Research Article

Biological dose calculation using variable RBE in Single- and Multi-field Optimization IMPT plans for 3 Brain Tumor patients

Ryosuke Kohno*, Wenhua Cao, Pablo Yepes, Xuemin Bai, Falk Poenisch, David R Grosshans, Tetsuo Akimoto and Radhe Mohan

Published: 02/14/2019 | Volume 3 - Issue 1 | Pages: 001-007


Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate biological dose in single-field optimization (SFO) and multi-field optimization (MFO) intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans for brain tumor patients that used a fixed relative biological effectiveness (FRBE) and those that used a variable RBE (VRBE).

Materials and methods: SFO and MFO IMPT plans were planned by the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system for three brain tumor patients. Dose and linear energy transfer (LET) distributions for each plan were recomputed using an in-house fast Monte Carlo dose calculator system, and then biological dose distributions were calculated with a FRBE of 1.1 or with a previously published VRBE model. We then compared biological dose distributions obtained by the VRBE with those obtained by the FRBE.

Results: Doses obtained by the VRBE for the gross tumor volume and clinical target volume in all plans were 1%-2% larger than those obtained by the FRBE. The minimum dose obtained by the VRBE for the brainstem in the SFO IMPT of one patient was 140% larger than that obtained by the FRBE, but the difference was only 5.3 cGy (RBE). The difference in maximum dose for the optic chiasm in the MFO IMPT of another patient was less than 3.2%, but the dose difference was 149.2 cGy (RBE). We also found that no major differences were seen between the biological dose differences in the SFO IMPT plans and those in the MFO IMPT plans.

Conclusion: We could observe biological dose differences between the FRBE and the VRBE in the SFO and the MFO IMPT plans for brain tumor patients.

Read Full Article HTML DOI: 10.29328/journal.jro.1001027 Cite this Article


  1. Paganetti H. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and linear energy transfer. Phys Med Biol. 2014; 59: R419-R472. Ref.:
  2. Wedenberg M, Toma-Dasu I. Disregarding RBE variation in treatment plan comparison may lead to bias in favor of proton plans. Med Phys. 2014; 41: 091706-9. Ref.:
  3. Paganetti H. Relating proton treatments to photon treatments via the relative biological effectiveness-should we revise current clinical practice? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015; 91: 892-894. Ref.:
  4. Chen Y, Grassberger C, Li J, Hong TS, Paganetti H. Impact of potentially variable RBE in liver proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2018; 63: 195001. Ref.:
  5. Pedroni E, Bacher R, Blattmann H, Bohringer T, Coray A, et al. The 200-MeV proton therapy project at the Paul Scherrer Institute: conceptual design and practical realization. Med Phys. 1995; 22: 37-53. Ref.:
  6. Gillin MT, Sahoo N, Bues M, Ciangaru G, Poenisch F, et al. Commissioning of the discrete spot scanning proton beam delivery system at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Proton Therapy Center, Houston. Med Phys. 2010; 37: 154-163. Ref.:
  7. Kohno R, Hotta K, Dohmae T, Matsuzaki T, Nishio T, et al. Development of continuous line scanning system prototype for proton beam therapy. Int J Particle Ther. 4: 429-438. Ref.:
  8. Kooy HM, Grassberger C. Intensity modulated proton therapy. Br J Radiol. 2015; 88: 20150195 Ref.:
  9. Frese MC, Wilkens JJ, Huber PE, Jensen AD, Oelfke U, et al. Application of constant vs. variable relative biological effectiveness in treatment planning of intensity-modulated proton therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 79: 80-88. Ref.:
  10. Kohno R, Cao W, Yepes P, Bai X, Poenisch F, et al. Biological dose comparison between a Fixed RBE and a variable RBE in SFO and MFO IMPT with various multi-beams for brain cancer. IJMPCERO. 2019; 8: 32-45. Ref.:
  11. Yepes P, Randeniya S, Taddei PJ, Newhauser WD. A track repeating algorithm for fast Monte Carlo dose calculations of proton radiotherapy. Nucl Technol. 2009; 168: 736-740. Ref.:
  12. Yepes P, Randeniya S, Taddei P J, Newhauser WD. Monte Carlo fast dose calculator for proton radiotherapy: application to a voxelized geometry representing a patient with prostate cancer. Phys Med Biol. 2009; 54: N21-N28. Ref.:
  13. Yepes P, Eley JG, Liu A, Mirkovic D, Randeniya S, et al. Validation of a track repeating algorithm for intensity modulated proton therapy: clinical cases study. Phys Med Biol 2016; 61: 2633-2645. Ref.:
  14. Kohno R, Cao W, Yepes P, Bai X, Poenisch F, et al. Dose Comparison between Eclipse Dose Calculation and Fast Dose Calculator in Single- and Multi-Field Optimization Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Plans with Various Multi-Beams for Brain Cancer. IJMPCERO 2017; 6: 421-432. Ref.:
  15. Wilkens JJ, Oelfke U. A phenomenological model for the relative biological effectiveness in therapeutic proton beams. Phys Med Biol. 2004; 49: 2811-2825. Ref.:
  16. Carabe-Fernandez A, Dale RG, Jones B. The incorporation of the concept of minimum RBE (RbEmin) into the linear-quadratic model and the potential for improved radiobiological analysis of high- LET treatments. Int J Radiat Biol. 2007; 83: 27-39. Ref.:
  17. Carabe-Fernandez A, Dale RG, Hopewell JW, Jones B, Paganetti H. Fractionation effects in particle radiotherapy: implications for hypo-fractionation regimes. Phys Med Biol. 2010; 55: 5685-5700. Ref.:
  18. Wedenberg M, Lind BK, Hardemark B. A model for the relative biological effectiveness of protons: the tissue specific parameter alpha/beta of photons is a predictor for the sensitivity to LET changes. Acta Oncol. 2013; 52: 580-588. Ref.:
  19. McNamara AL, Schuemann J, Paganetti H. A phenomenological relative biological effectiveness (RBE) model for proton therapy based on all published in vitro cell survival data. Phys Med Biol. 2015; 60: 8399-8416. Ref.:
  20. Patel D, Bronk L, Guan F, Peeler CR, Brons S, et al. Optimization of Monte Carlo transport parameters and validation of a novel high throughput experimental setup to measure the biological effects of particle beams. Med Phys.2017; 44: 6061-6073. Ref.: