Jeremy D Ruben1, Ryan Smith2, Craig M Lancaster3, Matthew Haynes4, Phillip Jones4, Vanessa Panettieri4. 1. William Buckland Radiotherapy Centre, The Alfred, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: jeremy.ruben@wbrc.org.au. 2. William Buckland Radiotherapy Centre, The Alfred, Melbourne, Australia; Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 4. William Buckland Radiotherapy Centre, The Alfred, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To characterize and compare the components of out-of-field dose for 18-MV intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and their 6-MV counterparts and consider implications for second cancer induction. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Comparable plans for each technique/energy were delivered to a water phantom with a sloping wall; under full scatter conditions; with field edge abutting but outside the bath to prevent internal/phantom scatter; and with shielding below the linear accelerator head to attenuate head leakage. Neutron measurements were obtained from published studies. RESULTS: Eighteen-megavolt IMRT produces 1.7 times more out-of-field scatter than 18-MV 3D-CRT. In absolute terms, however, differences are just approximately 0.1% of central axis dose. Eighteen-megavolt IMRT reduces internal/patient scatter by 13%, but collimator scatter (C) is 2.6 times greater than 18-MV 3D-CRT. Head leakage (L) is minimal. Increased out-of-field photon scatter from 18-MV IMRT carries out-of-field second cancer risks of approximately 0.2% over and above the 0.4% from 18-MV 3D-CRT. Greater photoneutron dose from 18-MV IMRT may result in further maximal, absolute increased risk to peripheral tissue of approximately 1.2% over 18-MV 3D-CRT. Out-of-field photon scatter remains comparable for the same modality irrespective of beam energy. Machine scatter (C+L) from 18 versus 6 MV is 1.2 times higher for IMRT and 1.8 times for 3D-CRT. It is 4 times higher for 6-MV IMRT versus 3D-CRT. Reduction in internal scatter with 18 MV versus 6 MV is 27% for 3D-CRT and 29% for IMRT. Compared with 6-MV 3D-CRT, 18-MV IMRT increases out-of-field second cancer risk by 0.2% from photons and adds 0.28-2.2% from neutrons. CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-field photon dose seems to be independent of beam energy for both techniques. Eighteen-megavolt IMRT increases out-of-field scatter 1.7-fold over 3D-CRT because of greater collimator scatter despite reducing internal/patient scatter. Out-of-field carcinogenic risk is thus increased (but improved in-field dose conformity may offset this). Potentially increased carcinogenic risk should be weighed against any benefit 18-MV IMRT may provide.
PURPOSE: To characterize and compare the components of out-of-field dose for 18-MV intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and their 6-MV counterparts and consider implications for second cancer induction. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Comparable plans for each technique/energy were delivered to a water phantom with a sloping wall; under full scatter conditions; with field edge abutting but outside the bath to prevent internal/phantom scatter; and with shielding below the linear accelerator head to attenuate head leakage. Neutron measurements were obtained from published studies. RESULTS: Eighteen-megavolt IMRT produces 1.7 times more out-of-field scatter than 18-MV 3D-CRT. In absolute terms, however, differences are just approximately 0.1% of central axis dose. Eighteen-megavolt IMRT reduces internal/patient scatter by 13%, but collimator scatter (C) is 2.6 times greater than 18-MV 3D-CRT. Head leakage (L) is minimal. Increased out-of-field photon scatter from 18-MV IMRT carries out-of-field second cancer risks of approximately 0.2% over and above the 0.4% from 18-MV 3D-CRT. Greater photoneutron dose from 18-MV IMRT may result in further maximal, absolute increased risk to peripheral tissue of approximately 1.2% over 18-MV 3D-CRT. Out-of-field photon scatter remains comparable for the same modality irrespective of beam energy. Machine scatter (C+L) from 18 versus 6 MV is 1.2 times higher for IMRT and 1.8 times for 3D-CRT. It is 4 times higher for 6-MV IMRT versus 3D-CRT. Reduction in internal scatter with 18 MV versus 6 MV is 27% for 3D-CRT and 29% for IMRT. Compared with 6-MV 3D-CRT, 18-MV IMRT increases out-of-field second cancer risk by 0.2% from photons and adds 0.28-2.2% from neutrons. CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-field photon dose seems to be independent of beam energy for both techniques. Eighteen-megavolt IMRT increases out-of-field scatter 1.7-fold over 3D-CRT because of greater collimator scatter despite reducing internal/patient scatter. Out-of-field carcinogenic risk is thus increased (but improved in-field dose conformity may offset this). Potentially increased carcinogenic risk should be weighed against any benefit 18-MV IMRT may provide.