Literature DB >> 20427856

Comparison of out-of-field photon doses in 6 MV IMRT and neutron doses in proton therapy for adult and pediatric patients.

Basit S Athar1, Bryan Bednarz, Joao Seco, Cindy Hancox, Harald Paganetti.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess lateral out-of-field doses in 6 MV IMRT (intensity modulated radiation therapy) and compare them with secondary neutron equivalent dose contributions in proton therapy. We simulated out-of-field photon doses to various organs as a function of distance, patient's age, gender and treatment volumes based on 3, 6, 9 cm field diameters in the head and neck and spine region. The out-of-field photon doses to organs near the field edge were found to be in the range of 2, 5 and 10 mSv Gy(-1) for 3 cm, 6 cm and 9 cm diameter IMRT fields, respectively, within 5 cm of the field edge. Statistical uncertainties calculated in organ doses vary from 0.2% to 40% depending on the organ location and the organ volume. Next, a comparison was made with previously calculated neutron equivalent doses from proton therapy using identical field arrangements. For example, out-of-field doses for IMRT to lung and uterus (organs close to the 3 cm diameter spinal field) were computed to be 0.63 and 0.62 mSv Gy(-1), respectively. These numbers are found to be a factor of 2 smaller than the corresponding out-of-field doses for proton therapy, which were estimated to be 1.6 and 1.7 mSv Gy(-1) (RBE), respectively. However, as the distance to the field edge increases beyond approximately 25 cm the neutron equivalent dose from proton therapy was found to be a factor of 2-3 smaller than the out-of-field photon dose from IMRT. We have also analyzed the neutron equivalent doses from an ideal scanned proton therapy (assuming not significant amount of absorbers in the treatment head). Out-of-field doses were found to be an order of magnitude smaller compared to out-of-field doses in IMRT or passive scattered proton therapy. In conclusion, there seem to be three geometrical areas when comparing the out-of-target dose from IMRT and (passive scattered) proton treatments. Close to the target (in-field, not analyzed here) protons offer a distinct advantage due to the lower integral dose. Out-of-field, but within approximately 25 cm from the field edge, the scattered photon dose in IMRT turned out to be roughly a factor of 2 lower than the neutron equivalent dose from proton therapy for the fields considered in this study. At larger distances to the field (beyond approximately 25 cm), protons offer an advantage, resulting in doses that are roughly a factor of 2-3 lower.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20427856      PMCID: PMC3376896          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/10/006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  17 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Adaptation of GEANT4 to Monte Carlo dose calculations based on CT data.

Authors:  H Jiang; H Paganetti
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Out-of-field photon and neutron dose equivalents from step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Stephen F Kry; Mohammad Salehpour; David S Followill; Marilyn Stovall; Deborah A Kuban; R Allen White; Isaac I Rosen
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2005-07-15       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Potential reduction of the incidence of radiation-induced second cancers by using proton beams in the treatment of pediatric tumors.

Authors:  Raymond Miralbell; Antony Lomax; Laura Cella; Uwe Schneider
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2002-11-01       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 6.  A review of the impact of photon and proton external beam radiotherapy treatment modalities on the dose distribution in field and out-of-field; implications for the long-term morbidity of cancer survivors.

Authors:  Asa Palm; Karl-Axel Johansson
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.089

7.  Risk of secondary malignant neoplasms from proton therapy and intensity-modulated x-ray therapy for early-stage prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jonas D Fontenot; Andrew K Lee; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-06-01       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Neutron equivalent doses and associated lifetime cancer incidence risks for head & neck and spinal proton therapy.

Authors:  Basit S Athar; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2009-07-30       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Assessment of organ-specific neutron equivalent doses in proton therapy using computational whole-body age-dependent voxel phantoms.

Authors:  Christina Zacharatou Jarlskog; Choonik Lee; Wesley E Bolch; X George Xu; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  The UF series of tomographic computational phantoms of pediatric patients.

Authors:  Choonik Lee; Jonathan L Williams; Choonsik Lee; Wesley E Bolch
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  22 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Predicted rates of secondary malignancies from proton versus photon radiation therapy for stage I seminoma.

Authors:  Charles B Simone; Kevin Kramer; William P O'Meara; Justin E Bekelman; Arnaud Belard; James McDonough; John O'Connell
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 7.038

3.  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

4.  Acute biological effects of simulating the whole-body radiation dose distribution from a solar particle event using a porcine model.

Authors:  Jolaine M Wilson; Jenine K Sanzari; Eric S Diffenderfer; Stephanie S Yee; John T Seykora; Casey Maks; Jeffrey H Ware; Harold I Litt; Jennifer A Reetz; James McDonough; Drew Weissman; Ann R Kennedy; Keith A Cengel
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2011-08-22       Impact factor: 2.841

5.  Comparison of second cancer risk due to out-of-field doses from 6-MV IMRT and proton therapy based on 6 pediatric patient treatment plans.

Authors:  Basit S Athar; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2010-12-13       Impact factor: 6.280

Review 6.  The physics of proton therapy.

Authors:  Wayne D Newhauser; Rui Zhang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Reconstruction of organ dose for external radiotherapy patients in retrospective epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  Choonik Lee; Jae Won Jung; Christopher Pelletier; Anil Pyakuryal; Stephanie Lamart; Jong Oh Kim; Choonsik Lee
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-02-26       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

9.  Analytical model for out-of-field dose in photon craniospinal irradiation.

Authors:  Phillip J Taddei; Wassim Jalbout; Rebecca M Howell; Nabil Khater; Fady Geara; Kenneth Homann; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Proton therapy for adults with mediastinal lymphomas: the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group guidelines.

Authors:  Bouthaina Shbib Dabaja; Bradford S Hoppe; John P Plastaras; Wayne Newhauser; Katerina Rosolova; Stella Flampouri; Radhe Mohan; N George Mikhaeel; Youlia Kirova; Lena Specht; Joachim Yahalom
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 22.113

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.