Literature DB >> 20175494

Assessment of out-of-field absorbed dose and equivalent dose in proton fields.

Ben Clasie1, Andrew Wroe, Hanne Kooy, Nicolas Depauw, Jay Flanz, Harald Paganetti, Anatoly Rosenfeld.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In proton therapy, as in other forms of radiation therapy, scattered and secondary particles produce undesired dose outside the target volume that may increase the risk of radiation-induced secondary cancer and interact with electronic devices in the treatment room. The authors implement a Monte Carlo model of this dose deposited outside passively scattered fields and compare it to measurements, determine the out-of-field equivalent dose, and estimate the change in the dose if the same target volumes were treated with an active beam scanning technique.
METHODS: Measurements are done with a thimble ionization chamber and the Wellhofer MatriXX detector inside a Lucite phantom with field configurations based on the treatment of prostate cancer and medulloblastoma. The authors use a GEANT4 Monte Carlo simulation, demonstrated to agree well with measurements inside the primary field, to simulate fields delivered in the measurements. The partial contributions to the dose are separated in the simulation by particle type and origin.
RESULTS: The agreement between experiment and simulation in the out-of-field absorbed dose is within 30% at 10-20 cm from the field edge and 90% of the data agrees within 2 standard deviations. In passive scattering, the neutron contribution to the total dose dominates in the region downstream of the Bragg peak (65%-80% due to internally produced neutrons) and inside the phantom at distances more than 10-15 cm from the field edge. The equivalent doses using 10 for the neutron weighting factor at the entrance to the phantom and at 20 cm from the field edge are 2.2 and 2.6 mSv/Gy for the prostate cancer and cranial medulloblastoma fields, respectively. The equivalent dose at 15-20 cm from the field edge decreases with depth in passive scattering and increases with depth in active scanning. Therefore, active scanning has smaller out-of-field equivalent dose by factors of 30-45 in the entrance region and this factor decreases with depth.
CONCLUSIONS: The dose deposited immediately downstream of the primary field, in these cases, is dominated by internally produced neutrons; therefore, scattered and scanned fields may have similar risk of second cancer in this region. The authors confirm that there is a reduction in the out-of-field dose in active scanning but the effect decreases with depth. GEANT4 is suitable for simulating the dose deposited outside the primary field. The agreement with measurements is comparable to or better than the agreement reported for other implementations of Monte Carlo models. Depending on the position, the absorbed dose outside the primary field is dominated by contributions from primary protons that may or may not have scattered in the brass collimating devices. This is noteworthy as the quality factor of the low LET protons is well known and the relative dose risk in this region can thus be assessed accurately.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20175494      PMCID: PMC2803717          DOI: 10.1118/1.3271390

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  26 in total

1.  Nuclear interactions in proton therapy: dose and relative biological effect distributions originating from primary and secondary particles.

Authors:  H Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2002-03-07       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Accurate Monte Carlo simulations for nozzle design, commissioning and quality assurance for a proton radiation therapy facility.

Authors:  H Paganetti; H Jiang; S Y Lee; H M Kooy
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 3.  Beam delivery systems for charged particles.

Authors:  H Blattmann
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 1.925

4.  Relative biological effectiveness (RBE), quality factor (Q), and radiation weighting factor (w(R)). A report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann ICRP       Date:  2003

5.  Experimental characterization and physical modelling of the dose distribution of scanned proton pencil beams.

Authors:  E Pedroni; S Scheib; T Böhringer; A Coray; M Grossmann; S Lin; A Lomax
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2005-02-07       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Calculations of neutron dose equivalent exposures from range-modulated proton therapy beams.

Authors:  Jerimy C Polf; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2005-08-02       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Simulation of organ-specific patient effective dose due to secondary neutrons in proton radiation treatment.

Authors:  Hongyu Jiang; Brian Wang; X George Xu; Herman D Suit; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2005-09-07       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Flattening of proton dose distributions for large-field radiotherapy.

Authors:  A M Koehler; R J Schneider; J M Sisterson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1977 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Cytogenetic analysis in human lymphocytes after exposure to simulated cosmic radiation which reflects the inflight radiation environment.

Authors:  A Heimers
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.694

10.  Secondary neutron and photon dose in proton therapy.

Authors:  S Agosteo; C Birattari; M Caravaggio; M Silari; G Tosi
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 6.280

View more
  16 in total

1.  Monte Carlo and analytical model predictions of leakage neutron exposures from passively scattered proton therapy.

Authors:  Angélica Pérez-Andújar; Rui Zhang; Wayne Newhauser
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  TOPAS: an innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications.

Authors:  J Perl; J Shin; J Schumann; B Faddegon; H Paganetti
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 3.  Proton beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer-is the hype (and the cost) justified?

Authors:  Phillip J Gray; Jason A Efstathiou
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Impact of Spot Size and Beam-Shaping Devices on the Treatment Plan Quality for Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Maryam Moteabbed; Torunn I Yock; Nicolas Depauw; Thomas M Madden; Hanne M Kooy; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Assessing the Clinical Impact of Approximations in Analytical Dose Calculations for Proton Therapy.

Authors:  Jan Schuemann; Drosoula Giantsoudi; Clemens Grassberger; Maryam Moteabbed; Chul Hee Min; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  Material efficiency studies for a Compton camera designed to measure characteristic prompt gamma rays emitted during proton beam radiotherapy.

Authors:  Daniel Robertson; Jerimy C Polf; Steve W Peterson; Michael T Gillin; Sam Beddar
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-04-20       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Monte Carlo study of the potential reduction in out-of-field dose using a patient-specific aperture in pencil beam scanning proton therapy.

Authors:  Stephen J Dowdell; Benjamin Clasie; Nicolas Depauw; Peter Metcalfe; Anatoly B Rosenfeld; Hanne M Kooy; Jacob B Flanz; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 8.  Assessment of the risk for developing a second malignancy from scattered and secondary radiation in radiation therapy.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.316

Review 9.  Monte Carlo methods for device simulations in radiation therapy.

Authors:  Hyojun Park; Harald Paganetti; Jan Schuemann; Xun Jia; Chul Hee Min
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 4.174

10.  Implementation of an analytical model for leakage neutron equivalent dose in a proton radiotherapy planning system.

Authors:  John Eley; Wayne Newhauser; Kenneth Homann; Rebecca Howell; Christopher Schneider; Marco Durante; Christoph Bert
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 6.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.