Bryan Bednarz1, Basit Athar, X George Xu. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02108, USA. bbednarz@partners.org
Abstract
PURPOSE: A physician's decision regarding an ideal treatment approach (i.e., radiation, surgery, and/or hormonal) for prostate carcinoma is traditionally based on a variety of metrics. One of these metrics is the risk of radiation-induced second primary cancer following radiation treatments. The aim of this study was to investigate the significance of second cancer risks in out-of-field organs from 3D-CRT and IMRT treatments of prostate carcinoma compared to baseline cancer risks in these organs. METHODS: Monte Carlo simulations were performed using a detailed medical linear accelerator model and an anatomically realistic adult male whole-body phantom. A four-field box treatment, a four-field box treatment plus a six-field boost, and a seven-field IMRT treatment were simulated. Using BEIR VII risk models, the age-dependent lifetime attributable risks to various organs outside the primary beam with a known predilection for cancer were calculated using organ-averaged equivalent doses. RESULTS: The four-field box treatment had the lowest treatment-related second primary cancer risks to organs outside the primary beam ranging from 7.3 x 10(-9) to 2.54 x 10(-5)%/MU depending on the patients age at exposure and second primary cancer site. The risks to organs outside the primary beam from the four-field box and six-field boost and the seven-field IMRT were nearly equivalent. The risks from the four-field box and six-field boost ranged from 1.39 x 10(-8) to 1.80 x 10(-5)%/MU, and from the seven-field IMRT ranged from 1.60 x 10(-9) to 1.35 x 10(-5)%/MU. The second cancer risks in all organs considered from each plan were below the baseline risks. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment-related second cancer risks in organs outside the primary beam due to 3D-CRT and IMRT is small. New risk assessment techniques need to be investigated to address the concern of radiation-induced second cancers from prostate treatments, particularly focusing on risks to organs inside the primary beam.
PURPOSE: A physician's decision regarding an ideal treatment approach (i.e., radiation, surgery, and/or hormonal) for prostate carcinoma is traditionally based on a variety of metrics. One of these metrics is the risk of radiation-induced second primary cancer following radiation treatments. The aim of this study was to investigate the significance of second cancer risks in out-of-field organs from 3D-CRT and IMRT treatments of prostate carcinoma compared to baseline cancer risks in these organs. METHODS: Monte Carlo simulations were performed using a detailed medical linear accelerator model and an anatomically realistic adult male whole-body phantom. A four-field box treatment, a four-field box treatment plus a six-field boost, and a seven-field IMRT treatment were simulated. Using BEIR VII risk models, the age-dependent lifetime attributable risks to various organs outside the primary beam with a known predilection for cancer were calculated using organ-averaged equivalent doses. RESULTS: The four-field box treatment had the lowest treatment-related second primary cancer risks to organs outside the primary beam ranging from 7.3 x 10(-9) to 2.54 x 10(-5)%/MU depending on the patients age at exposure and second primary cancer site. The risks to organs outside the primary beam from the four-field box and six-field boost and the seven-field IMRT were nearly equivalent. The risks from the four-field box and six-field boost ranged from 1.39 x 10(-8) to 1.80 x 10(-5)%/MU, and from the seven-field IMRT ranged from 1.60 x 10(-9) to 1.35 x 10(-5)%/MU. The second cancer risks in all organs considered from each plan were below the baseline risks. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment-related second cancer risks in organs outside the primary beam due to 3D-CRT and IMRT is small. New risk assessment techniques need to be investigated to address the concern of radiation-induced second cancers from prostate treatments, particularly focusing on risks to organs inside the primary beam.
Authors: Stephen F Kry; Mohammad Salehpour; Uwe Titt; R Allen White; Marilyn Stovall; David Followill Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-01-13 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Wayne S Kendal; Libni Eapen; Robert Macrae; Shawn Malone; Garth Nicholas Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Laura A Rechner; Rebecca M Howell; Rui Zhang; Carol Etzel; Andrew K Lee; Wayne D Newhauser Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2012-10-10 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Laura A Rechner; John G Eley; Rebecca M Howell; Rui Zhang; Dragan Mirkovic; Wayne D Newhauser Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Lois B Travis; Wendy Demark Wahnefried; James M Allan; Marie E Wood; Andrea K Ng Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 66.675