4.7 Article

Risk of developing second cancer from neutron dose in proton therapy as function of field characteristics, organ, and patient age

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.069

关键词

proton therapy; neutron dose; secondary cancer risk; whole-body phantoms; pediatric radiation oncology

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R01 CA 116743]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To estimate the risk of a second malignancy after treatment of a primary brain cancer using passive scattered proton beam therapy. The focus was on the cancer risk caused by neutrons outside the treatment volume and the dependency on the patient's age. Methods and Materials: Organ-specific neutron-equivalent doses previously calculated for eight different proton therapy brain fields were considered. Organ-specific models were applied to assess the risk of developing solid cancers and leukemia. Results: The main contributors (>80%) to the neutron-induced risk are neutrons generated in the treatment head. Treatment volume can influence the risk by tip to a factor of similar to 2. Young patients are subject to significantly greater risks than are adult patients because of the geometric differences and age dependency of the risk models. Breast cancer should be the main concern for females. For males, the risks of lung cancer, leukemia, and thyroid cancer,were significant for pediatric patients. In contrast, leukemia was the leading risk for an adult. Most lifetime risks were <1 % (70-Gy treatment). The only exceptions were breast, thyroid, and lung cancer for females. For female thyroid cancer, the treatment risk can exceed the baseline risk. Conclusion: The risk of developing a second malignancy from neutrons from proton beam therapy of a brain lesion is small (i.e., presumably outweighed by the therapeutic benefit) but not negligible (i.e., potentially greater than the baseline risk). The patient's age at treatment plays a major role. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据