4.6 Article

Monte Carlo simulation of DNA damage induction by x-rays and selected radioisotopes

期刊

PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 53, 期 1, 页码 233-244

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/53/1/016

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To better assess the potential biological consequences of diagnostic x-rays and selected gamma-emitting radioisotopes used in brachytherapy, we used the PENELOPE Monte Carlo radiation transport code to estimate the spectrum of initial electrons produced by photons in single cells and in an irradiation geometry similar to those used in cell culture experiments. We then combined estimates of the initial spectrum of electrons from PENELOPE with DNA damage yields for monoenergetic electrons from the fast Monte Carlo damage simulation (MCDS). The predicted absolute yields (Gbp(-1) Gy(-1)) and RBE values for single-strand break (SSB) and double-strand break (DSB) induction by 220 kVp x-rays are within 1% of the results from detailed track-structure simulations (Friedland et al 1999 Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 38 39). The measured RBE for DSB induction reported by Kuhne et al (2005 Radiat. Res. 164 669) for gamma-rays from Co-60 and for 29 kVp x-rays with a 50 mu m Rh (mammography) filter are in excellent agreement (1.15 versus 1.16). DSB yields predicted by the MCDS also agree to within 7% with the absolute DSB yields reported by de Lara et al (2001 Radiat. Res. 155 440) and Botchway et al (1997 Radiat. Res. 148 317) for the irradiation of V79 cells by low energy (< 2 keV) characteristic x-rays. The predicted RBE for DSB induction by gamma-rays from bare Yb-169 and Cs-131 to Co-60 are 1.06 and 1.14, respectively. Tabulated RBE values for the single-cell and monolayer cell culture geometries differ by at most 15%. The proposed methodology is computationally efficient and may also be useful for the prediction of damage yields for mixtures of other types of charged particles, such as those found in proton therapy, space applications or internal dosimetry.

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