Literature DB >> 26449929

Rapid MCNP simulation of DNA double strand break (DSB) relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for photons, neutrons, and light ions.

Robert D Stewart1, Seth W Streitmatter, David C Argento, Charles Kirkby, John T Goorley, Greg Moffitt, Tatjana Jevremovic, George A Sandison.   

Abstract

To account for particle interactions in the extracellular (physical) environment, information from the cell-level Monte Carlo damage simulation (MCDS) for DNA double strand break (DSB) induction has been integrated into the general purpose Monte Carlo N-particle (MCNP) radiation transport code system. The effort to integrate these models is motivated by the need for a computationally efficient model to accurately predict particle relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in cell cultures and in vivo. To illustrate the approach and highlight the impact of the larger scale physical environment (e.g. establishing charged particle equilibrium), we examined the RBE for DSB induction (RBEDSB) of x-rays, (137)Cs γ-rays, neutrons and light ions relative to γ-rays from (60)Co in monolayer cell cultures at various depths in water. Under normoxic conditions, we found that (137)Cs γ-rays are about 1.7% more effective at creating DSB than γ-rays from (60)Co (RBEDSB  =  1.017) whereas 60-250 kV x-rays are 1.1 to 1.25 times more efficient at creating DSB than (60)Co. Under anoxic conditions, kV x-rays may have an RBEDSB up to 1.51 times as large as (60)Co γ-rays. Fission neutrons passing through monolayer cell cultures have an RBEDSB that ranges from 2.6 to 3.0 in normoxic cells, but may be as large as 9.93 for anoxic cells. For proton pencil beams, Monte Carlo simulations suggest an RBEDSB of about 1.2 at the tip of the Bragg peak and up to 1.6 a few mm beyond the Bragg peak. Bragg peak RBEDSB increases with decreasing oxygen concentration, which may create opportunities to apply proton dose painting to help address tumor hypoxia. Modeling of the particle RBE for DSB induction across multiple physical and biological scales has the potential to aid in the interpretation of laboratory experiments and provide useful information to advance the safety and effectiveness of hadron therapy in the treatment of cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26449929     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/21/8249

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


  24 in total

1.  The potential impact of ultrathin filter design on dosimetry and relative biological effectiveness in modern image-guided small animal irradiators.

Authors:  Yannick Poirier; Christopher Daniel Johnstone; Charles Kirkby
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Induction of DNA Damage by Light Ions Relative to 60Co γ-rays.

Authors:  Robert D Stewart
Journal:  Int J Part Ther       Date:  2018-09-21

Review 3.  Radiogenomics and radiotherapy response modeling.

Authors:  Issam El Naqa; Sarah L Kerns; James Coates; Yi Luo; Corey Speers; Catharine M L West; Barry S Rosenstein; Randall K Ten Haken
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 4.  -Omics potential of in vitro skin models for radiation exposure.

Authors:  Leyla A Akh; Mohammad O Ishak; Jennifer F Harris; Trevor G Glaros; Zachary J Sasiene; Phillip M Mach; Laura M Lilley; Ethan M McBride
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 9.207

5.  Challenges in the quantification approach to a radiation relevant adverse outcome pathway for lung cancer.

Authors:  Robert Stainforth; Jan Schuemann; Aimee L McNamara; Ruth C Wilkins; Vinita Chauhan
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 2.694

6.  Does Neutron Radiation Therapy Potentiate an Immune Response to Merkel Cell Carcinoma?

Authors:  Stephanie K Schaub; Robert D Stewart; George A Sandison; Thomas Arbuckle; Jay J Liao; George E Laramore; Jing Zeng; Ramesh Rengan; Yolanda D Tseng; Nina A Mayr; Shailender Bhatia; Paul T Nghiem; Upendra Parvathaneni
Journal:  Int J Part Ther       Date:  2018-09-21

7.  DNA Dosimeter Measurement of Relative Biological Effectiveness for 160 kVp and 6 MV X Rays.

Authors:  Xiaolei Li; Kristen Alycia McConnell; Jun Che; Chul Soo Ha; Sang Eun Lee; Neil Kirby; Eun Yong Shim
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 3.372

Review 8.  Complex DNA Damage: A Route to Radiation-Induced Genomic Instability and Carcinogenesis.

Authors:  Ifigeneia V Mavragani; Zacharenia Nikitaki; Maria P Souli; Asef Aziz; Somaira Nowsheen; Khaled Aziz; Emmy Rogakou; Alexandros G Georgakilas
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 6.639

9.  Incorporating oxygenation levels in analytical DNA-damage models-quantifying the oxygen fixation mechanism.

Authors:  Frank Van den Heuvel; Anna Vella; Francesca Fiorini; Mark Brooke; Mark A Hill; Tim Maughan
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-07-09       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Mechanistic Modelling of Slow and Fast NHEJ DNA Repair Pathways Following Radiation for G0/G1 Normal Tissue Cells.

Authors:  Yaping Qi; John William Warmenhoven; Nicholas Thomas Henthorn; Samuel Peter Ingram; Xie George Xu; Karen Joy Kirkby; Michael John Merchant
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 6.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.