The fractionation dependence of tumor control in proton therapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Purpose The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of tumor control for proton beam therapy (PBT) compared to photon radiotherapy (RT) is typically assumed to be independent of fractionation. To test this, we modeled published PBT outcome results for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatments across a range of fractionation schedules. Materials and Methods All published and analyzable cohorts were included (399 patients, 413 treated lesions). Two models were used to fit the data: a previously published tumor simulation model that fits photon RT results of NSCLC across all fractionation regimes and the Fowler LQ model with a kick-off time term. The treatment effect of each cohort was referenced to the photon equivalent dose through mechanistic model simulations in a 2 Gy/weekday scenario, with radiobiological parameters determined to simultaneously best-fit all fractionation results. The tumor control RBE of each published treatment schedule, compared to the modeled photon RT effect of the same schedule, was then estimated. Results For cohorts whose treatments lasted less than three weeks (i.e., 12 fractions or less), the RBE of PBT was in the range of 1.08 to 1.11. However, for fractionated treatments stretching over four weeks or more (20-25 fractions), the relative effectiveness was much lower, with RBEs in the range of 0.82-0.89. This conclusion was unchanged using the simpler Fowler LQ + time model. Conclusions The proton RBE for hypo-fractionated schedules was 20-30% higher than for conventional schedules. The derived radiobiological parameters of PBT differ significantly from those of photon RT, indicating that PBT is influenced differentially by radiobiological mechanisms which require further investigation.
Full text 1,847 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 4 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Purpose The relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of tumor control for proton beam therapy (PBT) compared to photon radiotherapy (RT) is typically assumed to be independent of fractionation. To test this, we modeled published PBT outcome results for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatments across a range of fractionation schedules.

Materials and methods

All published and analyzable cohorts were included (399 patients, 413 treated lesions). Two models were used to fit the data: a previously published tumor simulation model that fits photon RT results of NSCLC across all fractionation regimes and the Fowler LQ model with a kick-off time term. The treatment effect of each cohort was referenced to the photon equivalent dose through mechanistic model simulations in a 2 Gy/weekday scenario, with radiobiological parameters determined to simultaneously best-fit all fractionation results. The tumor control RBE of each published treatment schedule, compared to the modeled photon RT effect of the same schedule, was then estimated.

Results

For cohorts whose treatments lasted less than three weeks (i.e., 12 fractions or less), the RBE of PBT was in the range of 1.08 to 1.11. However, for fractionated treatments stretching over four weeks or more (20-25 fractions), the relative effectiveness was much lower, with RBEs in the range of 0.82-0.89. This conclusion was unchanged using the simpler Fowler LQ + time model.

Conclusions

The proton RBE for hypo-fractionated schedules was 20-30% higher than for conventional schedules. The derived radiobiological parameters of PBT differ significantly from those of photon RT, indicating that PBT is influenced differentially by radiobiological mechanisms which require further investigation. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00