The Effect of Nucleus Size on the Cell Dose in Targeted Radionuclide Therapy - A Monte Carlo Study.
Beta-emitting radiopharmaceutical
Geant4-DNA
S-value
nuclear medicine
Journal
Journal of medical signals and sensors
ISSN: 2228-7477
Titre abrégé: J Med Signals Sens
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101577416
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
02
05
2019
revised:
04
09
2019
accepted:
25
12
2019
entrez:
18
7
2020
pubmed:
18
7
2020
medline:
18
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Nowadays, the use of radiopharmaceuticals in medicine is unavoidable. Depending on the distribution of the radiopharmaceutical in the cells, the nucleus absorbed dose changes by the variations in their geometry size. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the S-value by the variation of nucleus size using Geant4 toolkit. Two spherical cells with a variety of nucleus size have been considered as the cancerous cell. Monoenergetic electrons ranging from 5 to 300 keV are distributed uniformly. The S-value for four target-source components (including Nucleus←Cytoplasm, Nucleus←Cell surface, Nucleus←Nucleus, and Nucleus←Nucleus surface) is computed and plotted. Then, the obtained data are compared with analytical Medical Internal Radiation Dose (MIRD) data. In Nucleus←Cytoplasm compartment for electrons below 10 keV, obtained S-values show a slight decrease for the nucleus in the radii of around half of the cell radius and then S-values increase with the increase in the nucleus radii. In the S-value of Nucleus←Cell surface, for all electron energy levels, a slight decrease observed with the increase of nucleus radii. For Nucleus←Nucleus and Nucleus←Nucleus surface cases, with an increase in the size of the cell nucleus, a sharp reduction in the S-values is detected. It can be concluded that for the beta emitters with low-energy radiation (<40 keV), the S-value is heavily dependent on the nucleus size which may affect the treatment of small tumors. While for the beta emitters with higher-energy radiation (>100 keV), the size of the nucleus is not very noticeable in the induced S-value.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Nowadays, the use of radiopharmaceuticals in medicine is unavoidable. Depending on the distribution of the radiopharmaceutical in the cells, the nucleus absorbed dose changes by the variations in their geometry size. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the S-value by the variation of nucleus size using Geant4 toolkit.
METHODS
METHODS
Two spherical cells with a variety of nucleus size have been considered as the cancerous cell. Monoenergetic electrons ranging from 5 to 300 keV are distributed uniformly. The S-value for four target-source components (including Nucleus←Cytoplasm, Nucleus←Cell surface, Nucleus←Nucleus, and Nucleus←Nucleus surface) is computed and plotted. Then, the obtained data are compared with analytical Medical Internal Radiation Dose (MIRD) data.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In Nucleus←Cytoplasm compartment for electrons below 10 keV, obtained S-values show a slight decrease for the nucleus in the radii of around half of the cell radius and then S-values increase with the increase in the nucleus radii. In the S-value of Nucleus←Cell surface, for all electron energy levels, a slight decrease observed with the increase of nucleus radii. For Nucleus←Nucleus and Nucleus←Nucleus surface cases, with an increase in the size of the cell nucleus, a sharp reduction in the S-values is detected.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
It can be concluded that for the beta emitters with low-energy radiation (<40 keV), the S-value is heavily dependent on the nucleus size which may affect the treatment of small tumors. While for the beta emitters with higher-energy radiation (>100 keV), the size of the nucleus is not very noticeable in the induced S-value.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32676447
doi: 10.4103/jmss.JMSS_21_19
pii: JMSS-10-113
pmc: PMC7359958
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
113-118Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2020 Journal of Medical Signals & Sensors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
Nat Rev Cancer. 2015 Jun;15(6):347-60
pubmed: 25998714
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Mar 7;62(5):N90-N106
pubmed: 28181480
Basic Life Sci. 1994;63:155-66
pubmed: 7755541
J Cell Sci. 2005 Sep 15;118(Pt 18):4083-92
pubmed: 16155251
Phys Med. 2015 Dec;31(8):861-874
pubmed: 26653251
Appl Radiat Isot. 2018 Nov;141:73-79
pubmed: 30179772
Radiat Res. 1969 Apr;38(1):7-33
pubmed: 5777999
J Nucl Med. 1994 Feb;35(2):303-16
pubmed: 8295004
Appl Radiat Isot. 2015 Oct;104:113-23
pubmed: 26159660
Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2007 Feb;22(1):1-23
pubmed: 17627411
Phys Med. 2016 Oct;32(10):1187-1200
pubmed: 27659007
Front Oncol. 2016 Feb 12;6:23
pubmed: 26904502
J Cell Sci. 2009 May 15;122(Pt 10):1477-86
pubmed: 19420234
J Nucl Med. 2017 Feb;58(2):339-345
pubmed: 27660146
Phys Med Biol. 2006 Jul 7;51(13):R287-301
pubmed: 16790908
J Nucl Med. 2010 Mar;51(3):462-70
pubmed: 20150261
Acta Oncol. 2001;40(5):602-8
pubmed: 11669332
Semin Nucl Med. 2014 May;44(3):162-71
pubmed: 24832580
Phys Med Biol. 2012 Jun 7;57(11):R75-97
pubmed: 22571871
Acta Oncol. 1993;32(7-8):807-17
pubmed: 8305230
Basic Life Sci. 1994;63:167-84; discussion 184-5
pubmed: 7755542