A COMPARISON OF OUT-OF-FIELD DOSE AND ITS CONSTITUENT COMPONENTS FOR INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY VERSUS CONFORMAL RADIATION THERAPY: IMPLICATIONS FOR CARCINOGENESIS

被引:55
|
作者
Ruben, Jeremy D. [1 ,2 ]
Lancaster, Craig M. [1 ]
Jones, Phillip [1 ]
Smith, Ryan L. [1 ]
机构
[1] William Buckland Radiotherapy Ctr, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
[2] Monash Univ, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
关键词
IMRT; scatter; leakage; second cancer risk; 3D conformal radiation therapy; RADIOTHERAPY; IMRT; EQUIVALENT; NEUTRON; RISK; MV; MALIGNANCIES; IMPACT; PHOTON; HEAD;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.08.008
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: To investigate differences in scatter and leakage between 6-MV intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT); to describe the relative contributions of internal patient scatter, collimator scatter, and head leakage; and to discuss implications for second cancer induction. Methods and Materials: Dose was measured at increasing distances from the field edge in a water bath with a sloping wall (I) under full scatter conditions, (2) with the field edge abutting but outside the bath to prevent internal (water) scatter, and (3) with the beam aperture plugged to reflect leakage only. Results: Internal patient scatter from IMRT is 11% lower than 3DCRT, but collimator scatter and head leakage are five and three times higher, respectively. Ultimately, total scattered dose is 80% higher with IMRT; however this difference is small in absolute terms, being 0.14% of prescribed dose. Secondary dose from 3DCRT is mostly due to internal patient scatter, which contributes 70% of the total and predominates until 25 cm from the field edge. For IMRT, however, machine scatter/leakage is the dominant source, contributing 65% of the secondary dose. Internal scatter predominates for just the first 10 cm from field edge, collimator scatter for the next 10 cm, and head leakage thereafter. Conclusions: Out-of-field dose is 80% higher with IMRT, but differences are tiny in absolute terms. Reductions in internal patient scatter with IMRT are outweighed by increased machine scatter and leakage, at least for small fields. Reductions from IMRT in dose to tissues within the portals and in internal scatter, which predominates close to the field edge, means that calculations based solely on dose to distant tissues may overestimate carcinogenic risks. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:1458 / 1464
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A comparison of out-of-field dose and its constituent components for intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus conformal radiation therapy: Implications for carcinogesis (vol 81, pg 1458, 2011)
    Ruben, J. D.
    Lancaster, C. M.
    Jones, P.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2014, 88 (02): : 462 - 462
  • [2] Constituent Components of Out-of-Field Scatter Dose for 18-MV Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy: A Comparison With 6-MV and Implications for Carcinogenesis
    Ruben, Jeremy D.
    Smith, Ryan
    Lancaster, Craig M.
    Haynes, Matthew
    Jones, Phillip
    Panettieri, Vanessa
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2014, 90 (03): : 645 - 653
  • [3] Intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy versus conventional conformal techniques at high energy: Dose assessment and impact on second primary cancer in the out-of-field region
    Sanchez-Nieto, Beatriz
    Romero-Exposito, Maria
    Antonio Terron, Jose
    Irazola, Leticia
    Paiusco, Marta
    Cagni, Elisabetta
    Ghetti, Caterina
    Filice, Silvano
    Sanchez-Doblado, Francisco
    REPORTS OF PRACTICAL ONCOLOGY AND RADIOTHERAPY, 2018, 23 (04) : 251 - 259
  • [4] Out-of-field photon and neutron dose equivalents from step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy
    Kry, SF
    Salehpour, M
    Followill, DS
    Stovall, M
    Kuban, DA
    White, RA
    Rosen, II
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2005, 62 (04): : 1204 - 1216
  • [5] Comparison of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy, Intensity-Modulated Arc Therapy and Arc-Modulated Radiation Therapy
    Tang, G.
    Earl, M.
    Luan, S.
    Wang, C.
    Naqvi, S.
    Yu, C.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 35 (06)
  • [6] Comparison of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy systems
    Verhey, LJ
    SEMINARS IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 1999, 9 (01) : 78 - +
  • [7] Measured peripheral dose in pediatric radiation therapy: A comparison of intensity-modulated and conformal techniques
    Mansur, David B.
    Klein, Eric E.
    Maserang, Beth P.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2007, 82 (02) : 179 - 184
  • [8] Patterns of failure after reirradiation with intensity-modulated radiation therapy and the competing risk of out-of-field recurrences
    Margalit, Danielle N.
    Rawal, Bhupendra
    Catalano, Paul J.
    Haddad, Robert I.
    Goguen, Laura A.
    Annino, Donald J.
    Limaye, Sewanti A.
    Lorch, Jochen H.
    Lavigne, Annie W.
    Schoenfeld, Jonathan D.
    Sher, David J.
    Tishler, Roy B.
    ORAL ONCOLOGY, 2016, 61 : 19 - 26
  • [9] Comparison of Simultaneous Integrated Boost Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy and Standard Dose with Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in the Treatment of Esophageal Carcinoma
    Bai, W.
    Zhang, R.
    Qiao, X.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (06) : E559 - E559
  • [10] In-vitro investigation of out-of-field cell survival following the delivery of conformal, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans
    McGarry, Conor K.
    Butterworth, Karl T.
    Trainor, Colman
    McMahon, Stephen J.
    O'Sullivan, Joe M.
    Prise, Kevin M.
    Hounsell, Alan R.
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2012, 57 (20): : 6635 - 6645