4.4 Article

Intercomparison of Monte Carlo calculated dose enhancement ratios for gold nanoparticles irradiated by X-rays: Assessing the uncertainty and correct methodology for extended beams

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.03.005

关键词

Gold nanoparticles; Dose enhancement; X-rays; Targeted radiotherapy

资金

  1. DFG [336532926, 386872118]
  2. National Cancer Institute [R01 CA187003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study compared dose enhancement ratios (DERs) for simulations of gold nanoparticles irradiated by X-rays using Monte Carlo codes, finding that DER values with realistic radiation field extensions and presence of secondary particle equilibrium (SPE) were much smaller than those for narrow-beam irradiation.
Results of a Monte Carlo code intercomparison exercise for simulations of the dose enhancement from a gold nanoparticle (GNP) irradiated by X-rays have been recently reported. To highlight potential differences between codes, the dose enhancement ratios (DERs) were shown for the narrow-beam geometry used in the simulations, which leads to values significantly higher than unity over distances in the order of several tens of micrometers from the GNP surface. As it has come to our attention that the figures in our paper have given rise to misinterpretation as showing 'the' DERs of GNPs under diagnostic X-ray irradiation, this article presents estimates of the DERs that would have been obtained with realistic radiation field extensions and presence of secondary particle equilibrium (SPE). These DER values are much smaller than those for a narrow-beam irradiation shown in our paper, and significant dose enhancement is only found within a few hundred nanometers around the GNP. The approach used to obtain these estimates required the development of a methodology to identify and, where possible, correct results from simulations whose implementation deviated from the initial exercise definition. Based on this methodology, literature on Monte Carlo simulated DERs has been critically assessed.

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

4.4
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