4.7 Article

Estimation of biological effect of Cu-64 radiopharmaceuticals with Geant4-DNA simulation

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-13096-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [19K17251, 17H05093]
  2. Japan Science Society Research, Japan
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17H05093, 19K17251] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to evaluate the biological effect of targeted radionuclide therapy using Cu-64. The results showed a high relative biological effectiveness (RBE) on CHO wild-type cells and xrs5 cells, indicating that the radiosensitivity of xrs5 cells is independent of linear energy transfer (LET).
The aim of this work is to estimate the biological effect of targeted radionuclide therapy using Cu-64, which is a well-known Auger electron emitter. To do so, we evaluate the absorbed dose of emitted particles from Cu-64 using the Geant4-DNA Monte Carlo simulation toolkit. The contribution of beta particles to the absorbed dose is higher than that of Auger electrons. The simulation result agrees with experimental ones evaluated using coumarin-3-carboxylic acid chemical dosimeter. The simulation result is also in good agreement with previous ones obtained using fluorescent nuclear track detector. From the results of present simulation (i.e., absorbed dose estimation) and previous biological experiments using two cell lines (i.e., evaluation of survival curves), we have estimated the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of Cu-64 emitted particles on CHO wild-type cells and xrs5 cells. The RBE of xrs5 cells exposed to Cu-64 is almost equivalent to that with gamma rays and protons and C ions. This result indicates that the radiosensitivity of xrs5 cells is independent of LET. In comparison to this, the RBE on CHO wild-type cells exposed to Cu-64 is significantly higher than gamma rays and almost equivalent to that irradiated with C ions with a linear energy transfer of 70 keV/mu m.

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