A software tool for organ-specific second cancer risk assessment from exposure to therapeutic doses

Tzanis, Eleftherios; Mazonakis, Michalis; Damilakis, John

doi:10.5603/rpor.a2022.0014

Cited by 2 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They also allow for the determination of gamma and neutron radiation contributions to the total ambient-absorbed dose D t in an unknown mixed radiation field. Having such information, other dosimetric quantities, like H* (10) or the dose equivalent in a distant organ H T , can be assessed. Above all, they are active detectors that allow monitoring results on an ongoing basis, without the need for long waits for readout, and can be used in relatively intense radiation fields, not suffering from saturation or dead-time effects.…”

Section: Recombination Chambersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They reported data on neutron and photon fluence, their energy spectrum or average energy. On this basis, using appropriate conversion factors, one can estimate, for example, organ dose equivalent H T or ambient dose equivalent H* (10). It should be noted that H*( 10) is an operational quantity, which can be measured, conservatively estimating the effective dose [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It should be noted that H*( 10) is an operational quantity, which can be measured, conservatively estimating the effective dose [6]. More about the utility of H* (10) for exposure assessment during a radiotherapy course (a justification, but also a discussion of the limitations of such an approach) could be found in [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, highly specialized techniques are associated with an increase in the number of monitor units (MU) generated in one therapeutic fraction and with a greater number of normal tissues through which the radiation passes. In consequence, an increased risk of radiation-induced malignancies may be of concern [9,10]. This risk seems to be more and more important with the use of beams of accelerating voltage above 6 MV.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The objectives of the presented study were to assess the impact of irradiation technique type and beam energy on the mixed radiation field around the medical linear accelerator. Moreover, we also determined H* (10), as a conservative estimation of effective dose relevant from the radiation protection point of view during one radiotherapeutic session (fraction).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A dosimetric comparison of 3D-CRT, IMRT and IMAT treatment techniques — assessment from radiation protection point of view

Tulik,

Maciak,

Tulik

2024

Rep Pract Oncol Radiother.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The purpose was to assess the impact of irradiation technique type and beam energy on the mixed radiation field around the medical linear accelerator (linac) in terms of radiation quality and related radiation protection quantities. Materials and methods:Seven radiotherapeutic plans with Alderson-Rando anthropomorphic phantom [different techniques: conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT), different beams: 6 MV or 18 MV, and their arrangements) were prepared for the case of prostate malignancy. Recombination chambers REM-2 and GW2 were positioned on the treatment couch 100 cm from the beam axis at the height of the isocentre. Recombination chambers REM-2 and GW2 were used for recombination index of radiation quality Q 4 determination, measurement of total tissue dose D t and calculation of gamma and neutron components to D t . Estimation of D t and Q 4 allowed for the ambient dose equivalent H*(10) calculations for each plan.Results: For plans prepared with 6 MV beams, Q 4 values within the limits of uncertainty were equal to one, which confirms the correctness of the measurement method. For plans implemented with 18 MV beams, the value of Q 4 was in the range of 3.7-5.7. Comparison between treatment techniques indicates that the lowest exposure resulting from out-of-field doses comes from 6 MV IMAT (0.7 mSv), whereas the highest one is from 18 MV IMRT (55.1 mSv). Conclusion:With the recombination chambers technique it was confirmed that the choice of beam energy directly affects the generation of photoneutrons. The treatment plan technique can have a significant impact on the out-of-field dose.

show abstract

Section: Recombination Chambersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A dosimetric comparison of 3D-CRT, IMRT and IMAT treatment techniques — assessment from radiation protection point of view

Tulik,

Maciak,

Tulik

2024

Rep Pract Oncol Radiother.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Risk of Radiation-Induced Second Primary Cancers and Cardiotoxicity following Therapeutic Irradiation for Thymoma with Photon Beams: A Treatment Planning Study

Mazonakis,

Kachris,

Tolia

et al. 2024

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the risks for developing second primary cancers and cardiotoxicity following radiotherapy for thymoma. Three different 3D-CRT, IMRT, and VMAT plans were generated with 6 MV photons for 12 females with thymoma. Dose-volume histogram data were employed to estimate the second cancer risks using a mechanistic non-linear model. The radiation doses to the heart and cardiac substructures were combined with linear models to assess the probability of cardiotoxicity. The mean lifetime risk for lung, esophageal, thyroid, left breast, and right breast cancer induction was 4.34–4.49%, 0.30–0.31%, 0.05–0.07%, 2.06–2.30%, and 2.04–2.34%, respectively, depending upon the radiotherapy technique. The relative risk for major cardiac events, including myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, and death, was 1.43–1.55, whereas that for chronic heart failure was 1.20–1.29. The IMRT and VMAT significantly reduced the risk for cardiotoxicity with respect to 3D-CRT (p ≤ 0.023). Small but significant reductions were observed for most organ-specific cancer risks with IMRT compared to conformal treatment (p ≤ 0.008). Similar decreases were detected only for esophageal and thyroid cancer with VMAT (p ≤ 0.033). No difference was found in the probability for radiation-induced lung cancer with the three techniques (p ≥ 0.06). Healthcare professionals may use these data to select the appropriate radiotherapy technique and restrict the risk of late effects.

show abstract

A software tool for organ-specific second cancer risk assessment from exposure to therapeutic doses

Cited by 2 publications

References 20 publications

A dosimetric comparison of 3D-CRT, IMRT and IMAT treatment techniques — assessment from radiation protection point of view

A dosimetric comparison of 3D-CRT, IMRT and IMAT treatment techniques — assessment from radiation protection point of view

Risk of Radiation-Induced Second Primary Cancers and Cardiotoxicity following Therapeutic Irradiation for Thymoma with Photon Beams: A Treatment Planning Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About