In order to integrate radiobiological modelling with clinical treatment planning for proton radiotherapy, we extended our in-house treatment planning system FoCa with a 3D analytical algorithm to calculate linear energy transfer (LET) in voxelized patient geometries. Both active scanning and passive scattering delivery modalities are supported. The analytical calculation is much faster than the Monte-Carlo (MC) method and it can be implemented in the inverse treatment planning optimization suite, allowing us to create LET-based objectives in inverse planning. The LET was calculated by combining a 1D analytical approach including a novel correction for secondary protons with pencil-beam type LET-kernels. Then, these LET kernels were inserted into the proton-convolution-superposition algorithm in FoCa. The analytical LET distributions were benchmarked against MC simulations carried out in Geant4. A cohort of simple phantom and patient plans representing a wide variety of sites (prostate, lung, brain, head and neck) was selected. The calculation algorithm was able to reproduce the MC LET to within 6% (1 standard deviation) for low-LET areas (under 1.7 keV μm(-1)) and within 22% for the high-LET areas above that threshold. The dose and LET distributions can be further extended, using radiobiological models, to include radiobiological effectiveness (RBE) calculations in the treatment planning system. This implementation also allows for radiobiological optimization of treatments by including RBE-weighted dose constraints in the inverse treatment planning process.

Purpose Clinical treatment planning protocols for protons recommend a uniform value radiobiological effectiveness (RBE) of protons of 1.1 throughout the treatment field, despite evidence from in‐vitro and animal studies that proton RBE increases with linear energy transfer (LET), causing tissues placed distally to the target location to receive a presumably higher biological dose than estimated. While several voices in the medical physics community have advocated for variable RBE‐based optimization, the uncertainties in RBE models have prevented its implementation in clinical practice, since an overestimation of RBE could cause significant target underdosage. Methods We propose a mixed RBE model (MultiRBE), where a uniform RBE is used in the target contours to ensure an adequate tumor coverage in terms of physical dose, but a variable RBE is used elsewhere. Our model was implemented in the open‐source treatment planning system matRad and three example cases were planned: a homogeneous phantom, a prostate tumor and a head‐and‐neck case. MultiRBE was used for plan optimization, and the produced plans were subsequently evaluated in terms of physical dose coverage (V95%) and variable RBE‐weighted dose in organs at risk and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP), where prediction models were available. Results The planning algorithm showed potential for reducing the biological dose in organs surrounding the planning target and thus decreasing the probability for complications in normal tissue (by up to 62% in the prostate case and 37% in the head‐and‐neck patient). This was achieved without compromising the target coverage or homogeneity in terms of physical dose, as a result of a smarter redistribution of dose among the surrounding tissues with regard to the optimization constraints. Conclusions The results prove the ability of the MultiRBE model to reduce biological dose at healthy tissues without compromising the dose coverage of the tumor, with independence of the variable RBE models used.

Proton therapy has advantages and pitfalls comparing with photon therapy in radiation therapy. Among the limitations of protons in clinical practice we can selectively mention: uncertainties in range, lateral penumbra, deposition of higher LET outside the target, entrance dose, dose in the beam path, dose constraints in critical organs close to the target volume, organ movements and cost. In this review, we combine proposals under study to mitigate those pitfalls by using individually or in combination: (a) biological approaches of beam management in time (very high dose rate “FLASH” irradiations in the order of 100 Gy/s) and (b) modulation in space (a combination of mini-beams of millimetric extent), together with mechanical approaches such as (c) rotational techniques (optimized in partial arcs) and, in an effort to reduce cost, (d) gantry-less delivery systems. In some cases, these proposals are synergic (e.g., FLASH and minibeams), in others they are hardly compatible (mini-beam and rotation). Fixed lines have been used in pioneer centers, or for specific indications (ophthalmic, radiosurgery,…), they logically evolved to isocentric gantries. The present proposals to produce fixed lines are somewhat controversial. Rotational techniques, minibeams and FLASH in proton therapy are making their way, with an increasing degree of complexity in these three approaches, but with a high interest in the basic science and clinical communities. All of them must be proven in clinical applications.