4.6 Review

RBE and related modeling in carbon-ion therapy

期刊

PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa9102

关键词

carbon ion radiotherapy; relative biological effectiveness (RBE); experimental RBE data; RBE models; review

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [KFO 214, KA 2679/3-1, GL 893/1-1]
  2. German Cancer Aid [111434]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon ion therapy is a promising evolving modality in radiotherapy to treat tumors that are radioresistant against photon treatments. As carbon ions are more effective in normal and tumor tissue, the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) has to be calculated by bio-mathematical models and has to be considered in the dose prescription. This review (i) introduces the concept of the RBE and its most important determinants, (ii) describes the physical and biological causes of the increased RBE for carbon ions, (iii) summarizes available RBE measurements in vitro and in vivo, and (iv) describes the concepts of the clinically applied RBE models (mixed beam model, local effect model, and microdosimetric-kinetic model), and (v) the way they are introduced into clinical application as well as (vi) their status of experimental and clinical validation, and finally (vii) summarizes the current status of the use of the RBE concept in carbon ion therapy and points out clinically relevant conclusions as well as open questions. The RBE concept has proven to be a valuable concept for dose prescription in carbon ion radiotherapy, however, different centers use different RBE models and therefore care has to be taken when transferring results from one center to another. Experimental studies significantly improve the understanding of the dependencies and limitations of RBE models in clinical application. For the future, further studies investigating quantitatively the differential effects between normal tissues and tumors are needed accompanied by clinical studies on effectiveness and toxicity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据