JOURNAL DESCRIPTION
The Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety journal ISSN 1024-6177 was founded in January 1956 (before December 30, 1993 it was entitled Medical Radiology, ISSN 0025-8334). In 2018, the journal received Online ISSN: 2618-9615 and was registered as an electronic online publication in Roskomnadzor on March 29, 2018. It publishes original research articles which cover questions of radiobiology, radiation medicine, radiation safety, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine and scientific reviews. In general the journal has more than 30 headings and it is of interest for specialists working in thefields of medicine¸ radiation biology, epidemiology, medical physics and technology. Since July 01, 2008 the journal has been published by State Research Center - Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency. The founder from 1956 to the present time is the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, and from 2008 to the present time is the Federal Medical Biological Agency.
Members of the editorial board are scientists specializing in the field of radiation biology and medicine, radiation protection, radiation epidemiology, radiation oncology, radiation diagnostics and therapy, nuclear medicine and medical physics. The editorial board consists of academicians (members of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS)), the full member of Academy of Medical Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, corresponding members of the RAS, Doctors of Medicine, professor, candidates and doctors of biological, physical mathematics and engineering sciences. The editorial board is constantly replenished by experts who work in the CIS and foreign countries.
Six issues of the journal are published per year, the volume is 13.5 conventional printed sheets, 88 printer’s sheets, 1.000 copies. The journal has an identical full-text electronic version, which, simultaneously with the printed version and color drawings, is posted on the sites of the Scientific Electronic Library (SEL) and the journal's website. The journal is distributed through the Rospechat Agency under the contract № 7407 of June 16, 2006, through individual buyers and commercial structures. The publication of articles is free.
The journal is included in the List of Russian Reviewed Scientific Journals of the Higher Attestation Commission. Since 2008 the journal has been available on the Internet and indexed in the RISC database which is placed on Web of Science. Since February 2nd, 2018, the journal "Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety" has been indexed in the SCOPUS abstract and citation database.
Brief electronic versions of the Journal have been publicly available since 2005 on the website of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal: http://www.medradiol.ru. Since 2011, all issues of the journal as a whole are publicly available, and since 2016 - full-text versions of scientific articles. Since 2005, subscribers can purchase full versions of other articles of any issue only through the National Electronic Library. The editor of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal in accordance with the National Electronic Library agreement has been providing the Library with all its production since 2005 until now.
The main working language of the journal is Russian, an additional language is English, which is used to write titles of articles, information about authors, annotations, key words, a list of literature.
Since 2017 the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety has switched to digital identification of publications, assigning to each article the identifier of the digital object (DOI), which greatly accelerated the search for the location of the article on the Internet. In future it is planned to publish the English-language version of the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety for its development. In order to obtain information about the publication activity of the journal in March 2015, a counter of readers' references to the materials posted on the site from 2005 to the present which is placed on the journal's website. During 2015 - 2016 years on average there were no more than 100-170 handlings per day. Publication of a number of articles, as well as electronic versions of profile monographs and collections in the public domain, dramatically increased the number of handlings to the journal's website to 500 - 800 per day, and the total number of visits to the site at the end of 2017 was more than 230.000.
The two-year impact factor of RISC, according to data for 2017, was 0.439, taking into account citation from all sources - 0.570, and the five-year impact factor of RISC - 0.352.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2025. Vol. 70. № 4
DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2025-70-4-96-101
K.E. Medvedeva, A.I. Adarova, N.G. Minaeva, I.A. Gulidov, S.N. Koryakin
Comparative Assessment of Dose Distributions During Proton
and Photon Therapy in Patients with Recurrent High-Grade Gliomas
A.F. Tsyb Medical Radiological Research Centre, Obninsk, Russia
Contact person: K.E. Medvedeva, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare treatment plans on the Prometheus proton therapy complex (PTC) and a linac in terms of dose distribution parameters and radiation doses on organs at risk.
Material and methods: The study included 20 adult patients who were treated on the Prometheus PTC in 2019–2020 for recurrent malignant gliomas. Comparative planning was carried out in the XIO radiation therapy planning system with the preparation of 3D-conformal photon radiation therapy plans using intensity modulated radiotherapy technology (IMRT) based on one set of contours of the irradiated volumes.
Results: Dose-volume histograms were constructed for all volumes, dose parameters were taken into account to assess the coverage of target volumes and compliance with safety criteria for organs at risk. The average dose to the entire brain volume during proton therapy ranged from 4.54 to 20.63 Gy, the median was 6.74 Gy. The average dose during photon therapy planning ranged from 5.9 to 32.48 Gy, the median was 21.2 Gy. The average difference in radiation load to the entire brain volume was 15.24 Gy (p < 0.001). The mean maximum dose to the brainstem during proton therapy ranged from 0.01 to 51.35 Gy, median 9.77 Gy. The mean dose when planning photon therapy using the IMRT technique ranged from 1.6 to 55.1 Gy, median 44.37 Gy. The mean difference was 34.6 Gy (p < 0.003). The mean maximum dose to the optic nerve during proton therapy ranged from 0 to 25.19 Gy, median 2.15 Gy. The mean dose in the photon therapy plan was
0 to 51.35 Gy, median 21.05 Gy. The reduction in the mean difference in dose load when using proton therapy was 18.9 Gy (p< 0.001).The average maximum dose to the chiasm during intensity-modulated proton therapy ranged from 0 to 32.9 Gy, median 0.38 Gy. A similar dose when calculating photon therapy doses ranged from 1.4 Gy to 54.3 Gy, median 28.47 Gy. The average difference in the dose load on the optic nerve in favor of proton therapy was 28.09 Gy (p< 0.001). The average value of the homogeneity index of protons was 0.16 (CI 95 % 0.14–0.18), photons – 0.13 (CI 95 % 0.11–0.14), p=0.00158.
Conclusion: Proton therapy during repeated courses of radiation therapy demonstrates a significant reduction in the dose load on risk organs when compared with photon therapy on a linear accelerator. Repeated irradiation of high-grade gliomas using an active scanning proton beam is a promising direction due to the reduction in overall toxicity of treatment and the possibility of delivering radiation doses close to radical ones.
Keywords: proton therapy, glioma, glioblastoma, re-irradiation, dosimetric planning
For citation: Medvedeva KE, Adarova AI, Minaeva NG, Gulidov IA, Koryakin SN. Comparative Assessment of Dose Distributions During Proton and Photon Therapy in Patients with Recurrent High-Grade Gliomas. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2025;70(4):96–101. (In Russian). DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2025-70-4-96-101
References
1. Чойнзонов Е.Л., Грибова О.В., Старцева Ж.А., Рябова А.И., Новиков В.А., Мусабаева Л.И., Полежаева И.С. Современный подход к химиолучевой терапии злокачественных глиом головного мозга // Бюллетень сибирской медицины. 2014. Т.13. №3. С. 119-125 [Choynzonov Ye.L., Gribova O.V., Startseva Zh.A., Ryabova A.I., Novikov V.A., Musabayeva L.I., Polezhayeva I.S. Modern Approach to Chemoradiation Therapy of Malignant Gliomas of the Brain. Byulleten’ Sibirskoy Meditsiny = Bulletin of Siberian Medicine. 2014;13;3:119-125 (In Russ.)]. doi: 10.20538/1682-0363-2014-3-119-125.
2. Combs S.E., Debus J., Schulz-Ertner D. Radiotherapeutic Alternatives for Previously Irradiated Recurrent Gliomas. BMC Cancer. 2007;7:167. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-7-167.
3. Lee J., Cho J., Chang J.H., Suh C.O. Re-Irradiation for Recurrent Gliomas: Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors. Yonsei Med J. 2016 Jul 1;57;4:824–30. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2016.57.4.824.
4. Held K.D., Lomax A.J., Troost E.G.C. Proton Therapy Special Feature: Introductory Editorial. Br J Radiol. 2020;93;1107:20209004. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20209004.
5. Durante M., Flanz J. Charged Particle Beams to Cure Cancer: Strengths and Challenges. Seminars in Oncology. W.B. Saunders. 2019;46;3:219–225. doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2019.07.007.
6. Kraft G. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics Tumor Therapy with Heavy Charged Particles. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics. 2000;45:473–544. doi: 10.1016/S0146-6410(00)00112-5.
7. Schaub L., Harrabi S.B., Debus J. Particle Therapy in the Future of Precision Therapy. Br J Radiol. 2020;93;1114:20200183. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20200183.
8. Mayer R., Sminia P. Reirradiation Tolerance of the Human Brain. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70;5:1350-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.08.015.
9. Nieder C., Milas L., Ang K.K. Tissue Tolerance to Reirradiation. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2000;10;3:200-209. doi: 10.1053/srao.2000.6593.
10. Desai B.M., Rockne R.C., Rademaker A.W., Hartsell W.F., Sweeney P., Raizer J.J, et al. Overall Survival (OS) and Toxicity Outcomes Following Large-Volume Re-Irradiation Using Proton Therapy (PT) for Recurrent Glioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;90;1:286. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.05.971.
11. Combs S.E., Edler L., Rausch R., Welzel T., Wick W., Debus J. Generation and Validation of a Prognostic Score to Predict Outcome after Re-Irradiation of Recurrent Glioma. Acta Oncol (Madr). 2013;52;1:147–52. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2012.692882.
12. Baumert B.G., Lomax A.J., Miltchev V., Davis J.B. A Comparison of Dose Distributions of Proton Beams in Stereotactic Confopmal Radiotherapy of Brain Lesions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;49;5:1439-1449. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(00)01422-x.
13. Bolsi A., Fogliata A., Cozzi L. Radiotherapy of Small Intracranial Tumours with Different Advanced Techniques Using Photon and Proton Beams: a Treatment Planning Study. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2003;68;1:1-14. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8140(03)00117-8
14. Kosaki K., Ecker S., Habermehl D., Rieken S., Jäkel O., Herfarth K., et al. Comparison of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) with Intensity Modulated Particle Therapy (IMPT) Using Fixed Beams or an Ion Gantry for the Treatment of Patients with Skull Base Meningiomas. Radiation Oncology. 2012 Mar 22;7;44:1. doi:10.1186/1748-717X-7-44.
15. Adeberg S., Harrabi S.B., Bougatf N., et al. Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy, Volumetric-Modulated arc Therapy, and 3D Conformal Radiotherapy in Anaplastic Astrocytoma and Glioblastoma: a Dosimetric Comparison. Intensitätsmodulierte Protonentherapie, Volumenmodulierte Arc-Therapie and Dreidimensionale Konformale Radiotherapie Beim Anaplastischen Astrozytom und Glioblastom: Ein Dosimetrischer Vergleich. Strahlenther Onkol. 2016;192;11:770-779. doi: 10.1007/s00066-016-1007-7.
16. Poel R., Stuessi A., Unkelbach J., Tanadini-Lang S., Guckenberger M., Foerster R. Dosimetric Comparison of Protons vs Photons in Re-Irradiation of Intracranial Meningioma Br J Radiol. 2019;92;1100:20190113. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20190113.
17. Weber D.C., Lim P.S., Tran S., Walser M., Bolsi A., et.al. Proton Therapy for Brain Tumours in the Area of Evidence-Based Medicine. Br J Radiol. 2020;93;1107:20190237. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20190237.
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 20.03.2025. Accepted for publication: 25.04.2025.