Second malignant neoplasm risk after craniospinal irradiation in X-ray-based techniques compared to proton therapy.

Q3 Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Pub Date : 2019-03-01 Epub Date: 2019-02-06 DOI:10.1007/s13246-019-00731-y
Vasanthan Sakthivel, Kadirampatti M Ganesh, Craig McKenzie, Raghavendiran Boopathy, Jothybasu Selvaraj
{"title":"Second malignant neoplasm risk after craniospinal irradiation in X-ray-based techniques compared to proton therapy.","authors":"Vasanthan Sakthivel,&nbsp;Kadirampatti M Ganesh,&nbsp;Craig McKenzie,&nbsp;Raghavendiran Boopathy,&nbsp;Jothybasu Selvaraj","doi":"10.1007/s13246-019-00731-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cranio-spinal irradiation (CSI) is widely used for treating medulloblastoma cases in children. Radiation-induced second malignancy is of grave concern; especially in children due to their long-life expectancy and higher radiosensitivity of tissues at young age. Several techniques can be employed for CSI including 3DCRT, IMRT, VMAT and tomotherapy. However, these techniques are associated with higher risk of second malignancy due to the physical characteristics of photon irradiation which deliver moderately higher doses to normal tissues. On the other hand, proton beam therapy delivers substantially lesser dose to normal tissues due to the sharp dose fall off beyond Bragg peak compared to photon therapy. The aim of this work is to quantify the relative decrease in the risk with proton therapy compared to other photon treatments for CSI. Ten anonymized patient DICOM datasets treated previously were selected for this study. 3DCRT, IMRT, VMAT, tomotherapy and proton therapy with pencil beam scanning (PBS) plans were generated. The prescription dose was 36 Gy in 20 fractions. PBS was chosen due to substantially lesser neutron dose compared to passive scattering. The age of the patients ranged from 3 to 12 with a median age of eight with six male and four female patients. Commonly used linear and a mechanistic doseresponse models (DRM) were used for the analyses. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were calculated for critical structures to calculate organ equivalent doses (OED) to obtain excess absolute risk (EAR), life-time attributable risk (LAR) and other risk relevant parameters. A α' value of 0.018 Gy<sup>-1</sup> and a repopulation factor R of 0.93 was used in the mechanistic model for carcinoma induction. Gender specific correction factor of 0.17 and - 0.17 for females and males were used for the EAR calculation. The relative integral dose of all critical structures averaged were 6.3, 4.8, 4.5 and 4.7 times higher in 3DCRT, IMRT, VMAT and tomotherapy respectively compared to proton therapy. The mean relative LAR calculated from the mean EAR of all organs with linear DRM were 4.0, 2.9, 2.9, 2.7 higher for male and 4.0, 2.9, 2.8 and 2.7 times higher for female patients compared to proton therapy. The same values with the mechanistic model were 2.2, 3.6, 3.2, 3.8 and 2.2, 3.5, 3.2, 3.8 times higher compared to proton therapy for male and female patients respectively. All critical structures except lungs and kidneys considered in this study had a substantially lower OED in proton plans. Risk of radiation-induced second malignancy in Proton PBS compared to conventional photon treatments were up to three and four times lesser for male and female patients respectively with the linear DRM. Using the mechanistic DRM these were up to two and three times lesser in proton plans for male and female patients respectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":55430,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine","volume":"42 1","pages":"201-209"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s13246-019-00731-y","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00731-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/2/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Cranio-spinal irradiation (CSI) is widely used for treating medulloblastoma cases in children. Radiation-induced second malignancy is of grave concern; especially in children due to their long-life expectancy and higher radiosensitivity of tissues at young age. Several techniques can be employed for CSI including 3DCRT, IMRT, VMAT and tomotherapy. However, these techniques are associated with higher risk of second malignancy due to the physical characteristics of photon irradiation which deliver moderately higher doses to normal tissues. On the other hand, proton beam therapy delivers substantially lesser dose to normal tissues due to the sharp dose fall off beyond Bragg peak compared to photon therapy. The aim of this work is to quantify the relative decrease in the risk with proton therapy compared to other photon treatments for CSI. Ten anonymized patient DICOM datasets treated previously were selected for this study. 3DCRT, IMRT, VMAT, tomotherapy and proton therapy with pencil beam scanning (PBS) plans were generated. The prescription dose was 36 Gy in 20 fractions. PBS was chosen due to substantially lesser neutron dose compared to passive scattering. The age of the patients ranged from 3 to 12 with a median age of eight with six male and four female patients. Commonly used linear and a mechanistic doseresponse models (DRM) were used for the analyses. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were calculated for critical structures to calculate organ equivalent doses (OED) to obtain excess absolute risk (EAR), life-time attributable risk (LAR) and other risk relevant parameters. A α' value of 0.018 Gy-1 and a repopulation factor R of 0.93 was used in the mechanistic model for carcinoma induction. Gender specific correction factor of 0.17 and - 0.17 for females and males were used for the EAR calculation. The relative integral dose of all critical structures averaged were 6.3, 4.8, 4.5 and 4.7 times higher in 3DCRT, IMRT, VMAT and tomotherapy respectively compared to proton therapy. The mean relative LAR calculated from the mean EAR of all organs with linear DRM were 4.0, 2.9, 2.9, 2.7 higher for male and 4.0, 2.9, 2.8 and 2.7 times higher for female patients compared to proton therapy. The same values with the mechanistic model were 2.2, 3.6, 3.2, 3.8 and 2.2, 3.5, 3.2, 3.8 times higher compared to proton therapy for male and female patients respectively. All critical structures except lungs and kidneys considered in this study had a substantially lower OED in proton plans. Risk of radiation-induced second malignancy in Proton PBS compared to conventional photon treatments were up to three and four times lesser for male and female patients respectively with the linear DRM. Using the mechanistic DRM these were up to two and three times lesser in proton plans for male and female patients respectively.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与质子治疗相比,x射线照射后颅脊柱恶性肿瘤的风险。
颅脊髓放射治疗被广泛用于治疗儿童髓母细胞瘤。辐射引起的二次恶性肿瘤是一个严重的问题;特别是儿童,因为他们的预期寿命长,年轻时组织的放射敏感性较高。CSI可采用3DCRT、IMRT、VMAT和断层治疗等技术。然而,由于光子照射的物理特性,这些技术与较高的二次恶性肿瘤风险相关,光子照射对正常组织的剂量较高。另一方面,与光子治疗相比,质子束治疗对正常组织的剂量要小得多,因为在布拉格峰之后剂量会急剧下降。这项工作的目的是量化与其他光子治疗相比,质子治疗在CSI风险的相对降低。本研究选择了先前治疗过的10个匿名患者DICOM数据集。生成3DCRT、IMRT、VMAT、断层治疗和质子治疗铅笔束扫描(PBS)方案。处方剂量为36 Gy,分20份。之所以选择PBS,是因为与被动散射相比,它的中子剂量要小得多。患者年龄3 ~ 12岁,中位年龄8岁,男6例,女4例。常用的线性和机械剂量响应模型(DRM)被用于分析。计算临界结构的剂量-体积直方图(DVH),计算器官等效剂量(OED),从而获得超额绝对风险(EAR)、终生归因风险(LAR)和其他风险相关参数。A α′值为0.018 Gy-1,再种群因子R为0.93。女性和男性的性别校正因子分别为0.17和- 0.17。与质子治疗相比,3DCRT、IMRT、VMAT和断层治疗各关键结构的平均相对积分剂量分别高6.3倍、4.8倍、4.5倍和4.7倍。由线性DRM的所有器官平均EAR计算的平均相对LAR,男性比质子治疗高4.0倍、2.9倍、2.9倍、2.7倍,女性比质子治疗高4.0倍、2.9倍、2.8倍、2.7倍。与机制模型相同的数值分别是2.2、3.6、3.2、3.8和2.2、3.5、3.2、3.8倍于质子治疗。本研究中除肺和肾外的所有关键结构在质子计划中都有明显较低的OED。对于线性DRM的男性和女性患者,质子PBS放射诱导的第二次恶性肿瘤的风险分别比传统光子治疗低3倍和4倍。使用机械DRM,男性和女性患者的质子计划分别减少了两倍和三倍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine (APESM) is a multidisciplinary forum for information and research on the application of physics and engineering to medicine and human physiology. APESM covers a broad range of topics that include but is not limited to: - Medical physics in radiotherapy - Medical physics in diagnostic radiology - Medical physics in nuclear medicine - Mathematical modelling applied to medicine and human biology - Clinical biomedical engineering - Feature extraction, classification of EEG, ECG, EMG, EOG, and other biomedical signals; - Medical imaging - contributions to new and improved methods; - Modelling of physiological systems - Image processing to extract information from images, e.g. fMRI, CT, etc.; - Biomechanics, especially with applications to orthopaedics. - Nanotechnology in medicine APESM offers original reviews, scientific papers, scientific notes, technical papers, educational notes, book reviews and letters to the editor. APESM is the journal of the Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine, and also the official journal of the College of Biomedical Engineers, Engineers Australia and the Asia-Oceania Federation of Organizations for Medical Physics.
期刊最新文献
Acknowledgment of Reviewers for Volume 35 Acknowledgment of Reviewers for Volume 34 A comparison between EPSON V700 and EPSON V800 scanners for film dosimetry. Nanodosimetric understanding to the dependence of the relationship between dose-averaged lineal energy on nanoscale and LET on ion species. EPSM 2019, Engineering and Physical Sciences in Medicine : 28-30 October 2019, Perth, Australia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1