Shoot-through proton FLASH irradiation lowers linear energy transfer in organs at risk for neurological tumors and is robust against density variations

Esther Kneepkens*, Cecile J A Wolfs, Roel-Germ Wanders, Erik Traneus, Danielle Eekers, Frank Verhaegen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

The goal of the study was to test the hypothesis that shoot-through FLASH proton beams would lead to lower dose-averaged LET (LET ) values in critical organs, while providing at least equal normal tissue sparing as clinical proton therapy plans. 

 For five neurological tumor patients, Pencil Beam Scanning (PBS) shoot-through plans were made, using the maximum energy of 227 MeV and assuming a hypothetical FLASH protective factor (FPF) of 1.5. The effect of different FPF ranging from 1.2-1.8 on the clinical goals were also considered. LET was calculated for the clinical plan and the shoot-through plan, applying a 2 Gy total dose threshold (RayStation 8A/9B and 9A-IonRPG). Robust evaluation was performed considering density uncertainty (±3% throughout entire volume).

 
Clinical plans showed large LET variations compared to shoot-through plans and the maximum LET in OAR is 1.2 - 8 times lower for the latter. Although less conformal, shoot-through plans met the same clinical goals as the clinical plans, for FLASH protection factors above 1.4. The FLASH shoot-through plans were more robust to density uncertainties with a maximum OAR D increase of 0.6 Gy versus 5.7 Gy in the clinical plans.

 
Shoot-through proton FLASH beams avoid uncertainties in LET distributions and proton range, provide adequate target coverage, meet planning constraints and are robust to density variations.&#xD.
Original languageEnglish
Article number215020
Number of pages11
JournalPhysics in Medicine and Biology
Volume68
Issue number21
Early online date11 Oct 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Nov 2023

Keywords

  • FLASH
  • linear energy transfer
  • proton therapy
  • relative biological effectiveness

Cite this