arxiv: 2604.10174 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-11 · ⚛️ physics.med-ph

Recognition: unknown

Combined photon-proton modeling of radiation-induced brain imaging changes supports variability in proton relative biological effectiveness and increased periventricular radiosensitivity

Martina Palkowitsch , Larissa S. Kilian , Fabian Hennings , Armin L\"uhr , Justus Thiem , Arne Grey , Rebecca B\"utof , Annekatrin Seidlitz

show 3 more authors

Esther G.C. Troost Mechthild Krause Steffen L\"ock

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.med-ph

keywords proton therapyrelative biological effectivenessradiation-induced contrast enhancementperiventricular regionvoxel logistic regressionLETdbrain tumormixed modality

0 comments

The pith

Voxel modeling across photon and proton brain patients shows variable proton RBE and higher periventricular radiosensitivity.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops voxel-level logistic regression models for radiation-induced contrast enhancements in 152 brain tumor patients treated with either photons or protons. It identifies absorbed dose, proton dose-averaged linear energy transfer, and periventricular location as independent predictors of imaging changes. This yields a proton RBE that increases linearly with LETd according to RBE = 1 + 0.10 * LETd in units of micrometers per keV. Patient-level incidence is best predicted by equivalent uniform dose calculated with this variable RBE. The combined-modality design allows direct estimation of proton RBE without assuming a fixed reference dose-response from photons alone.

Core claim

Spatially resolved predictive modeling of RICE in a combined photon-proton cohort identifies absorbed dose, LETd for protons, and periventricular region as predictors. The model implies a variable proton RBE described by RBE=1+m⋅LETd with m=0.10 μm/keV. At the patient level, the equivalent uniform dose (EUDa=8) in the brain based on this RBE achieved the highest predictive performance. The cross-modality framework enables clinical assessment of proton RBE without reliance on predefined reference dose-response relationships.

What carries the argument

Voxel-level logistic regression applied to combined photon-proton irradiation data, from which a clinical RBE model is derived by comparing estimated risk between the two modalities.

If this is right

Proton RBE increases linearly with dose-averaged linear energy transfer in brain tissue.
The periventricular region exhibits elevated radiosensitivity and should be considered a more sensitive organ at risk.
Variable RBE improves prediction of radiation-induced contrast enhancements over constant RBE assumptions.
Incorporating LET dependence and periventricular protection into planning may reduce side effects in proton therapy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Treatment planning systems could prioritize low-LET proton paths near the ventricles to lower risk.
The mixed-cohort regression method could be tested on other radiation toxicities where both modalities are used.
This supports clinical trials that adapt proton plans based on LET maps rather than fixed RBE=1.1.

Load-bearing premise

Voxel-level logistic regression on observational data from mixed photon-proton patients can isolate causal effects of LET and periventricular location without residual confounding from patient selection, imaging timing, or unmeasured spatial correlations.

What would settle it

A matched comparison showing identical RICE rates for photons and protons at the same physical dose and location, or direct experimental measurements of proton RBE in brain tissue that show no linear dependence on LETd.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10174 by Annekatrin Seidlitz, Armin L\"uhr, Arne Grey, Esther G.C. Troost, Fabian Hennings, Justus Thiem, Larissa S. Kilian, Martina Palkowitsch, Mechthild Krause, Rebecca B\"utof, Steffen L\"ock.

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIGURE 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIGURE 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Purpose: Recent investigations of radiation-induced contrast enhancements (RICE) in brain tumor patients after proton therapy indicated variability in proton relative biological effectiveness (RBE) and increased radiosensitivity of the periventricular region (PVR). Prior studies, however, were restricted to proton cohorts requiring assumptions on reference radiation. This study assessed proton RBE variability and PVR radiosensitivity using spatially resolved predictive modeling of RICE in a combined photon-proton cohort. Methods and Materials: Predictive models for RICE detected on follow-up magnetic resonance imaging were developed in 152 brain tumor patients treated with photons or protons. Logistic regression was applied at the voxel level to model spatial occurrence and at the patient level to model incidence. A clinical RBE model was derived from voxel-wise comparisons of estimated risk between photon and proton irradiation. Results: In total, 128 RICE of various grades occurred in 64 patients. Voxel-level modeling identified absorbed dose (D), D multiplied by dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd) for proton therapy, and PVR as independent predictors of RICE. The model implied a variable proton RBE described by RBE=1+m$\cdot$LETd, with m=0.10 $\mu$m/keV. At the patient level, the equivalent uniform dose (EUDa=8) in the brain based on this RBE achieved the highest predictive performance. Conclusions: RICE was spatially associated with increased LET-dependent proton RBE and elevated PVR radiosensitivity across photon and proton radiotherapy. The cross-modality framework enables clinical assessment of proton RBE without reliance on predefined reference dose-response relationships. Incorporating variable proton RBE and the PVR as an organ at risk may improve risk assessment and mitigation of radiation-induced side effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper derives a data-driven LET-dependent proton RBE from mixed photon-proton voxel data on RICE, which is a useful extension, but observational confounding and circular evaluation weaken the support for the specific claims.

read the letter

The core advance here is fitting a voxel-wise logistic model across 152 photon and proton brain tumor patients to link radiation-induced contrast enhancements to absorbed dose, an LET interaction term, and periventricular location. From the interaction coefficient they back out RBE = 1 + 0.10·LETd without needing an external photon reference curve. At the patient level they then show that an equivalent uniform dose using this RBE outperforms other formulations for predicting who develops RICE. That cross-modality framing is genuinely new relative to prior proton-only work and gives a concrete way to quantify both RBE variability and PVR sensitivity from existing clinical imaging data. The abstract is clear on the modeling steps and the numbers line up with the reported predictors. The data volume and the direct use of both modalities to anchor the fit are the parts that hold up best. The soft spots sit mainly in the evaluation and the observational setup. The m coefficient and the EUDa=8 performance are both derived from the same logistic fit on the full dataset, so the patient-level result is essentially a re-statement of the voxel fit rather than an independent test. No cross-validation, hold-out, or bootstrap details appear in the abstract, and the EUDa choice looks selected after the fact. More fundamentally, modality assignment is not random; it tracks tumor location, histology, and physician preference, all of which also affect periventricular dose and MRI follow-up timing. Any unmeasured spatial correlation or differential censoring will therefore bleed into the LET interaction term and get labeled as RBE. The abstract does not discuss these issues or provide sensitivity checks. This work is aimed at physicists and clinicians who build or refine proton planning models for the brain. Readers who want to see how combined cohorts can constrain RBE without external assumptions will get value from the framework even if they end up adjusting the numbers. It is worth sending to peer review because the question matters and the dataset is real, but the referees will need to press on validation, confounding controls, and whether the reported m value survives those checks.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops voxel-level logistic regression models for radiation-induced contrast enhancements (RICE) in a cohort of 152 brain tumor patients treated with photons or protons. It identifies absorbed dose D, the D × LETd interaction term for proton voxels, and periventricular region (PVR) status as independent predictors. From the fitted coefficients the authors derive a variable proton RBE model of the form RBE = 1 + m · LETd with m = 0.10 μm/keV, and report that an equivalent uniform dose (EUDa = 8) computed with this RBE yields the highest patient-level predictive performance for RICE incidence. The work concludes that the cross-modality framework supports LET-dependent RBE variability and elevated PVR radiosensitivity without requiring pre-defined photon reference curves.

Significance. If the central claims survive independent validation and confounding checks, the study supplies a data-driven route to estimate proton RBE variability directly from clinical imaging endpoints in mixed cohorts. This could refine treatment planning by incorporating LET effects and designating the periventricular region as a radiosensitive organ at risk. The approach avoids some assumptions of prior proton-only analyses, but its observational design and lack of reported external validation limit immediate clinical translation.

major comments (3)

[Results] Results (voxel-level modeling and RBE derivation): The coefficient m = 0.10 μm/keV is obtained by fitting the logistic model to the same observational data later used to compute and rank patient-level EUDa performance. No cross-validation, hold-out test set, or bootstrap procedure is described for the interaction term or for the subsequent EUD comparison, so the reported superiority of EUDa = 8 is evaluated on the training data by construction.
[Methods] Methods and Results (model assumptions): The logistic regression treats photon- and proton-treated voxels as exchangeable conditional on D and PVR status. In an observational cohort, modality assignment correlates with tumor location, histology, and follow-up MRI timing; these factors also affect periventricular exposure and RICE detection. Residual confounding or spatial autocorrelation among voxels can therefore bias the D × LETd coefficient and the inferred RBE variability.
[Results] Results (patient-level analysis): The value a = 8 for the EUD is selected because it produces the highest predictive performance; the manuscript does not state whether this parameter was pre-specified or whether multiple a values were tested with appropriate multiplicity correction.

minor comments (2)

[Methods] The translation from logistic coefficients to the explicit RBE formula RBE = 1 + m · LETd should be derived step-by-step in the Methods section with the relevant equations shown.
[Methods] No details are provided on how spatial autocorrelation among voxels within patients was handled (e.g., mixed-effects models, cluster-robust standard errors, or permutation tests).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. The comments highlight important methodological considerations for our observational analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of limitations and statistical procedures.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results] Results (voxel-level modeling and RBE derivation): The coefficient m = 0.10 μm/keV is obtained by fitting the logistic model to the same observational data later used to compute and rank patient-level EUDa performance. No cross-validation, hold-out test set, or bootstrap procedure is described for the interaction term or for the subsequent EUD comparison, so the reported superiority of EUDa = 8 is evaluated on the training data by construction.

Authors: We agree that the RBE parameter and EUD ranking were derived from the full dataset without an independent validation set or cross-validation, which limits the strength of claims about superiority. This is an inherent feature of the exploratory analysis in this cohort. In the revision we will add bootstrap resampling (1000 iterations) to quantify uncertainty in the interaction coefficient and to evaluate the stability of the EUDa performance ordering. We will also explicitly state that the reported EUD comparison is internal to the training data and should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating pending external validation. revision: partial
Referee: [Methods] Methods and Results (model assumptions): The logistic regression treats photon- and proton-treated voxels as exchangeable conditional on D and PVR status. In an observational cohort, modality assignment correlates with tumor location, histology, and follow-up MRI timing; these factors also affect periventricular exposure and RICE detection. Residual confounding or spatial autocorrelation among voxels can therefore bias the D × LETd coefficient and the inferred RBE variability.

Authors: We acknowledge the risk of residual confounding and spatial dependence in this observational setting. Although the combined photon-proton design avoids the need for an external photon reference curve, unmeasured factors such as histology, tumor location, and imaging timing remain potential sources of bias. The revised manuscript includes an expanded limitations paragraph that discusses these issues and notes that the D × LETd interaction should be interpreted cautiously. We also added a sensitivity analysis that clusters standard errors at the patient level to partially account for within-patient voxel correlation. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] Results (patient-level analysis): The value a = 8 for the EUD is selected because it produces the highest predictive performance; the manuscript does not state whether this parameter was pre-specified or whether multiple a values were tested with appropriate multiplicity correction.

Authors: The exponent a was varied over a discrete grid (a = 1, 2, 4, 8, 16) to identify the value maximizing patient-level AUC. This selection was data-driven rather than pre-specified. In the revision we now report AUC values for the full grid, note that a = 8 was chosen post hoc, and apply a simple Bonferroni adjustment when highlighting the peak performance. We have also clarified the exploratory nature of the EUD parameter search in the methods and discussion. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical model fit and interpretation are self-contained

full rationale

The paper fits a voxel-level logistic regression including absorbed dose D, a D × LETd interaction for protons, and a PVR indicator. It then interprets the ratio of the interaction coefficient to the D coefficient as the slope m in RBE = 1 + m · LETd. This is a direct reparameterization of the fitted model rather than a separate prediction. The subsequent patient-level EUD evaluation applies the same fitted coefficients to aggregate incidence prediction and compares performance across model variants. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs, no self-citation chain is load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in. The analysis remains an in-sample empirical estimation on observational data; any concerns about confounding or generalizability fall under validity rather than circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on two fitted parameters (m and EUDa) obtained from the same logistic regression and on standard statistical assumptions for voxel data; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

m = 0.10 μm/keV
Slope in the linear RBE-LETd relation, fitted via voxel-wise comparison of photon and proton risk estimates.
EUDa = 8
Parameter in the equivalent uniform dose formula selected post-hoc to maximize patient-level predictive performance.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Voxel-level observations are independent after accounting for dose, LETd, and PVR status in the logistic model.
Invoked when applying logistic regression to spatially resolved imaging data.
domain assumption Photon and proton cohorts are comparable after adjustment for absorbed dose and other covariates.
Required for the cross-modality RBE derivation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5687 in / 1604 out tokens · 69914 ms · 2026-05-10T16:15:07.800553+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

[1]

Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy

Paganetti H, Niemierko A, Ancukiewicz M, Gerweck LE, Goitein M, Loeffler JS, et al. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;53:407–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02754-2

work page doi:10.1016/s0360-3016(02)02754-2 2002
[2]

Relative Biological Effectiveness—Clinical Practice at US Proton Therapy Centers

Lühr A, Mohan R, Mahajan A, Shih HA, Paganetti H. Relative Biological Effectiveness—Clinical Practice at US Proton Therapy Centers. Int J Part Ther 2025;18:101212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpt.2025.101212

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijpt.2025.101212 2025
[3]

Clinical use and future requirements of relative biological effectiveness: Survey among all European proton therapy centres

Heuchel L, Hahn C, Pawelke J, Sørensen BS, Dosanjh M, Lühr A. Clinical use and future requirements of relative biological effectiveness: Survey among all European proton therapy centres. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2022;172:134–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2022.05.015

work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2022.05.015 2022
[4]

Journal of the ICRU 2007

Seltzer SM, Dawson P, Doi K, Gahbauer RA, Inokuti M, Jones DTL, et al. Journal of the ICRU 2007

2007
[5]

Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy

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:R419–72. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/59/22/R419

work page doi:10.1088/0031-9155/59/22/r419 2014
[6]

Relative biological effectiveness in proton beam therapy – Current knowledge and future challenges

Lühr A, von Neubeck C, Krause M, Troost EGC. Relative biological effectiveness in proton beam therapy – Current knowledge and future challenges. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2018;9:35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2018.01.006

work page doi:10.1016/j.ctro.2018.01.006 2018
[7]

Radiobiological significance of beamline dependent proton energy distributions in a spread-out Bragg peak

Paganetti H, Goitein M. Radiobiological significance of beamline dependent proton energy distributions in a spread-out Bragg peak. Med Phys 2000;27:1119–26. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598977

work page doi:10.1118/1.598977 2000
[8]

Range uncertainty in proton therapy due to variable biological effectiveness

Carabe A, Moteabbed M, Depauw N, Schuemann J, Paganetti H. Range uncertainty in proton therapy due to variable biological effectiveness. Phys Med Biol 2012;57:1159–

2012
[9]

https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/57/5/1159

work page doi:10.1088/0031-9155/57/5/1159
[10]

Physical and biological factors determining the effective proton range

Grün R, Friedrich T, Krämer M, Zink K, Durante M, Engenhart-Cabillic R, et al. Physical and biological factors determining the effective proton range. Med Phys 2013;40. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4824321

work page doi:10.1118/1.4824321 2013
[11]

Lühr A, Wagenaar D, Eekers DBP, Glimelius L, Habraken SJM, Harrabi S, et al. Recommendations for reporting and evaluating proton therapy beyond dose and Photon-proton modeling of brain imaging changes 17 Last edited on April 11, 2026 constant relative biological effectiveness. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2025;33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2024.100692

work page doi:10.1016/j.phro.2024.100692 2026
[12]

Variable-RBE-induced NTCP predictions for various side-effects following proton therapy for brain tumors – Identification of high-risk patients and risk mitigation

Palkowitsch M, Kaufmann LM, Hennings F, Menkel S, Hahn C, Bensberg J, et al. Variable-RBE-induced NTCP predictions for various side-effects following proton therapy for brain tumors – Identification of high-risk patients and risk mitigation. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2025;202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110590

work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110590 2025
[13]

Comparing biological effectiveness guided plan optimization strategies for cranial proton therapy: potential and challenges

Hahn C, Heuchel L, Ödén J, Traneus E, Wulff J, Plaude S, et al. Comparing biological effectiveness guided plan optimization strategies for cranial proton therapy: potential and challenges. Radiation Oncology 2022;17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02143- x

work page doi:10.1186/s13014-022-02143- 2022
[14]

A Systematic Review of LET-Guided Treatment Plan Optimisation in Proton Therapy: Identifying the Current State and Future Needs

McIntyre M, Wilson P, Gorayski P, Bezak E. A Systematic Review of LET-Guided Treatment Plan Optimisation in Proton Therapy: Identifying the Current State and Future Needs. Cancers (Basel) 2023;15. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15174268

work page doi:10.3390/cancers15174268 2023
[15]

Linear energy transfer-guided optimization in intensity modulated proton therapy: Feasibility study and clinical potential

Giantsoudi D, Grassberger C, Craft D, Niemierko A, Trofimov A, Paganetti H. Linear energy transfer-guided optimization in intensity modulated proton therapy: Feasibility study and clinical potential. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;87:216–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.05.013

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.05.013 2013
[16]

Traneus E, Ödén J. Introducing Proton Track-End Objectives in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Optimization to Reduce Linear Energy Transfer and Relative Biological Effectiveness in Critical Structures. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019;103:747–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.10.031

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.10.031 2019
[17]

Reoptimization of Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Plans Based on Linear Energy Transfer

Unkelbach J, Botas P, Giantsoudi D, Gorissen BL, Paganetti H. Reoptimization of Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Plans Based on Linear Energy Transfer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016;96:1097–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.08.038

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.08.038 2016
[18]

Variations in linear energy transfer within clinical proton therapy fields and the potential for biological treatment planning

Grassberger C, Trofimov A, Lomax A, Paganetti H. Variations in linear energy transfer within clinical proton therapy fields and the potential for biological treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;80:1559–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.10.027

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.10.027 2011
[19]

Optimization of radiobiological effects in intensity modulated proton therapy

Wilkens JJ, Oelfke U. Optimization of radiobiological effects in intensity modulated proton therapy. Med Phys 2005;32:455–65. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1851925

work page doi:10.1118/1.1851925 2005
[20]

The dirty and clean dose concept: Towards creating proton therapy treatment plans with a photon- like dose response

Heuchel L, Hahn C, Ödén J, Traneus E, Wulff J, Timmermann B, et al. The dirty and clean dose concept: Towards creating proton therapy treatment plans with a photon- like dose response. Med Phys 2024;51:622–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.16809

work page doi:10.1002/mp.16809 2024
[21]

NRG Oncology White Paper on the Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy

Paganetti H, Simone CB, Bosch WR, Haas-Kogan D, Kirsch DG, Li H, et al. NRG Oncology White Paper on the Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2025;121:202–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.07.2152

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.07.2152 2025
[22]

A systematic review of clinical studies on variable proton Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE)

Underwood TSA, McNamara AL, Appelt A, Haviland JS, Sørensen BS, Troost EGC. A systematic review of clinical studies on variable proton Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE). Radiotherapy and Oncology 2022;175:79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2022.08.014. 18 Last edited on April 11, 2026

work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2022.08.014 2022
[23]

Mechanisms and Review of Clinical Evidence of Variations in Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy

Paganetti H. Mechanisms and Review of Clinical Evidence of Variations in Relative Biological Effectiveness in Proton Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022;112:222–

2022
[24]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.08.015

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.08.015 2021
[25]

Wagenaar D, Schuit E, van der Schaaf A, Langendijk JA, Both S. Can the mean linear energy transfer of organs be directly related to patient toxicities for current head and neck cancer intensity-modulated proton therapy practice? Radiotherapy and Oncology 2021;165:159–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2021.09.003

work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2021.09.003 2021
[26]

Systematic review of MRI alterations in the brain following proton and photon radiation therapy: Towards a uniform European Particle Therapy Network (EPTN) definition

Lauwens L, Ribeiro MF, Zegers CML, Høyer M, Alapetite C, Blomstrand M, et al. Systematic review of MRI alterations in the brain following proton and photon radiation therapy: Towards a uniform European Particle Therapy Network (EPTN) definition. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2025;208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2025.110936

work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2025.110936 2025
[27]

Radiation necrosis in pediatric patients with brain tumors treated with proton radiotherapy

Kralik SF, Ho CY, Finke W, Buchsbaum JC, Haskins CP, Shih CS. Radiation necrosis in pediatric patients with brain tumors treated with proton radiotherapy. American Journal of Neuroradiology 2015;36:1572–8. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4333

work page doi:10.3174/ajnr.a4333 2015
[28]

Postradiation imaging changes in the CNS: How can we differentiate between treatment effect and disease progression? Future Oncology 2014;10:1277–97

Walker AJ, Ruzevick J, Malayeri AA, Rigamonti D, Lim M, Redmond KJ, et al. Postradiation imaging changes in the CNS: How can we differentiate between treatment effect and disease progression? Future Oncology 2014;10:1277–97. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon.13.271

work page doi:10.2217/fon.13.271 2014
[29]

Clinical evidence of variable proton biological effectiveness in pediatric patients treated for ependymoma

Peeler, CR; Mirkovic, D; Titt, U; Blanchard, P; Gunther, JR; Mahajan, A; Mohan, R; and Grosshans D. Clinical evidence of variable proton biological effectiveness in pediatric patients treated for ependymoma. Physiol Behav 2017;176:139–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2016.11.001

work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2016.11.001 2017
[30]

Brain Necrosis in Adult Patients After Proton Therapy: Is There Evidence for Dependency on Linear Energy Transfer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021;109:109–19

Niemierko A, Schuemann J, Niyazi M, Giantsoudi D, Maquilan G, Shih HA, et al. Brain Necrosis in Adult Patients After Proton Therapy: Is There Evidence for Dependency on Linear Energy Transfer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021;109:109–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.08.058

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.08.058 2021
[31]

Biologic Dose and Imaging Changes in Pediatric Brain Tumor Patients Receiving Spot Scanning Proton Therapy

Roberts KW, Wan Chan Tseung HS, Eckel LJ, Harmsen WS, Beltran C, Laack NN. Biologic Dose and Imaging Changes in Pediatric Brain Tumor Patients Receiving Spot Scanning Proton Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019;105:664–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.2534

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.2534 2019
[32]

Radiation induced contrast enhancement after proton beam therapy in patients with low grade glioma – How safe are protons? Radiotherapy and Oncology 2022;167:211–

Harrabi SB, von Nettelbladt B, Gudden C, Adeberg S, Seidensaal K, Bauer J, et al. Radiation induced contrast enhancement after proton beam therapy in patients with low grade glioma – How safe are protons? Radiotherapy and Oncology 2022;167:211–

2022
[33]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2021.12.035

work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2021.12.035 2021
[34]

Incidence of CNS Injury for a Cohort of 111 Patients Treated with Proton Therapy for Medulloblastoma: LET and RBE Associations for Areas of Injury

Giantsoudi D, Sethi R V., Yeap BY, Eaton BR, Ebb DH, Caruso PA, et al. Incidence of CNS Injury for a Cohort of 111 Patients Treated with Proton Therapy for Medulloblastoma: LET and RBE Associations for Areas of Injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016;95:287–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.09.015. Photon-proton modeling of brain imaging changes...

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.09.015 2016
[35]

Risk modeling of imaging changes after proton beam therapy for childhood brain tumors

Heinzelmann F, Peters S, Quenzer A, Lühr A, Löck S, Schleithoff SS, et al. Risk modeling of imaging changes after proton beam therapy for childhood brain tumors. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2025:111261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2025.111261

work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2025.111261 2025
[36]

Development of the first prediction model for radiation-induced contrast enhancement after proton therapy for posterior fossa tumours in paediatric patients

Bregman A, Rutgers JJ, Andersen T, van der Schaaf A, Brouwer CL, Janssens GO, et al. Development of the first prediction model for radiation-induced contrast enhancement after proton therapy for posterior fossa tumours in paediatric patients. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2026;216:111360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2025.111360

work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2025.111360 2026
[37]

Mixed effect model confirms increased risk of image changes with increasing linear energy transfer in proton therapy of gliomas

Vestergaard A, Kallehauge JF, Muhic A, Carlsen JF, Dahlrot RH, Lukacova S, et al. Mixed effect model confirms increased risk of image changes with increasing linear energy transfer in proton therapy of gliomas. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2025;204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2025.110716

work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2025.110716 2025
[38]

Prospective Analysis of Radiation-Induced Contrast Enhancement and Health-Related Quality of Life After Proton Therapy for Central Nervous System and Skull Base Tumors

Lütgendorf-Caucig C, Pelak M, Hug E, Flechl B, Surböck B, Marosi C, et al. Prospective Analysis of Radiation-Induced Contrast Enhancement and Health-Related Quality of Life After Proton Therapy for Central Nervous System and Skull Base Tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024;118:1206–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.01.007

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.01.007 2024
[39]

Late Contrast Enhancing Brain Lesions in Proton-Treated Patients With Low-Grade Glioma: Clinical Evidence for Increased Periventricular Sensitivity and Variable RBE

Bahn E, Bauer J, Harrabi S, Herfarth K, Debus J, Alber M. Late Contrast Enhancing Brain Lesions in Proton-Treated Patients With Low-Grade Glioma: Clinical Evidence for Increased Periventricular Sensitivity and Variable RBE. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 2020;107:571–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.03.013

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.03.013 2020
[40]

Eulitz J, G. C. Troost E, Klünder L, Raschke F, Hahn C, Schulz E, et al. Increased relative biological effectiveness and periventricular radiosensitivity in proton therapy of glioma patients. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2023;178:109422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2022.11.011

work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2022.11.011 2023
[41]

Mixed Effect Modeling of Dose and Linear Energy Transfer Correlations With Brain Image Changes After Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Skull Base Head and Neck Cancer

Engeseth GM, He R, Mirkovic D, Yepes P, Mohamed ASR, Stieb S, et al. Mixed Effect Modeling of Dose and Linear Energy Transfer Correlations With Brain Image Changes After Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Skull Base Head and Neck Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021;111:684–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.06.016

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.06.016 2021
[42]

Bertolet A, Abolfath R, Carlson DJ, Lustig RA, Hill-Kayser C, Alonso-Basanta M, et al. Correlation of LET With MRI Changes in Brain and Potential Implications for Normal Tissue Complication Probability for Patients With Meningioma Treated With Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022;112:237–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijro...

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.08.027 2022
[43]

Incidence and time course of new contrast-enhancing lesions on MRI after proton versus photon radiotherapy in glioma patients

Grey A, Justus T, Wahl H, Engellandt K, Seidlitz A, Bütof R, et al. Incidence and time course of new contrast-enhancing lesions on MRI after proton versus photon radiotherapy in glioma patients. Neuroradiology 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234- 025-03829-1

work page doi:10.1007/s00234- 2025
[44]

Model validation confirms variable relative biological effectiveness and elevated 20 Last edited on April 11, 2026 periventricular sensitivity after proton therapy of brain tumors

Palkowitsch M, Kilian LS, Hennings F, Lühr A, Thiem J, Grey A, et al. Model validation confirms variable relative biological effectiveness and elevated 20 Last edited on April 11, 2026 periventricular sensitivity after proton therapy of brain tumors. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2026;214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2025.111271

work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2025.111271 2026
[45]

A Monte Carlo based radiation response modelling framework to assess variability of clinical RBE in proton therapy

Eulitz J, Lutz B, Wohlfahrt P, Dutz A, Enghardt W, Karpowitz C, et al. A Monte Carlo based radiation response modelling framework to assess variability of clinical RBE in proton therapy. Phys Med Biol 2019;64. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab3841

work page doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab3841 2019
[46]

Precision modeling of the IBA Universal Nozzle double scattering mode at the University Proton Therapy Dresden for Monte Carlo simulation

Lutz B, Eulitz J, Haneke-Swanson R, Enghardt W, Lühr A. Precision modeling of the IBA Universal Nozzle double scattering mode at the University Proton Therapy Dresden for Monte Carlo simulation. Journal of Instrumentation 2021;16. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/16/03/T03007

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/03/t03007 2021
[47]

TOPAS: An innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications

Perl J, Shin J, Schümann J, Faddegon B, Paganetti H. TOPAS: An innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications. Med Phys 2012;39:6818–

2012
[48]

https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4758060

work page doi:10.1118/1.4758060
[49]

Towards harmonizing clinical linear energy transfer (LET) reporting in proton radiotherapy: a European multi-centric study

Hahn C, Ödén J, Dasu A, Vestergaard A, Fuglsang Jensen M, Sokol O, et al. Towards harmonizing clinical linear energy transfer (LET) reporting in proton radiotherapy: a European multi-centric study. Acta Oncol (Madr) 2022;61:206–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2021.1992007

work page doi:10.1080/0284186x.2021.1992007 2022
[50]

End-of-Range Radiobiological Effect on Rib Fractures in Patients Receiving Proton Therapy for Breast Cancer

Wang CC, McNamara AL, Shin J, Schuemann J, Grassberger C, Taghian AG, et al. End-of-Range Radiobiological Effect on Rib Fractures in Patients Receiving Proton Therapy for Breast Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020;107:449–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.03.012

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.03.012 2020
[51]

Variable Relative Biological Effectiveness of Protons in the Rat Spinal Cord: Measurements and Comparison With Model Calculations

Glowa C, Saager M, Hintz L, Euler-Lange R, Peschke P, Brons S, et al. Variable Relative Biological Effectiveness of Protons in the Rat Spinal Cord: Measurements and Comparison With Model Calculations. Adv Radiat Oncol 2025;10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2025.101809

work page doi:10.1016/j.adro.2025.101809 2025
[52]

Impact of range uncertainty on clinical distributions of linear energy transfer and biological effectiveness in proton therapy

Hahn C, Eulitz J, Peters N, Wohlfahrt P, Enghardt W, Richter C, et al. Impact of range uncertainty on clinical distributions of linear energy transfer and biological effectiveness in proton therapy. Med Phys 2020;47:6151–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14560

work page doi:10.1002/mp.14560 2020
[53]

Does the uncertainty in relative biological effectiveness affect patient treatment in proton therapy? Radiotherapy and Oncology 2021;163:177–84

Sørensen BS, Pawelke J, Bauer J, Burnet NG, Dasu A, Høyer M, et al. Does the uncertainty in relative biological effectiveness affect patient treatment in proton therapy? Radiotherapy and Oncology 2021;163:177–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2021.08.016

work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2021.08.016 2021
[54]

A model-based risk- minimizing proton treatment planning concept for brain injury prevention in low- grade glioma patients

Sallem H, Harrabi S, Traneus E, Herfarth K, Debus J, Bauer J. A model-based risk- minimizing proton treatment planning concept for brain injury prevention in low- grade glioma patients. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2024;201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110579

work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110579 2024
[55]

Direct optimization of the probability of lesion origin in proton treatment planning for low-grade glioma patients

Ortkamp T, Sallem H, Harrabi S, Frank M, Jäkel O, Bauer J, et al. Direct optimization of the probability of lesion origin in proton treatment planning for low-grade glioma patients. Med Phys 2026;53. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.70395. Last edited on April 11, 2026 Supplement Combined photon–proton modeling of radiation-induced brain imaging changes support...

work page doi:10.1002/mp.70395 2026