4.3 Article

Characteristics comparison between a cyclotron-based neutron source and KUR-HWNIF for boron neutron capture therapy

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2009.03.095

Keywords

Accelerator-based neutron source; Boron neutron capture therapy; Proton cyclotron; Be(p,n) reaction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

At Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute (KURRI), 275 clinical trials of boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) have been performed as of March 2006, and the effectiveness of BNCT has been revealed. In order to further develop BNCT, it is desirable to supply accelerator-based epithermal-neutron sources that can be installed near the hospital. We proposed the method of filtering and moderating fast neutrons, which are emitted from the reaction between a beryllium target and 30-MeV protons accelerated by a cyclotron accelerator, using an optimum moderator system composed of iron, lead, aluminum and calcium fluoride. At present, an epithermal-neutron source is under construction from June 2008. This system consists of a cyclotron accelerator, beam transport system, neutron-yielding target, filter, moderator and irradiation bed. In this article, an overview of this system and the properties of the treatment neutron beam optimized by the MCNPX Monte Carlo neutron transport code are presented. The distribution of biological effect weighted dose in a head phantom compared with that of Kyoto University Research Reactor (KUR) is shown. It is confirmed that for the accelerator, the biological effect weighted dose for a deeply situated tumor in the phantom is 18% larger than that for KUR, when the limit dose of the normal brain is 10 Gyeq. The therapeutic time of the cyclotron-based neutron sources are nearly one-quarter of that of KUR. The cyclotron-based epithermal-neutron source is a promising alternative to reactor-based neutron sources for treatments by BNCT. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available