4.6 Article

Irradiation of gold nanoparticles by x-rays: Monte Carlo simulation of dose enhancements and the spatial properties of the secondary electrons production

期刊

MEDICAL PHYSICS
卷 38, 期 2, 页码 624-631

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1118/1.3539623

关键词

nanoparticle; Monte Carlo; GEANT4; dosimetry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of this study is to understand the characteristics of secondary electrons generated from the interaction of gold nanoparticles (GNPs) with x-rays as a function of nanoparticle size and beam energy and thereby further the understanding of GNP-enhanced radiotherapy. Methods: The effective range, deflection angle, dose deposition, energy, and interaction processes of electrons produced from the interaction of x-rays with a GNP were calculated by Monte Carlo simulations. The GEANT4 code was used to simulate and track electrons generated from a 2, 50, and 100 nm diameter GNP when it is irradiated with a 50 kVp, 250 kVp, cobalt-60, and 6 MV photon beam in water. Results: When a GNP was present, depending on the beam energies used, secondary electron production was increased by 10- to 2000-fold compared to an absence of a GNP. Low-energy photon beams were much more efficient at interacting with the GNP by two to three orders of magnitude compared to MV energies and increased the deflection angle. GNPs with larger diameters also contributed more dose. The majority of the energy deposition was outside the GNP, rather than self-absorbed by the nanoparticle. The mean effective range of electron tracks for the beams tested ranged from approximately 3 mu m to 1 mm. Conclusions: These simulated results yield important insights concerning the spatial distributions and elevated dose in GNP-enhanced radiotherapy. The authors conclude that the irradiation of GNP at lower photon energies will be more efficient for cell killing. This conclusion is consistent with published studies. (c) 2011 American Association of Physicists in Medicine. [DOI: 10.1118/1.3539623]

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

4.6
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