3.9 Article

A Monte Carlo study on tissue dose enhancement in brachytherapy: a comparison between gadolinium and gold nanoparticles

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13246-012-0143-3

Keywords

Brachytherapy; Dose enhancement; Monte Carlo simulation; Gadolinium nanoparticles; Gold nanoparticles

Funding

  1. Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (MUMS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to quantify the dose enhancement by gadolinium and gold nanoparticles in brachytherapy. MCNPX Monte Carlo code was used to simulate four brachytherapy sources: Co-60, Au-198, Ir-192, Yb-169. To verify the accuracy of our simulations, the obtained values of dose rate constants and radial dose functions were compared with corresponding published values for these sources. To study dose enhancements, a spherical soft tissue phantom with 15 cm in radius was simulated. Gadolinium and gold nanoparticles at 10, 20 and 30 mg/ml concentrations were separately assumed in a 1 x 1 x 1 cm(3) volume simulating tumour. The simulated dose to the tumour with the impurity was compared to the dose without impurity, as a function of radial distance and concentration of the impurity, to determine the enhancement of dose due to the presence of the impurity. Dose enhancements in the tumour obtained in the presence of gadolinium and gold nanoparticles with concentration of 30 mg/ml, were found to be in the range of -0.5-106.1 and 0.4-153.1 % respectively. In addition, at higher radial distances from the source center, higher dose enhancements were observed. GdNPs can be used as a high atomic number material to enhance dose in tumour volume with dose enhancements up to 106.1 % when used in brachytherapy. Regardless considering the clinical limitations of the here-in presented model, for a similar source and concentration of nanoparticles, gold nanoparticles show higher dose enhancement than gadolinium nanoparticles and can have more clinical usefulness as dose enhancer material.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available