% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Zhang:277004,
author = {T. Zhang$^*$ and D. García-Calderón$^*$ and M.
Molina-Hernández$^*$ and J. Leitão$^*$ and J. Hesser and
J. Seco$^*$},
title = {{A} theoretical study of {H}2 {O}2 as the surrogate of dose
in minibeam radiotherapy, with a diffusion model considering
radical removal process.},
journal = {Medical physics},
volume = {50},
number = {8},
issn = {0094-2405},
address = {College Park, Md.},
publisher = {AAPM},
reportid = {DKFZ-2023-01254},
pages = {5262-5272},
year = {2023},
note = {EA:E041#LA:E041# / 2023 Aug;50(8):5262-5272},
abstract = {Minibeam radiation therapy (MBRT) is an innovative dose
delivery method with the potential to spare normal tissue
while achieving similar tumor control as conventional
radiotherapy. However, it is difficult to use a single dose
parameter, such as mean dose, to compare different patterns
of MBRT due to the spatially fractionated radiation. Also,
the mechanism leading to the biological effects is still
unknown.This study aims to demonstrate that the hydrogen
peroxide (H2 O2 ) distribution could serve as a surrogate of
dose distribution when comparing different patterns of
MBRT.A free diffusion model (FDM) for H2 O2 developed with
Fick's second law was compared with a previously published
model based on Monte Carlo $\&$ convolution method. Since
cells form separate compartments that can eliminate H2 O2
radicals diffusing inside the cell, a term describing the
elimination was introduced into the equation. The FDM and
the diffusion model considering removal (DMCR) were compared
by simulating various dose rate irradiation schemes and
uniform irradiation. Finally, the DMCR was compared with
previous microbeam and minibeam animal experiments.Compared
with a previous Monte Carlo $\&$ Convolution method, this
analytical method provides more accurate results.
Furthermore, the new model shows H2 O2 concentration
distribution instead of the time to achieve a certain H2 O2
uniformity. The comparison between FDM and DMCR showed that
H2 O2 distribution from FDM varied with dose rate
irradiation, while DMCR had consistent results. For uniform
irradiation, FDM resulted in a Gaussian distribution, while
the H2 O2 distribution from DMCR was close to the dose
distribution. The animal studies' evaluation showed a
correlation between the H2 O2 concentration in the valley
region and treatment outcomes.DMCR is a more realistic model
for H2 O2 simulation than the FDM. In addition, the H2 O2
distribution can be a good surrogate of dose distribution
when the minibeam effect could be observed.},
keywords = {diffusion model (Other) / hydrogen peroxide (Other) /
minibeam radiation therapy (Other) / spatial fractionation
(Other)},
cin = {E041},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E041-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:37345373},
doi = {DOI: 10.1002/mp.16570},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/277004},
}