PURPOSE: To compare the risk of secondary cancer from scattered and leakage doses following intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and tomotherapy (TOMO) in patients with lung cancer. METHODS: IMRT, VMAT and TOMO were planned for five lung cancer patients. Organ equivalent doses (OEDs) are estimated from the measured corresponding secondary doses during irradiation at various points 20 to 80 cm from the iso-center by using radio-photoluminescence glass dosimeter (RPLGD). RESULTS: The secondary dose per Gy from IMRT, VMAT and TOMO for lung cancer, measured 20 to 80 cm from the iso-center, are 0.02~2.03, 0.03~1.35 and 0.04~0.46 cGy, respectively. The mean values of relative OED of secondary dose of VMAT and TOMO, which is normalized by IMRT, ranged between 88.63% and 41.59% revealing 88.63% and 41.59% for thyroid, 82.33% and 41.85% for pancreas, 77.97% and 49.41% for bowel, 73.42% and 72.55% for rectum, 74.16% and 81.51% for prostate. The secondary dose and OED from TOMO became similar to those from IMRT and VMAT as the distance from the field edge increased. CONCLUSIONS: OED based estimation suggests that the secondary cancer risk from TOMO is less than or comparable to the risks from conventional IMRT and VMAT.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the risk of secondary cancer from scattered and leakage doses following intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and tomotherapy (TOMO) in patients with lung cancer. METHODS: IMRT, VMAT and TOMO were planned for five lung cancerpatients. Organ equivalent doses (OEDs) are estimated from the measured corresponding secondary doses during irradiation at various points 20 to 80 cm from the iso-center by using radio-photoluminescence glass dosimeter (RPLGD). RESULTS: The secondary dose per Gy from IMRT, VMAT and TOMO for lung cancer, measured 20 to 80 cm from the iso-center, are 0.02~2.03, 0.03~1.35 and 0.04~0.46 cGy, respectively. The mean values of relative OED of secondary dose of VMAT and TOMO, which is normalized by IMRT, ranged between 88.63% and 41.59% revealing 88.63% and 41.59% for thyroid, 82.33% and 41.85% for pancreas, 77.97% and 49.41% for bowel, 73.42% and 72.55% for rectum, 74.16% and 81.51% for prostate. The secondary dose and OED from TOMO became similar to those from IMRT and VMAT as the distance from the field edge increased. CONCLUSIONS: OED based estimation suggests that the secondary cancer risk from TOMO is less than or comparable to the risks from conventional IMRT and VMAT.
Authors: James S Welsh; Rakesh R Patel; Mark A Ritter; Paul M Harari; T Rockwell Mackie; Minesh P Mehta Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2002-08
Authors: C M Nutting; D J Convery; V P Cosgrove; C Rowbottom; A R Padhani; S Webb; D P Dearnaley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: S A Leibel; M J Zelefsky; G J Kutcher; C M Burman; R Mohan; G S Mageras; C C Ling; Z Fuks Journal: Semin Oncol Date: 1994-10 Impact factor: 4.929
Authors: Michael J Zelefsky; Zvi Fuks; Margie Hunt; Yoshiya Yamada; Christine Marion; C Clifton Ling; Howard Amols; E S Venkatraman; Steven A Leibel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: W U Shipley; L J Verhey; J E Munzenrider; H D Suit; M M Urie; P L McManus; R H Young; J W Shipley; A L Zietman; P J Biggs Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1995-04-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Fu Jin; Huan-Li Luo; Juan Zhou; Ya-Nan He; Xian-Feng Liu; Ming-Song Zhong; Han Yang; Chao Li; Qi-Cheng Li; Xia Huang; Xiu-Mei Tian; Da Qiu; Guang-Lei He; Li Yin; Ying Wang Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 3.989