Dose Rate Effects from the 1950s through to the Era of FLASH.

Numerous dose rate effects have been described over the past 6-7 decades in the radiation biology and radiation oncology literature depending on the dose rate range being discussed. This review focuses on the impact and understanding of altering dose rates in the context of radiation therapy, but does not discuss dose rate effects as relevant to radiation protection. The review starts with a short historic review of early studies on dose rate effects, considers mechanisms thought to underlie dose rate dependencies, then discusses some current issues in clinical findings with altered dose rates, the importance of dose rate in brachytherapy, and the current timely topic of the use of very high dose rates, so-called FLASH radiotherapy. The discussion includes dose rate effects in vitro in cultured cells, in in vivo experimental systems and in the clinic, including both tumors and normal tissues. Gaps in understanding dose rate effects are identified, as are opportunities for improving clinical use of dose rate modulation.

Possible association of dose rate and the development of late visual toxicity for patients with intracranial tumours treated with pencil beam scanned proton therapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Rare but severe toxicities of the optic apparatus have been observed after treatment of intracranial tumours with proton therapy. Some adverse events have occurred at unusually low dose levels and are thus difficult to understand considering dose metrics only. When transitioning from double scattering to pencil beam scanning, little consideration was given to increased dose rates observed with the latter delivery paradigm. We explored if dose rate related metrics could provide additional predicting factors for the development of late visual toxicities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiation-induced intracranial visual pathway lesions were delineated on MRI for all index cases. Voxel-wise maximum dose rate (MDR) was calculated for 2 patients with observed optic nerve toxicities (CTCAE grade 3 and 4), and 6 similar control cases. Additionally, linear energy transfer (LET) related dose enhancing metrics were investigated. RESULTS: For the index cases, which developed toxicities at low dose levels (mean, 50 GyRBE), some dose was delivered at higher instantaneous dose rates. While optic structures of non-toxicity cases were exposed to dose rates of up to 1 to 3.2 GyRBE/s, the pre-chiasmatic optic nerves of the 2 toxicity cases were exposed to dose rates above 3.7 GyRBE/s. LET-related metrics were not substantially different between the index and non-toxicity cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations reveal large variations in instantaneous dose rates experienced by different volumes within our patient cohort, even when considering the same indications and beam arrangement. High dose rate regions are spatially overlapping with the radiation induced toxicity areas in the follow up images. At this point, it is not feasible to establish causality between exposure to high dose rates and the development of late optic apparatus toxicities due to the low incidence of injury.

Voxel-wise dose rate calculation in clinical pencil beam scanning proton therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical outcomes after proton therapy have shown some variability that is not fully understood. Different approaches have been suggested to explain the biological outcome, but none has yet provided a comprehensive and satisfactory rationale for observed toxicities. The relatively recent transition from passive scattering (PS) to pencil beam scanning (PBS) treatments has significantly increased the voxel-wise dose rate in proton therapy. In addition, the dose rate distribution is no longer uniform along the cross section of the target but rather highly heterogeneous, following the spot placement. We suggest investigating dose rate as potential contributor to a more complex proton RBE model. Approach. Due to the time structure of the PBS beam delivery the instantaneous dose rate is highly variable voxel by voxel. Several possible parameters to represent voxel-wise dose rate for a given clinical PBS treatment plan are detailed. These quantities were implemented in the scripting environment of our treatment planning system, and computations experimentally verified. Sample applications to treated patient plans are shown. Main Results. Computed dose rates we experimentally confirmed. Dose rate maps vary depending on which method is used to represent them. Mainly, the underlying time and dose intervals chosen determine the topography of the resultant distributions. The maximum dose rates experienced by any target voxel in a given PBS treatment plan in our system range from ~100 to ~450 Gy(RBE)/min, a factor of 10 - 100 increase compared to PS. These dose rate distributions are very heterogeneous, with distinct hot spots. Significance. Voxel-wise dose rates for current clinical PBS treatment plans vary greatly from clinically established practice with PS. The exploration of different dose rate measures to evaluate potential correlations with observed clinical outcomes is suggested, potentially adding a missing component in the understanding of proton RBE.

Phantosmia during proton radiation and differences in frequency of phantosmia rates based on proton craniospinal irradiation technique for pediatric brain tumor patients.

BACKGROUND: Unusual olfactory perception, often referred to as "phantosmia" or "cacosmia" has been reported during brain radiotherapy (RT), but is infrequent and does not typically interfere with the ability to deliver treatment. We seek to determine the rate of phantosmia for patients treated with proton craniospinal irradiation (CSI) and identify any potential clinical or treatment-related associations. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 127 pediatric patients treated with CSI, followed by a boost to the brain for primary brain tumors in a single institution between 2016 and 2021. Proton CSI was delivered with passive scattering (PS) proton technique (n = 53) or pencil beam scanning technique (PBS) (n = 74). Within the PBS group, treatment delivery to the CSI utilized a single posterior (PA) field (n = 24) or two posterior oblique fields (n = 50). We collected data on phantom smell, nausea/vomiting, and the use of medical intervention. RESULTS: Our cohort included 80 males and 47 females. The median age of patients was 10 years (range: 3-21). Seventy-one patients (56%) received concurrent chemotherapy. During RT, 104 patients (82%) developed worsening nausea, while 63 patients (50%) reported episodes of emesis. Of those patients who were awake during CSI (n = 59), 17 (29%) reported phantosmia. In the non-sedated group, we found a higher rate of phantosmia in patients treated with PBS (n = 16, 42%) than PS (n = 1, 4.7%) (p = .002). Seventy-eight patients (61%) required medical intervention after developing nausea/vomiting or phantosmia during RT. Two patients required sedation due to the malodorous smell during CSI. We did not find any significant difference in nausea/vomiting based on treatment technique. CONCLUSION: Proton technique significantly influenced olfactory perception with greater rates of phantosmia with PBS compared to PS. Prospective studies should be performed to determine the cause of these findings and determine techniques to minimize phantosmia during radiation therapy.

A review of the clinical introduction of 4D particle therapy research concepts.

Background and purpose: Many 4D particle therapy research concepts have been recently translated into clinics, however, remaining substantial differences depend on the indication and institute-related aspects. This work aims to summarise current state-of-the-art 4D particle therapy technology and outline a roadmap for future research and developments. Material and methods: This review focused on the clinical implementation of 4D approaches for imaging, treatment planning, delivery and evaluation based on the 2021 and 2022 4D Treatment Workshops for Particle Therapy as well as a review of the most recent surveys, guidelines and scientific papers dedicated to this topic. Results: Available technological capabilities for motion surveillance and compensation determined the course of each 4D particle treatment. 4D motion management, delivery techniques and strategies including imaging were diverse and depended on many factors. These included aspects of motion amplitude, tumour location, as well as accelerator technology driving the necessity of centre-specific dosimetric validation. Novel methodologies for X-ray based image processing and MRI for real-time tumour tracking and motion management were shown to have a large potential for online and offline adaptation schemes compensating for potential anatomical changes over the treatment course. The latest research developments were dominated by particle imaging, artificial intelligence methods and FLASH adding another level of complexity but also opportunities in the context of 4D treatments. Conclusion: This review showed that the rapid technological advances in radiation oncology together with the available intrafractional motion management and adaptive strategies paved the way towards clinical implementation.