اندازه گیری دز پرتوهای فوتونی و نوترون حرارتی سطح پستان دگرسو در پرتودرمانی سرطان پستان

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه علوم پزشکی ارتش ج.ا.ایران

2 دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کاشان

3 دانشگاه کاشان

10.22052/7.1.27

چکیده

هدف مطالعه حاضر، اندازه ­گیری دز پرتوهای فوتونی و نوترون­ حرارتی رسیده به سطح پستان دگرسو در طول پرتودرمانی سرطان پستان برای اندازه میدان­ های درمانی مختلف در حضور گوه ­های دینامیکی و فیزیکی می­ باشد. مقادیر دز فوتونی و نوترون­ حرارتی توسط تراشه­ های ترمولومینسانس برای اندازه میدان­ های 13×11، 17×11 و 21×11 سانتی­ متر مربع و در حضور گوه­ های فیزیکی و دینامیکی اندازه­ گیری شدند. نتایج نشان دادند که مقادیر دز رسیده (ناشی از هر دو پرتوهای فوتونی و نوترون­ حرارتی) به سطح پستان دگرسو در حضور گوه فیزیکی برای اندازه میدان­ های 13×11، 17×11 و 21×11 سانتی­ متر مربع به­ ترتیب 06/12، 75/15 و 40/33 درصد کل دز تجویزی بودند و همچنین، برای گوه دینامیکی به ­ترتیب 18/9، 92/12 و 26/29 درصد کل دز تجویزی به ­دست آمدند. با افزایش اندازه میدان، مقادیر دز فوتونی و نوترون­ حرارتی رسیده به سطح پستان دگرسو افزایش یافتند. علاوه بر این، مقادیر دز فوتونی و نوترون­ حرارتی رسیده به سطح پستان دگرسو در حضور گوه دینامیکی کمتر از گوه فیزیکی بود. مشابه با پیشنهادات مطالعات قبلی انجام شده، هنگام پرتودرمانی سرطان پستان با تکنیک گوه، استفاده از گوه دینامیکی به جای گوه فیزیکی مخصوصاً برای میدان مماسی داخلی ارجحیت دارد.



 



 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Measuring the photon and thermal neutron dose values of contralateral breast surface undergone breast cancer radiation therapy

نویسندگان [English]

  • Babak Shekarchi 1
  • Hamed Bagheri 1
  • Akbar Aliasgharzadeh 2
  • Ahmad Ramezani-moghadam 3
  • Bagher Farhood 2
1
2
3
چکیده [English]

This research aimed to measure the received photon and thermal neutron doses to contralateral breast (CB) surface in breast cancer radiation therapy for different field sizes in presence of dynamic and physical wedges. The photon and thermal neutron doses were measured by thermo uminescent dosimeter (TLDs) chips for 11 × 13, 11 × 17 and 11 × 21 cm2 field sizes in presence of physical and dynamic wedges. The findings of current study demonstrated that the received doses (both of the photon and thermal neutron) to CB surface in presence of physical wedge for 11 × 13, 11 × 17 and 11 × 21 cm2 field sizes were 12.06, 15.75 and 33.40% of the prescribed dose, respectively, as well as for dynamic wedge were 9.18, 12.92 and 29.26% of the prescribed dose, respectively. The received photon and thermal neutron doses to CB surface increased with increment of field sizes. In addition, the received photon and thermal neutron doses to CB surface in presence of dynamic wedge were less than physical wedge. Similar to recommendations of previous conducted studies, in breast radiation therapy with wedge technique, the using a dynamic wedge is preferable than a physical wedge, especially for medial tangential field.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • breast cancer
  • Contralateral breast
  • Photon dose
  • Neutron dose
  • Radiotherapy
  • Surface dose
[1] B. Farhood, M.T. BahreyniToossi, N. Ghatei, N. Mohamadian, A. Mozaffari andC. Knaup. A comparison between skin dose of breast cancer patients at the breast region, measured by thermoluminescent dosimeter in the presence and absence of bolus. J. Cancer Res.Ther. 14(6) (2018) 1214–1219. [2] A. Jemal, F. Bray, M.M. Center, J. Ferlay, E. Ward and D. Forman. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J. Clin. 61(2) (2011) 69–90. [3] C. Ma, W. Zhang, J. Lu, L. Wu, F. Wu, B. Huang, Y. Lin and D. Li. Dosimetric comparison and evaluation of three radiotherapy techniques for use after modified radical mastectomy for locally advanced left-sided breast cancer. Sci. Rep. 5 (2015) 12274. [4] Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10 801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet.378(11) (2011) 1707–1716. [5] R.J. Santiago, L. Wu, E. Harris, K. Fox, D. Schultz, J. Glick and L.J.Solin. Fifteen-year results of breast-conserving surgery and definitive irradiation for Stage I and II breast carcinoma: the University of Pennsylvania experience. J.Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 58(1) (2004) 233–240. [6] U. Veronesi, N. Cascinelli, L. Mariani, M. Greco, R. Saccozzi, A. Luini, M. Aguilar andE. Marubini. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 347(16) (2002) 1227–1232. [7] B. Fisher, S. Anderson, J. Bryant, R.G. Margolese, M. Deutsch, E.R. Fisher, J.H. Jeong and N. Wolmark. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 347(16) (2002) 1233–1241. [8] F.A. Vicini, M. Sharpe, L. Kestin, A. Martinez, C.K. Mitchell, M.F. Wallace, R. Matter and J. Wong. Optimizing breast cancer treatment efficacy with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int. J.Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 54(5) (2002) 1336–1344. [9] F.A. Vicini, V. Remouchamps, M. Wallace, M. Sharpe, J. Fayad, L. Tyburski, N. Letts, L. Kestin, G. Edmundson, J. Pettinga, N.S. Goldstein and J. Wong. Ongoing clinical experience utilizing 3D conformal external beam radiotherapy to deliver partial-breast irradiation in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 57(5) (2003) 1247–1253. [10] R. Falcao, A. Facure and A. Silva. Neutron dose calculation at the maze entrance of medical linear accelerator rooms. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 123(3) (2006) 283–287. [11] H. Bagheri, R.S. Mahdavi, B. Shekarchi, F. Manouchehri and B. Farhood. Measurement of the contralateral breast photon and thermal neutron doses in breast cancer radiotherapy: a comparison between physical and dynamic wedges. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 178(1) (2017) 73–81. [12] J.Y. Huang, D.S. Followill, X.A. Wang and S.F. Kry. Accuracy and sources of error of out-of field dose calculations by a commercial treatment planning system for intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatments. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 14(2) (2013) 4139. [13] C. La Tessa, T. Berger, R. Kaderka, D. Schardt, C. Körner, U. Ramm, J. Licher, N. Matsufuji, C. Vallhagen Dahlgren, T. Lomax, G. Reitz and M. Durante. Out-of-field dose studies with an anthropomorphic phantom: comparison of X-rays and particle therapy treatments. Radiother. Oncol. 105(1) (2012) 133–138. [14] M. Tubiana. Can we reduce the incidence of second primary malignancies occurring after radiotherapy? A critical review. Radiother. Oncol. 91(1) (2009) 4–15. [15] H. Bilge, N. Ozbek, M. Okutan, A. Cakir and H. Acar. Surface dose and build-up region measurements with wedge filters for 6 and 18 MV photon beams. Jpn. J.Radiol. 28(2) (2010) 110–116. [16] W. Goggins, W. Gao and H. Tsao. Association between female breast cancer and cutaneous melanoma. Int. J. Cancer.111(5) (2004) 792–794. [17] R.E. Shore. Radiation‐induced skin cancer in humans. Med. Pediatr. Oncol. 36(5) (2001) 549–554. [18] S.M. Ghavami and H. Ghiasi. Estimation of Secondary Skin Cancer Risk Due To Electron Contamination in 18-MV LINAC-Based Prostate Radiotherapy. Iran. J. Med. Phys. 13(4) (2016) 236–249. [19] R. Prabhakar, K. Haresh, P. Julka, T. Ganesh, G. Rath, R. Joshi, M. Sasindran, K.K. Naik and P.S. Sridhar. A study on contralateral breast surface dose for various tangential field techniques and the impact of set-up error on this dose. Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 30(1) (2007) 42–45. [20] A. Alzoubi, S. Kandaiya, A. Shukri and E. Elsherbieny. Contralateral breast dose from chest wall and breast irradiation: local experience. Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 33(2) (2010) 137–144. [21] W.B. Warlick, H. James, L. Earley, J.H. Moeller, D.K. Gaffney and D.D. Leavitt. Dose to the contralateral breast: a comparison of two techniques using the enhanced dynamic wedge versus a standard wedge. Med. Dosim. 22(3) (1997) 185–191. [22] R. Kaderka, D. Schardt, M. Durante, T. Berger, U. Ramm, J. Licher and C.La Tessa. Out-of-field dose measurements in a water phantom using different radiotherapy modalities. Phys. Med. Biol. 57(16) (2012) 5059–5074. [23] A. Triolo, M. Marrale and M. Brai. Neutron–gamma mixed field measurements by means of MCP–TLD600 dosimeter pair. Nucl.Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B. 264(1) (2007) 183–188. [24] F. Vanhavere, D. Huyskens and L. Struelens. Peripheral neutron and gamma doses in radiotherapy with an 18 MV linear accelerator. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 110(1-4) (2004) 607–612. [25] D.A. Schauer and O.W. Linton. NCRP report No. 160, ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States, medical exposure—are we doing less with more, and is there a role for health physicists? Health Phys. 97(1) (2009) 1–5. [26] S.M. Ghavami, A. Mesbahi and E. Mohammadi. The impact of automatic wedge filter on photoneutron and photon spectra of an 18-MV photon beam. Radiat.Prot. dosimetry.138(2) (2009) 123–128. [27] S.M. Hashemi, B. Hashemi-Malayeri, G. Raisali, P. Shokrani, A.A. Sharafi and F. Torkzadeh. Measurement of photoneutron dose produced by wedge filters of a high energy linac using polycarbonate films. J.Radiat. Res. 49(3) (2008) 279–283. [28] A. Mesbahi, A. Keshtkar, E. Mohammadi and M. Mohammadzadeh. Effect of wedge filter and field size on photoneutron dose equivalent for an 18MV photon beam of a medical linear accelerator. Appl.Radiat. Isot. 68(1) (2010) 84–89. [29] A. Naseri and A. Mesbahi. A review on photoneutrons characteristics in radiation therapy with high-energy photon beams. Rep.Pract.Oncol.Radiother. 15(5) (2010) 138–144. [30] O. Tercilla, F. Krasin andL. Lawn-Tsao. Comparison of contralateral breast doses from 1/2 beam block and isocentric treatment techniques for patients treated with primary breast irradiation with 60 Co. Int. J.Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 17(1) (1989) 205–210. [31] R. Muller-Runkel and U.P. Kalokhe. Scatter dose from tangential breast irradiation to the uninvolved breast. Radiology.175(3) (1990) 873–876. [32] L. Hong, M. Hunt, C. Chui, S. Spirou, K. Forster, H. Lee, J. Yahalom, G.J. Kutcher and B.McCormick. Intensity-modulated tangential beam irradiation of the intact breast. Int. J.Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 44(5) (1999) 1155–1164. [33] E.A. Krueger, B.A. Fraass and L.J. Pierce. Clinical aspects of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Semin.Radiat. Oncol. 12(3) (2002) 250–259. [34] T.C. Woo, J.P. Pignol, E. Rakovitch, T. Vu, D. Hicks, P. O’Brien andK.Pritchard. Body radiation exposure in breast cancer radiotherapy: impact of breast IMRT and virtual wedge compensation techniques. Int. J.Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 65(1) (2006) 52–58. [35] Y.O. Borghero, M. Salehpour, M.D. McNeese, M. Stovall, S.A. Smith, J. Johnson, G.H. Perkins, E.A. Strom, J.L. Oh, S.M. Kirsner, W.A. Woodward, T.K. Yu and T.A.Buchholz. Multileaf field-in-field forward-planned intensity-modulated dose compensation for whole-breast irradiation is associated with reduced contralateral breast dose: a phantom model comparison. Radiother. Oncol. 82(3) (2007) 324–328. [36] E. Donovan, N. Bleakley, E. Denholm, P. Evans, L. Gothard, J. Hanson, C. Peckitt, S. Reise, G. Ross, G. Sharp, R. Symonds-Tayler, D. Tait, J. Yarnold and Breast Technology Group. Randomised trial of standard 2D radiotherapy (RT) versus intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients prescribed breast radiotherapy. Radiother. Oncol. 82(3) (2007) 254–264. [37] J.P. Pignol, I. Olivotto, E. Rakovitch, S. Gardner, K. Sixel, W. Beckham, T.T. Vu, P. Truong, I. Ackerman and L.Paszat. A multicenter randomized trial of breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy to reduce acute radiation dermatitis. J.Clini. Oncol. 26(13) (2008) 2085–2092. [38] T. Ohashi, A. Takeda, N. Shigematsu, J. Fukada, N. Sanuki, A. Amemiya andA.Kubo. Dose distribution analysis of axillary lymph nodes for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with a field-in-field technique for breast cancer. Int. J.Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 73(1) (2009) 80–87. [39] M. Akram, K. Iqbal, M. Isa, M. Afzal and S.A. Buzdar. Optimum reckoning of contra lateral breast dose using physical wedge and enhanced dynamic wedge in radiotherapy treatment planning system. Int. J.Radiat. Res. 12 (2014) 295–302.