system. Radiol Phys Technol. 2022;15:271–90.PubMedCrossRef
6.
7.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Biological and medical research with accelerated heavy Ions at the Bevalac, 1974–1977. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-5610, 1977.
8.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Biological and medical research with accelerated heavy Ions at the Bevalac, 1977–1980. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11220, 1980.
9.
Furusawa Y, Fukutsu K, Aoki M. Inactivation of aerobic and hypoxic cells from three different cell lines by accelerated 3He-, 12C- and 20Ne-ion beams. Radiat Res. 2000;154:485–96.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Lyman JT, Howard J, Kanstein L, et al.: Radiological physics of heavy charged-particle beams used for therapy. In: Biological and medical research with accelerated heavy Ions at the Bevalac, 1977–1980, pp. 319–324. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11220, 1980.
11.
Petti PL, Lyman JT, Renner TT, et al. Design of beam-modulating devices for charged particle therapy. Med Phys. 1991;18:513–8.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Kanai T, Furusawa Y, Fukutsu K, et al. Irradiation of mixed beam and design of spread-out Bragg peak for heavy-ion. Radiat Res. 1997;147:78–85.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zaider M, Rossi H. The synergistic effects of different radiations. Rad Res. 1980;83:732–9.CrossRef
14.
Kanai T, Endo M, Minohara S, et al. Biophysical characteristics of HIMAC clinical irradiation system for heavy-ion radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;44:201–10.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Kanai T, Matsufuji N, Miyamoto T, et al. Examination of GyE system for HIMAC carbon therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64:650–6.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Boone ML, Lawrence JH, Connor WG, et al. Introduction to the use of protons and heavy ions in radiation therapy: historical perspective. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1977;3:65–9.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Hounsfield GN. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography). 1. Description of system. Br J Radiol. 1973;46:1016–22.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Endo M, Koyama H, Minohara S, et al. HIPLAN-A heavy ion treatment planning system at HIMAC. J JASTRO. 1996;8:231–8.
19.
Goitein M, Abrams M, Rowell D, et al. Multi–dimensional treatment planning: II. Beam’s eye–view, back projection and projection through CT sections. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1983;9:789–97.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Endo M, Mori S. Michael Goitein (1939–2016): inventor of three-dimensional planning systems with image-guided beam delivery for radiation therapy. Radiol Phys Technol. 2021;14:1–5.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Chen GTY, Castro JR, Quivey JM. Heavy charged particle therapy. Ann Rev Biophys Bioeng. 1981;10:499–520.CrossRef
22.
Koyama H, Endo M. Development of digitally reconstructed radiograph. Jpn J Med Phys. 1994;14:198–200.
23.
Miyahara N, Endo M, Nakamura Y. Automatic fabrication of compensator/patient collimator in heavy ion radiotherapy. Jpn J Med Phys. 1995;15:9–13 (in Japanese).
24.
Schneider U, Pedroni E, Lomax A. The calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 1996;41:111–24.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Kanematsu N, Matsufuji N, Kohno R, et al. A CT calibration method based on the polybinary tissue model for radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:1053–64.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Kanematsu N, Inaniwa T, Nakao M. Modeling of body tissues for Monte Carlo simulation of radiotherapy treatments planned with conventional X-ray CT systems. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61:5037–50.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Yang M, Zhu XR, Park PC, et al. Comprehensive analysis of proton range uncertainties related to patient stopping-power-ratio estimation using the stoichiometric calibration. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:4095–115.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Saito M. Potential of dual-energy subtraction for converting CT numbers to electron density based on a single linear relationship. Med Phys. 2012;39:2021–30.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Petti P. Differential-pencil-beam dose calculations for charged particles. Med Phys. 1992;19:137–49.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Hong L, Goitein M, Bucciolini M, et al. A pencil beam algorism for proton dose calculations. Phys Med Biol. 1996;41:1305–30.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Kanematsu N, Akagi T, Futami Y, et al. A proton dose calculation code for treatment planning based on the pencil beam algorithm. Jpn J Med Phys. 1998;18:88–103.
32.
Kanematsu N, Yonai S, Ishizaki A. The grid-dose-spreading algorithm for dose distribution calculation in heavy charged particle radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2008;35:602–7.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Kanematsu N. Dose calculation algorithm of fast fine-heterogeneity correction for heavy charged particle radiotherapy. Phys Med. 2011;27:97–102.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Scholz M, Kellerer AM, Kraft-Weyrather W, et al. Computation of cell survival in heavy ion beams for therapy-the model and its approximation. Radiat Environ Biophys. 1997;36:59–66.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Krämer M, Scholz M. Treatment planning for heavy-ion radiotherapy: calculation and optimization of biologically effective dose. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45:3319–30.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Krämer M, Scholz M. Rapid calculation of biological effects in ion radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:1959–70.PubMedCrossRef
37.
38.
Krämer M, Jäkel O, Haberer T, et al. Treatment planning for heavy-ion radiotherapy: physical beam model and dose optimization. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45:3299–317.PubMedCrossRef
39.
40.
Jäkel O, Krämer M, Karger CP, et al. Treatment planning for heavy ion radiotherapy: clinical implementation and application. Phys Med Biol. 2001;46:1101–16.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Gademann G, Schlegel W, Bükelbach J, et al. Dreidimensionale bestrahlungsplanung. Untersuchungen zur klinischen integration. Strahlenther Onkol. 1993;169:159–67 (in German).PubMed
42.
Stewart RD, Butkus MP, Hawkins RB, et al. A comparison of mechanism-inspired models for particle relative biological effectiveness (RBE). Med Phys. 2018;45:e925–52.PubMedCrossRef
43.
44.
Liermann J, Naumann P, Weykamp F, et al. Effectiveness of carbon ion radiation in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Front Oncol. 2021;11:708884.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
46.
Elsässer T, Scholz M. Cluster effects within the local effect model. Radiat Res. 2007;167:319–29.PubMedCrossRef
47.
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. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71:866–72.PubMedCrossRef
48.
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. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78:1177–83.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Hawkins RB. A statistical theory of cell killing by radiation of varying linear energy transfer. Radiat Res. 1994;140:366–74.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Hawkins RB. A microdosimetric-kinetic theory of the dependence of the RBE for cell death on LET. Med Phys. 1998;25:1157–70.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Hawkins RB. A microdosimetric-kinetic model for the effect of non-Poisson distribution of lethal lesions on the variation of RBE with LET. Radiat Res. 2003;160:61–9.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Kellerer A, Rossi H. The theory of dual radiation action. In: Ebert M, Howard A, editors. Current topics in radiation research, vol. 8. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company; 1974. p. 85–158.
53.
Kellerer A, Rossi H. A generalized formulation of dual radiation action. Rad Res. 1978;75:471–88.CrossRef
54.
Kase Y, Kanai T, Matsumoto Y, et al. Microdosimetric measurements and estimation of human cell survival for heavy-ion beams. Radiat Res. 2006;166:629–38.PubMedCrossRef
55.
56.
Inaniwa T, Furukawa T, Kase Y, et al. Treatment planning for a scanned carbon beam with a modified microdosimetric kinetic model. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:6721–37.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Inaniwa T, Kanematsu N. A trichrome beam model for biological dose calculation in scanned carbon-ion radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:437–51.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Goitein M. A technique for calculating the influence of thin inhomogeneities on charged particle beams. Med Phys. 1978;5:258–64.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Schaffner B. Pedroni E and Lomax A 1999 Dose calculation models for proton treatment planning using a dynamic beam delivery system: an attempt to include density heterogeneity effects in the analytical dose calculation. Phys Med Biol. 1999;44:27–41.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Kanematsu N, Komori M, Yonai S, et al. Dynamic splitting of Gaussian pencil beams in heterogeneity-correction algorithms for radiotherapy with heavy charged particles. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:2015–27.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Inaniwa T, Furukawa T, Nagano A, et al. Field-size effect of physical doses in carbon-ion scanning using range shifter plates. Med Phys. 2009;36:2889–97.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Inaniwa T, Kanematsu N, Hara Y, et al. Implementation of a triple Gaussian beam model with subdivision and redefinition against density heterogeneities in treatment planning for scanned carbon-ion radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:5361–86.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Inaniwa T, Kanematsu N, Hara Y, et al. Nuclear-interaction correction of integrated depth dose in carbon-ion radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:421–35.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Inaniwa T, Kanematsu N, Tsuji H, et al. Influence of nuclear interactions in body tissues on tumor dose in carbon-ion radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2015;42:7132.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Inaniwa T, Kanematsu N, Matsufuji N, et al. Reformulation of a clinical-dose system for carbon-ion radiotherapy treatment planning at the National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Japan. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:3271–86.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Kase Y, Kanai T, Matsufuji N, et al. Biophysical calculation of cell survival probabilities using amorphous track structure models for heavy-ion irradiation. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:37–59.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Fossati P, Molinelli S, Matsufuji N, et al. Dose prescription in carbon ion radiotherapy: a planning study to compare NIRS and LEM approaches with a clinically-oriented strategy. Phys Med Biol. 2012;7:7543–54.CrossRef
68.
Steinsträter O, Grün R, Scholz U, et al. Mapping of RBE-weighted doses between HIMAC- and LEM-based treatment planning systems for carbon ion therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;84:854–60.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Endo M. History of medical physics. Radio Phys Technol. 2021;14:345–57.CrossRef
70.
Mori S, Kumagai M, Miki K, et al. Development of fast patient position verification software using 2D–3D image registration and its clinical experience. J Radiat Res. 2015;56:1–12.CrossRef
71.
Mori S, Kobayashi M, Kumagai M, et al. Development of a GPU based multithreaded software application to calculate digitally reconstructed radiographs for radiotherapy. Radio Phys Technol. 2009;2:40–5.CrossRef
72.
Kamada T, Tsujii H, Mizoe J, et al. A horizontal CT system dedicated to heavy-ion beam treatment. Radiother Oncol. 1999;50:235–7.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Yokoyama A, Kubota Y, Kawamura H, et al. Impact of inter-fractional anatomical changes on dose distributions in passive carbon-ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer: comparison of vertical and horizontal fields. Front Oncol. 2020;10:1264.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
74.
Tsuchida K, Minohara S, Kusano Y, et al. Interfractional robustness of scanning carbon ion radiotherapy for prostate cancer: an analysis based on dose distribution from daily in-room CT images. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021;22:130–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
75.
Shirato H, Shimizu S, Kunieda T, et al. Physical aspects of a real-time tumor-tracking system for gated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;48:1187–95.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Shimizu S, Miyamoto N, Matsuura T, et al. A proton beam therapy system dedicated to spot-scanning increases accuracy with moving tumors by real-time imaging and gating and reduces equipment size. PLoS ONE. 2014;9: e94971.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
77.
Mori S, Karube M, Shirai T, et al. Carbon-ion pencil beam scanning treatment with gated markerless tumor tracking: an analysis of positional accuracy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95:258–66.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Hirai R, Sakata Y, Tanizawa A, et al. Real-time tumor tracking using fluoroscopic imaging with deep neural network analysis. Phys Med. 2019;59:22–9.PubMedCrossRef
79.
Furukawa T, Hara Y, Mizushima K, et al. Development of NIRS pencil beam scanning system for carbon ion radiotherapy. Nucl Instrum Method. 2017;B404:361–7.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Creation, evolution, and future challenges of ion beam therapy from a medical physicist’s viewpoint (Part 2). Chapter 2. Biophysical model, treatment planning system and image guided radiotherapy
verfasst von
Masahiro Endo
Publikationsdatum
02.05.2023
Verlag
Springer Nature Singapore
Erschienen in
Radiological Physics and Technology / Ausgabe 2/2023
Print ISSN: 1865-0333
Elektronische ISSN: 1865-0341
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-023-00722-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2023

Dose estimation for cone-beam computed tomography in image-guided radiation therapy for pelvic cancer using adult mesh-type reference computational phantoms

  • Research Article

Impact of bone-equivalent solution density in a thoracic spine phantom on bone single-photon emission computed tomography image quality and quantification

  • Research Article

Nationwide survey on the current situation of quality control of diagnostic displays in Japan

  • Special Report

Comparison of dosimetric parameters and robustness for rotational errors in fractionated stereotactic irradiation using automated noncoplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for patients with brain metastases: single- versus multi-isocentric technique

  • Research Article

Long-term experience in quality assurance of on-rail computed tomography systems for image-guided radiotherapy using in-house multifunctional phantoms

  • Research Article

Modulation transfer function measurement of three-dimensional T1-weighted turbo spin echo sequence with low refocusing flip angles using single-plate method

  • Clinical Technique

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

KI-gestütztes Mammografiescreening überzeugt im Praxistest

Mit dem Einsatz künstlicher Intelligenz lässt sich die Detektionsrate im Mammografiescreening offenbar deutlich steigern. Mehr unnötige Zusatzuntersuchungen sind laut der Studie aus Deutschland nicht zu befürchten.

Stumme Schlaganfälle − ein häufiger Nebenbefund im Kopf-CT?

In 4% der in der Notfallambulanz initiierten zerebralen Bildgebung sind „alte“ Schlaganfälle zu erkennen. Gar nicht so selten handelt es sich laut einer aktuellen Studie dabei um unbemerkte Insulte. Bietet sich hier womöglich die Chance auf ein effektives opportunistisches Screening?

Die elektronische Patientenakte kommt: Das sollten Sie jetzt wissen

Am 15. Januar geht die „ePA für alle“ zunächst in den Modellregionen an den Start. Doch schon bald soll sie in allen Praxen zum Einsatz kommen. Was ist jetzt zu tun? Was müssen Sie wissen? Wir geben in einem FAQ Antworten auf 21 Fragen.

Stören weiße Wände und viel Licht die Bildqualitätskontrolle?

Wenn es darum geht, die technische Qualität eines Mammogramms zu beurteilen, könnten graue Wandfarbe und reduzierte Beleuchtung im Bildgebungsraum von Vorteil sein. Darauf deuten zumindest Ergebnisse einer kleinen Studie hin. 

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise