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
来源
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS | 2011年 / 81卷 / 05期
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
  • [21] Optimization and clinical use of multisegment intensity-modulated radiation therapy for high-dose conformal therapy
    Fraass, BA
    Kessler, ML
    McShan, DL
    Marsh, LH
    Watson, BA
    Dusseau, WJ
    Eisbruch, A
    Sandler, HM
    Lichter, AS
    SEMINARS IN RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 1999, 9 (01) : 60 - +
  • [22] Field splitting problems in intensity-modulated radiation therapy
    Chen, Danny Z.
    Wang, Chao
    ALGORITHMS AND COMPUTATION, PROCEEDINGS, 2006, 4288 : 690 - +
  • [23] Define dose field to assess the modulation complexity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy
    Luo, Ning
    Wang, Zhenyu
    Ouyang, Bin
    Xiao, Zhenhua
    Huang, Jingxian
    Huang, Jiexing
    Liu, Ling
    Deng, Yongjin
    PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2021, 87 : 24 - 30
  • [24] Intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus 3D conformal radiation therapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal
    Chuong, Michael
    Freilich, Jessica
    Hoffe, Sarah
    Fulp, William J.
    Weber, Jill
    Almhanna, Khaldoun
    Dinwoodie, William R.
    Meredith, Kenneth
    Shridhar, Ravi
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 31 (04)
  • [25] Comparison of Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy, Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy, and Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy In Glioblastoma Multiforme Radiation Therapy With EORTC Target Delineation
    Ibis, Kamuran
    Akbas, Ugur
    Koksal, Canan
    Altun, Musa
    TURK ONKOLOJI DERGISI-TURKISH JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY, 2018, 33 (02): : 65 - 72
  • [26] Comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus stereotactic radiotherapy for pituitary adenoma
    Hsu, F.
    Robar, J.
    Mulroy, L.
    Rheaume, D.
    Fleetwood, I.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2007, 84 : S86 - S86
  • [27] Radiation Therapy Interference with Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices; Comparison of Proton Beam Therapy Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy
    Anvari, A.
    Alfonzetti, T.
    Butala, A.
    Carpenter, M.
    Kassaee, A.
    Paydar, I.
    Jones, J.
    Mihailidis, D.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2021, 48 (06)
  • [28] A Comparison of Outcomes Using Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy and 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy in Treatment of Oropharyngeal Cancer
    Lohia, Shivangi
    Rajapurkar, Mayuri
    Nguyen, Shaun A.
    Sharma, Anand K.
    Gillespie, M. Boyd
    Day, Terry A.
    JAMA OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD & NECK SURGERY, 2014, 140 (04) : 331 - 337
  • [29] Comparison of dose-volume histograms for Tomo therapy, linear accelerator-based 3D conformal radiation therapy, and intensity-modulated radiation therapy
    Ji, Youn-Sang
    Dong, Kyung-Rae
    Kim, Chang-Bok
    Choi, Seong-Kwan
    Chung, Woon-Kwan
    Lee, Jong-Woong
    ANNALS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, 2011, 38 (11) : 2569 - 2574
  • [30] Radiation Therapy Techniques and Treatment-Related Toxicity in the PORTEC-3 Trial: Comparison of 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy
    Wortman, Bastiaan G.
    Post, Cathalijne C. B.
    Powell, Melanie E.
    Khaw, Pearly
    Fyles, Anthony
    D'Amico, Romerai
    Haie-Meder, Christine
    Jurgenliemk-Schulz, Ina M.
    McCormack, Mary
    Do, Viet
    Katsaros, Dionyssios
    Bessette, Paul
    Baron, Marie Helene
    Nout, Remi A.
    Whitmarsh, Karen
    Mileshkin, Linda
    Lutgens, Ludy C. H. W.
    Kitchener, Henry C.
    Brooks, Susan
    Nijman, Hans W.
    Astreinidou, Eleftheria
    Putter, Hein
    Creutzberg, Carien L.
    de Boer, Stephanie M.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2022, 112 (02): : 390 - 399