C Simonetto1, H Rennau2, J Remmele3, S Sebb2, P Kundrát4, M Eidemüller4, U Wolf3, G Hildebrandt2. 1. Institute of Radiation Protection, Helmholtz Zentrum München Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Gesundheit und Umwelt (GmbH), Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany. cristoforo.simonetto@helmholtz-muenchen.de. 2. Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie, MVZ der Universitätsmedizin Rostock am Standort Südstadt gGmbH, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Südring 75, 18059, Rostock, Germany. 3. Klinik für Strahlentherapie, Universität Leipzig, Stephanstraße 9a, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. 4. Institute of Radiation Protection, Helmholtz Zentrum München Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Gesundheit und Umwelt (GmbH), Ingolstädter Landstraße 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: With the ever-increasing cure rates in breast cancer, radiotherapy-induced cancers have become an important issue. This study aimed to estimate secondary cancer risks for different treatment techniques, taking into account organs throughout the body. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Organ doses were evaluated for a tangential three-dimensional conformal (3D-CRT) and a multi-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plan using a validated, Monte Carlo-based treatment planning system. Effects of wedges and of forward versus inverse planning were systematically investigated on the basis of phantom measurements. Organ-specific cancer risks were estimated using risk coefficients derived from radiotherapy patients or from the atomic bomb survivors. RESULTS: In the 3D-CRT plan, mean organ doses could be kept below 1 Gy for more remote organs than the lung, heart, and contralateral breast, and decreased to a few cGy for organs in the lower torso. Multi-field IMRT led to considerably higher mean doses in organs at risk, the difference being higher than 50% for many organs. Likewise, the peripheral radiation burden was increased by external wedges. No difference was observed for forward versus inverse planning. Despite the lower doses, the total estimated secondary cancer risk in more remote organs was comparable to that in the lung or the contralateral breast. For multi-field IMRT it was 75% higher than for 3D-CRT without external wedges. CONCLUSION: Remote organs are important for assessment of radiation-induced cancer risk. Remote doses can be reduced effectively by application of a tangential field configuration and a linear accelerator set-up with low head scatter radiation.
PURPOSE: With the ever-increasing cure rates in breast cancer, radiotherapy-induced cancers have become an important issue. This study aimed to estimate secondary cancer risks for different treatment techniques, taking into account organs throughout the body. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Organ doses were evaluated for a tangential three-dimensional conformal (3D-CRT) and a multi-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plan using a validated, Monte Carlo-based treatment planning system. Effects of wedges and of forward versus inverse planning were systematically investigated on the basis of phantom measurements. Organ-specific cancer risks were estimated using risk coefficients derived from radiotherapy patients or from the atomic bomb survivors. RESULTS: In the 3D-CRT plan, mean organ doses could be kept below 1 Gy for more remote organs than the lung, heart, and contralateral breast, and decreased to a few cGy for organs in the lower torso. Multi-field IMRT led to considerably higher mean doses in organs at risk, the difference being higher than 50% for many organs. Likewise, the peripheral radiation burden was increased by external wedges. No difference was observed for forward versus inverse planning. Despite the lower doses, the total estimated secondary cancer risk in more remote organs was comparable to that in the lung or the contralateral breast. For multi-field IMRT it was 75% higher than for 3D-CRT without external wedges. CONCLUSION: Remote organs are important for assessment of radiation-induced cancer risk. Remote doses can be reduced effectively by application of a tangential field configuration and a linear accelerator set-up with low head scatter radiation.
Authors: M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Carolyn Taylor; Candace Correa; Frances K Duane; Marianne C Aznar; Stewart J Anderson; Jonas Bergh; David Dodwell; Marianne Ewertz; Richard Gray; Reshma Jagsi; Lori Pierce; Kathleen I Pritchard; Sandra Swain; Zhe Wang; Yaochen Wang; Tim Whelan; Richard Peto; Paul McGale Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Daniel Wollschläger; Hiltrud Merzenich; Lukas Schwentner; Wolfgang Janni; Thomas Wiegel; Detlef Bartkowiak; Achim Wöckel; Marcus Schmidt; Heinz Schmidberger; Maria Blettner Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-03-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Hiltrud Merzenich; Detlef Bartkowiak; Heinz Schmidberger; Marcus Schmidt; Lukas Schwentner; Thomas Wiegel; Achim Woeckel; Daniel Wollschläger; Maria Blettner Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Claudia Allemani; Hannah K Weir; Helena Carreira; Rhea Harewood; Devon Spika; Xiao-Si Wang; Finian Bannon; Jane V Ahn; Christopher J Johnson; Audrey Bonaventure; Rafael Marcos-Gragera; Charles Stiller; Gulnar Azevedo e Silva; Wan-Qing Chen; Olufemi J Ogunbiyi; Bernard Rachet; Matthew J Soeberg; Hui You; Tomohiro Matsuda; Magdalena Bielska-Lasota; Hans Storm; Thomas C Tucker; Michel P Coleman Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Pavel Kundrát; Hannes Rennau; Julia Remmele; Sabine Sebb; Cristoforo Simonetto; Jan Christian Kaiser; Guido Hildebrandt; Ulrich Wolf; Markus Eidemüller Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Marc Vogel; Jonas Gade; Bernd Timm; Michaela Schürmann; Hendrik Auerbach; Frank Nüsken; Christian Rübe; Patrick Melchior; Yvonne Dzierma Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 5.738