Bednarz Bryan, Hancox Cindy, Xu X George
Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 01208, USA.
Phys Med Biol. 2009 Sep 7;54(17):5271-86. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/17/013. Epub 2009 Aug 11.
There is growing concern about radiation-induced second cancers associated with radiation treatments. Particular attention has been focused on the risk to patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) due primarily to increased monitor units. To address this concern we have combined a detailed medical linear accelerator model of the Varian Clinac 2100 C with anatomically realistic computational phantoms to calculate organ doses from selected treatment plans. This paper describes the application to calculate organ-averaged equivalent doses using a computational phantom for three different treatments of prostate cancer: a 4-field box treatment, the same box treatment plus a 6-field 3D-CRT boost treatment and a 7-field IMRT treatment. The equivalent doses per MU to those organs that have shown a predilection for second cancers were compared between the different treatment techniques. In addition, the dependence of photon and neutron equivalent doses on gantry angle and energy was investigated. The results indicate that the box treatment plus 6-field boost delivered the highest intermediate- and low-level photon doses per treatment MU to the patient primarily due to the elevated patient scatter contribution as a result of an increase in integral dose delivered by this treatment. In most organs the contribution of neutron dose to the total equivalent dose for the 3D-CRT treatments was less than the contribution of photon dose, except for the lung, esophagus, thyroid and brain. The total equivalent dose per MU to each organ was calculated by summing the photon and neutron dose contributions. For all organs non-adjacent to the primary beam, the equivalent doses per MU from the IMRT treatment were less than the doses from the 3D-CRT treatments. This is due to the increase in the integral dose and the added neutron dose to these organs from the 18 MV treatments. However, depending on the application technique and optimization used, the required MU values for IMRT treatments can be two to three times greater than 3D CRT. Therefore, the total equivalent dose in most organs would be higher from the IMRT treatment compared to the box treatment and comparable to the organ doses from the box treatment plus the 6-field boost. This is the first time when organ dose data for an adult male patient of the ICRP reference anatomy have been calculated and documented. The tools presented in this paper can be used to estimate the second cancer risk to patients undergoing radiation treatment.
人们越来越关注与放射治疗相关的辐射诱发的二次癌症。特别受到关注的是接受调强放射治疗(IMRT)的患者所面临的风险,这主要是由于监测单位的增加。为了解决这一问题,我们将Varian Clinac 2100 C的详细医用直线加速器模型与解剖学上逼真的计算体模相结合,以计算选定治疗计划中的器官剂量。本文描述了使用计算体模对前列腺癌的三种不同治疗方法计算器官平均当量剂量的应用:一种4野盒式治疗、相同的盒式治疗加上6野三维适形放疗(3D-CRT)增敏治疗以及一种7野IMRT治疗。比较了不同治疗技术之间对那些已显示出易患二次癌症倾向的器官每监测单位的当量剂量。此外,还研究了光子和中子当量剂量对机架角度和能量的依赖性。结果表明,盒式治疗加上6野增敏治疗每治疗监测单位向患者输送的中低水平光子剂量最高,这主要是由于该治疗输送的积分剂量增加导致患者散射贡献升高。在大多数器官中,3D-CRT治疗中中子剂量对总当量剂量的贡献小于光子剂量的贡献,但肺、食管、甲状腺和脑除外。每个器官每监测单位的总当量剂量通过将光子和中子剂量贡献相加来计算。对于所有不与主射束相邻的器官,IMRT治疗每监测单位的当量剂量小于3D-CRT治疗的剂量。这是由于18 MV治疗使这些器官的积分剂量增加以及中子剂量增加。然而,根据应用技术和所使用的优化方法,IMRT治疗所需的监测单位值可能比3D CRT大两到三倍。因此,与盒式治疗相比,IMRT治疗在大多数器官中的总当量剂量会更高,并且与盒式治疗加上6野增敏治疗的器官剂量相当。这是首次计算并记录了ICRP参考解剖学成年男性患者的器官剂量数据。本文介绍的工具可用于估计接受放射治疗患者的二次癌症风险。