Assessment of secondary cancer risk in proton therapy of Prostate Cancer by Monte Carlo Method

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Physics, Payame Noor University of Mashhad, Iran

2 Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

3 2Department of Physics, University of Bojnord, Bojnord, Iran

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men in the world. Proton therapy is one of the effective methods in the treatment of prostate cancer. In this study, using the MCNPX simulation code and using the ICRP110 adult male reference phantom, the risk of secondary cancer with proton therapy was studied. In this study, an active beamline based on a synchrotron accelerator in which the proton beam energy is dynamically changed was considered. Then, according to the calculations performed in this study, the appropriate direction of radiation was obtained. Using Monte Carlo simulation and mathematical calculations in MATLAB software, the appropriate energy range was calculated to create a uniform dose distribution in the desired tumor volume. Then, using a Monte Carlo simulation code, the amount of energy and absorbed dose was calculated using Tally  in the tumor, prostate, and healthy and sensitive tissues per one Gy proton therapy dose at the center of the SOBP Bragg peak. Then, the proton equivalent dose, neutron equivalent dose, and secondary photon equivalent dose in different tissues were calculated. Calculations showed that the equivalent dose decreases with distance from the tumor center. The secondary dose reached in different tissues and the risk of secondary cancer per one Gray therapeutic dose were also calculated. Studies showed that the risk of secondary cancer in tissues distant from the prostate such as the thyroid, lung and brain and   10-9 for tissues close to the tumor such as the bladder and testicles was about 10-5,  10-6  and  10-4 for the prostate.

Keywords

References

  1. Z. Aghaei, A. Karimian, M. H. Alamatsaz. Assessment of absorbed dose uncertainty of prostate due to tissue swelling and radioactive sources displacement in brachytherapy by Monte Carlo method. Iranian J. Phys. Res. 20 (4) (2021) 599-613.
  2. T. Arimura, T. Yoshiura, K. Matsukawa, N. Kondo, I. Kitano, T. Ogino. Proton beam therapy alone for intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer: An institutional prospective cohort study. Cancers (Basel) 10 (4) (2018) 116.
  3. J. Pursley, K. Remillard, N. Depauw, G. Lee, C. Grassberger, H. Paganetti, J. A. Efstathiou, S. C. Kamran. Radiation therapy for stage IIA/B seminoma: modeling secondary cancer risk for protons and VMAT versus 3D photons. Cancers (Basel) 16 (2024) 784.
  4. J. D. Fontenot, A. K. Lee, W. D. Newhauser. Risk of secondary milignant neoplasms fromproton therapy and intensity-modulated X-Ray therapy for early-stage prostate cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 74 (2) (2009) 616–622.
  5. M. R. Islam, Y. Zheng, T. L. Collums, J. M. Monson, S. Ahmad, E. R. Benton. Measurement and simulation of secondary neutrons from uniform scanning proton beams in proton radiotherapy. Radiat. Measurements 96 (2017) 8-18.
  6. R. Zhang, R. M. Howell, A. Giebeler, P. J. Taddei, A. Mahajan,W. D. Newhauser. Comparison of risk of radiogenic second cancer following photon and proton craniospinal irradiation for a pediatric medulloblastoma patient. Phys. Med. Biol. 58 (4) (2013) 807–823.
  7. K. F. Eckerman, M. Cristy, J. C. Ryman. The ORNL mathematical phantom series, available at: http://homer.onl.gov/vlab/mird2.pdf, 1996.
  8. S. B. Jia, F. Romano, P. Cirrone, G. Cuttone, H. Hadizadeh, A. Mowlavi, L. Raffaele, Designing a range modulator wheel to spread-out the Bragg peak for a passive proton therapy facility. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A.: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment  806 (2016) 101-108.
  9. D. K. Woodhouse, W. T. Hwang, N. Vapiwala, A. Jain, X. Wang, S. Both, M. Shah, M. Frazier, P. Gabriel, J. P. Christodouleas,. Z. Tochner, C. Deville. Sociodemographic disparities in the utilization of proton therapy for prostate cancer at an urban academic center. Adv. Radiat. Oncology 2 (2017) 132-139.
  10. A. Mesbahi, F. Seyednejad, A. Gasemi-Jangjoo. Estimation of organs doses and radiation-induced secondary cancer risk from scattered photons for conventional radiation therapy of nasopharynx: a Monte Carlo study. Jpn. J. Radiol. 28 (2010) 398-403
  11. NCRP (1993). National Council on Radiation Protection and Limitation of exposure to ionizing radiation Report 116.
  12. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP. 64 (2007) 1-332.
  13. N. Mohammadi, H. Miri-Hakimabad, L. Rafat-Motavalli, F. F.Akbari, S. Abdollahi S. Patient-specific voxel phantom dosimetry during the prostate treatment with high-energy linac. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 304 (2014) 785-792.
  14. E. Bezak , R. Takam , E. Yeoh , L.G. Marcu. The risk of second primary cancers due to peripheral photon and neutron doses received during prostate cancer external beam radiation therapy. Phys. Med. 42 (2017) 253-258.
  15. M. Xiang, D. T. Chang, E. L. Pollom. Second cancer risk after primary cancer treatment With three-dimensional conformal, intensity-modulated,or proton beam radiation therapy. Cancer 126 (2020) 3560–3568.
  16. Y. Y. Wu,  K. H. F Proton therapy for prostate cancer: current state and future perspectives. Br. J. Radiol. 95 (1131) (2022) 20210670.
  17. S. B. Jia, R. Shamsabadi, L. Mogheiseh, H. R. Baghani. Assessment of secondary cancer risks within non-target organs during proton therapy for lung cancer: A Monte Carlo study. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 214 (2024) 111532.
Journal of Radiation Safety and Measurement
Volume 14, Issue 3 - Serial Number 55
December 2025
Pages 127-135

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics