Interpreting the biological effects of protons as a function of physical quantity: linear energy transfer or microdosimetric lineal energy spectrum?

The choice of appropriate physical quantities to characterize the biological effects of ionizing radiation has evolved over time coupled with advances in scientific understanding. The basic hypothesis in radiation dosimetry is that the energy deposited by ionizing radiation initiates all the consequences of exposure in a biological sample (e.g., DNA damage, reproductive cell death). Physical quantities defined to characterize energy deposition have included dose, a measure of the mean energy imparted per unit mass of the target, and linear energy transfer (LET), a measure of the mean energy deposition per unit distance that charged particles traverse in a medium. The primary advantage of using the "dose and LET" physical system is its relative simplicity, especially for presenting and recording results. Inclusion of additional information such as the energy spectrum of charged particles renders this approach adequate to describe the biological effects of large dose levels from homogeneous sources. The primary disadvantage of this system is that it does not provide a unique description of the stochastic nature of radiation interactions. We and others have used dose-averaged LET (LET<sub>d</sub>) as a correlative physical quantity to the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of proton beams. This approach is based on established experimental findings that proton RBE increases with LET<sub>d</sub>. However, this approach might not be applicable to intensity-modulated proton therapy or other applications in which the proton energy spectrum is highly heterogeneous. In the current study, we irradiated cancer cells with scanning proton beams with identical LET<sub>d</sub> (3.4 keV/µm) but arising from two different proton energy/LET spectra (a narrow spectrum in group 1 and a widespread heterogeneous spectrum in group 2). Clonogenic survival after irradiation revealed significant differences in RBE at any cell surviving fraction: e.g., at a surviving fraction of 0.1, the RBE was 0.97 ± 0.03 in group 1 and 1.16 ± 0.04 in group 2 (p≤0.01), validating our hypothesis that LET<sub>d</sub> alone may not adequately indicate proton RBE. Further analysis showed that microdosimetric spectrum (the probability density function of the stochastic physical quantity lineal energy y) was helpful for interpreting observed differences in biological effects. However, more accurate use of microdosimetric spectrum to quantify RBE requires a cell line-specific mechanistic model.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2024-10-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-73619-x
Citations
16
Primary Topic
Radiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.70

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Interpreting the biological effects of protons as a function of physical quantity: linear energy transfer or microdosimetric lineal energy spectrum?

David R. Grosshans, Radhe Mohan, Lawrence F. Bronk, Mary Sobieski et al.
16 citations
Scientific Reports
Radiation Therapy and Dosimetry
6.70
article

Interpreting the biological effects of protons as a function of physical quantity: linear energy transfer or microdosimetric lineal energy spectrum?

David R. Grosshans, Radhe Mohan, Lawrence F. Bronk, Mary Sobieski, Matthew T. Kerr, L.A. Braby, Clifford Stephan, Fada Guan, Xiaodong Zhang, Yuting Li, Xiaochun Wang
article en
16 citations

Abstract

The choice of appropriate physical quantities to characterize the biological effects of ionizing radiation has evolved over time coupled with advances in scientific understanding. The basic hypothesis in radiation dosimetry is that the energy deposited by ionizing radiation initiates all the consequences of exposure in a biological sample (e.g., DNA damage, reproductive cell death). Physical quantities defined to characterize energy deposition have included dose, a measure of the mean energy imparted per unit mass of the target, and linear energy transfer (LET), a measure of the mean energy deposition per unit distance that charged particles traverse in a medium. The primary advantage of using the "dose and LET" physical system is its relative simplicity, especially for presenting and recording results. Inclusion of additional information such as the energy spectrum of charged particles renders this approach adequate to describe the biological effects of large dose levels from homogeneous sources. The primary disadvantage of this system is that it does not provide a unique description of the stochastic nature of radiation interactions. We and others have used dose-averaged LET (LET<sub>d</sub>) as a correlative physical quantity to the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of proton beams. This approach is based on established experimental findings that proton RBE increases with LET<sub>d</sub>. However, this approach might not be applicable to intensity-modulated proton therapy or other applications in which the proton energy spectrum is highly heterogeneous. In the current study, we irradiated cancer cells with scanning proton beams with identical LET<sub>d</sub> (3.4 keV/µm) but arising from two different proton energy/LET spectra (a narrow spectrum in group 1 and a widespread heterogeneous spectrum in group 2). Clonogenic survival after irradiation revealed significant differences in RBE at any cell surviving fraction: e.g., at a surviving fraction of 0.1, the RBE was 0.97 ± 0.03 in group 1 and 1.16 ± 0.04 in group 2 (p≤0.01), validating our hypothesis that LET<sub>d</sub> alone may not adequately indicate proton RBE. Further analysis showed that microdosimetric spectrum (the probability density function of the stochastic physical quantity lineal energy y) was helpful for interpreting observed differences in biological effects. However, more accurate use of microdosimetric spectrum to quantify RBE requires a cell line-specific mechanistic model.

Scientific ReportsVol. 14(1)
Texas A&M Health Science Center (US), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US), Yale University (US), Texas A&M University (US)
Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, University of Texas at Austin, National Institutes of Health, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, National Cancer Institute
Affordable and clean energy
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Radiation Therapy and Dosimetry
6.70
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.