Skip to Content

Publications Search - Abstract View

Title: Calculated organ doses from selected prostate treatment plans using Monte Carlo simulations and an anatomically realistic computational phantom.
Authors: Bednarz B,  Hancox C,  Xu XG
Journal: Phys Med Biol
Date: 2009 Sep 7
Branches:
PubMed ID: 19671968
PMC ID: PMC3376897
Abstract: There is growing concern about radiation-induced second cancers associated with radiation treatments. Particular attention has been focused on the risk to patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) due primarily to increased monitor units. To address this concern we have combined a detailed medical linear accelerator model of the Varian Clinac 2100 C with anatomically realistic computational phantoms to calculate organ doses from selected treatment plans. This paper describes the application to calculate organ-averaged equivalent doses using a computational phantom for three different treatments of prostate cancer: a 4-field box treatment, the same box treatment plus a 6-field 3D-CRT boost treatment and a 7-field IMRT treatment. The equivalent doses per MU to those organs that have shown a predilection for second cancers were compared between the different treatment techniques. In addition, the dependence of photon and neutron equivalent doses on gantry angle and energy was investigated. The results indicate that the box treatment plus 6-field boost delivered the highest intermediate- and low-level photon doses per treatment MU to the patient primarily due to the elevated patient scatter contribution as a result of an increase in integral dose delivered by this treatment. In most organs the contribution of neutron dose to the total equivalent dose for the 3D-CRT treatments was less than the contribution of photon dose, except for the lung, esophagus, thyroid and brain. The total equivalent dose per MU to each organ was calculated by summing the photon and neutron dose contributions. For all organs non-adjacent to the primary beam, the equivalent doses per MU from the IMRT treatment were less than the doses from the 3D-CRT treatments. This is due to the increase in the integral dose and the added neutron dose to these organs from the 18 MV treatments. However, depending on the application technique and optimization used, the required MU values for IMRT treatments can be two to three times greater than 3D CRT. Therefore, the total equivalent dose in most organs would be higher from the IMRT treatment compared to the box treatment and comparable to the organ doses from the box treatment plus the 6-field boost. This is the first time when organ dose data for an adult male patient of the ICRP reference anatomy have been calculated and documented. The tools presented in this paper can be used to estimate the second cancer risk to patients undergoing radiation treatment.