These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: 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.
    Author: Ruben JD, Smith R, Lancaster CM, Haynes M, Jones P, Panettieri V.
    Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Nov 01; 90(3):645-53. PubMed ID: 25084609.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To characterize and compare the components of out-of-field dose for 18-MV intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and their 6-MV counterparts and consider implications for second cancer induction. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Comparable plans for each technique/energy were delivered to a water phantom with a sloping wall; under full scatter conditions; with field edge abutting but outside the bath to prevent internal/phantom scatter; and with shielding below the linear accelerator head to attenuate head leakage. Neutron measurements were obtained from published studies. RESULTS: Eighteen-megavolt IMRT produces 1.7 times more out-of-field scatter than 18-MV 3D-CRT. In absolute terms, however, differences are just approximately 0.1% of central axis dose. Eighteen-megavolt IMRT reduces internal/patient scatter by 13%, but collimator scatter (C) is 2.6 times greater than 18-MV 3D-CRT. Head leakage (L) is minimal. Increased out-of-field photon scatter from 18-MV IMRT carries out-of-field second cancer risks of approximately 0.2% over and above the 0.4% from 18-MV 3D-CRT. Greater photoneutron dose from 18-MV IMRT may result in further maximal, absolute increased risk to peripheral tissue of approximately 1.2% over 18-MV 3D-CRT. Out-of-field photon scatter remains comparable for the same modality irrespective of beam energy. Machine scatter (C+L) from 18 versus 6 MV is 1.2 times higher for IMRT and 1.8 times for 3D-CRT. It is 4 times higher for 6-MV IMRT versus 3D-CRT. Reduction in internal scatter with 18 MV versus 6 MV is 27% for 3D-CRT and 29% for IMRT. Compared with 6-MV 3D-CRT, 18-MV IMRT increases out-of-field second cancer risk by 0.2% from photons and adds 0.28-2.2% from neutrons. CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-field photon dose seems to be independent of beam energy for both techniques. Eighteen-megavolt IMRT increases out-of-field scatter 1.7-fold over 3D-CRT because of greater collimator scatter despite reducing internal/patient scatter. Out-of-field carcinogenic risk is thus increased (but improved in-field dose conformity may offset this). Potentially increased carcinogenic risk should be weighed against any benefit 18-MV IMRT may provide.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]