Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHenjum, Helge
dc.contributor.authorDahle, Tordis Johnsen
dc.contributor.authorFjæra, Lars Fredrik
dc.contributor.authorRørvik, Eivind
dc.contributor.authorPilskog, Sara Margareta Cecilia
dc.contributor.authorStokkevåg, Camilla H.
dc.contributor.authorMairani, Andrea
dc.contributor.authorYtre-Hauge, Kristian Smeland
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-17T07:54:22Z
dc.date.available2022-02-17T07:54:22Z
dc.date.created2021-12-03T12:30:56Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.issn2452-1094
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2979525
dc.description.abstractPurpose: Variable relative biological effectiveness (RBE) models allow for differences in linear energy transfer (LET), physical dose, and tissue type to be accounted for when quantifying and optimizing the biological damage of protons. These models are complex and fraught with uncertainties, and therefore, simpler RBE optimization strategies have also been suggested. Our aim was to compare several biological optimization strategies for proton therapy by evaluating their performance in different clinical cases. Methods and Materials: Two different optimization strategies were compared: full variable RBE optimization and differential RBE optimization, which involve applying fixed RBE for the planning target volume (PTV) and variable RBE in organs at risk (OARs). The optimization strategies were coupled to 2 variable RBE models and 1 LET-weighted dose model, with performance demonstrated on 3 different clinical cases: brain, head and neck, and prostate tumors. Results: In cases with low in the tumor, the full RBE optimization strategies had a large effect, with up to 10% reduction in RBE-weighted dose to the PTV and OARs compared with the reference plan, whereas smaller variations (<5%) were obtained with differential optimization. For tumors with high the differential RBE optimization strategy showed a greater reduction in RBE-weighted dose to the OARs compared with the reference plan and the full RBE optimization strategy. Conclusions: Differences between the optimization strategies varied across the studied cases, influenced by both biological and physical parameters. Whereas full RBE optimization showed greater OAR sparing, awareness of underdosage to the target must be carefully considered.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleThe Organ Sparing Potential of Different Biological Optimization Strategies in Proton Therapyen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2021 The Authorsen_US
dc.source.articlenumber100776en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.adro.2021.100776
dc.identifier.cristin1964254
dc.source.journalAdvances in Radiation Oncologyen_US
dc.identifier.citationAdvances in Radiation Oncology. 2021, 6 (6), 100776.en_US
dc.source.volume6en_US
dc.source.issue6en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internasjonal