Monte Carlo calculations of radiotherapy dose distributions within and around orthopaedic implants.
3D Printing
Monte Carlo
Orthopaedic implants
PEEK
Radiation dosimetry
Regenerative medicine
Titanium
Journal
Physics and imaging in radiation oncology
ISSN: 2405-6316
Titre abrégé: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101704276
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
29
09
2021
revised:
26
04
2022
accepted:
27
04
2022
entrez:
27
5
2022
pubmed:
28
5
2022
medline:
28
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cancer patients often require a titanium orthopaedic implant to support or replace lost bone. In radiation treatment, the dose distribution is perturbed causing regions of high and low dose at material interfaces. Since the survival of integrating bone tissue is critical to implant success, the aim of this study was to determine the dose distribution in and around the scaffold, when constructed from titanium or Poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK). The dose distributions in the pores and along boundaries for three implant scaffold designs were calculated using Monte-Carlo methods in Geant4/GATE, with the material taken as titanium or PEEK. The 3D dose distributions were analysed in MATLAB and segmented using image masks, yielding the dose distributions in key regions of interest. To evaluate the effect of the predicted dose perturbations, the cell survival was calculated using the linear-quadratic model for SAOS-2 cells (bone) using experimentally determined radiation response data. High dose gradients were found along the boundaries of the titanium implants, but not for the corresponding PEEK implants. The dose to the internal cavities of the titanium implants was enhanced by 10-15% near the proximal interface whereas for PEEK, there was no significant dose perturbation. The predicted perturbation caused by the titanium implant was shown to decrease the survival for SAOS-2 cells by 7% which was not found for the PEEK implants. PEEK was shown to be a more favourable orthopaedic implant material over titanium for cancer patients considering radiation therapy.
Sections du résumé
Background and purpose
UNASSIGNED
Cancer patients often require a titanium orthopaedic implant to support or replace lost bone. In radiation treatment, the dose distribution is perturbed causing regions of high and low dose at material interfaces. Since the survival of integrating bone tissue is critical to implant success, the aim of this study was to determine the dose distribution in and around the scaffold, when constructed from titanium or Poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK).
Materials and methods
UNASSIGNED
The dose distributions in the pores and along boundaries for three implant scaffold designs were calculated using Monte-Carlo methods in Geant4/GATE, with the material taken as titanium or PEEK. The 3D dose distributions were analysed in MATLAB and segmented using image masks, yielding the dose distributions in key regions of interest. To evaluate the effect of the predicted dose perturbations, the cell survival was calculated using the linear-quadratic model for SAOS-2 cells (bone) using experimentally determined radiation response data.
Results
UNASSIGNED
High dose gradients were found along the boundaries of the titanium implants, but not for the corresponding PEEK implants. The dose to the internal cavities of the titanium implants was enhanced by 10-15% near the proximal interface whereas for PEEK, there was no significant dose perturbation. The predicted perturbation caused by the titanium implant was shown to decrease the survival for SAOS-2 cells by 7% which was not found for the PEEK implants.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
PEEK was shown to be a more favourable orthopaedic implant material over titanium for cancer patients considering radiation therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35619642
doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2022.04.011
pii: S2405-6316(22)00040-9
pmc: PMC9127420
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
123-130Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Bone. 1995 Apr;16(4):415-26
pubmed: 7605701
J Prosthodont Res. 2016 Jan;60(1):12-9
pubmed: 26520679
Nano Lett. 2008 Nov;8(11):3803-8
pubmed: 18950232
J Oral Implantol. 2013 Dec;39(6):743-9
pubmed: 21905892
J Clin Med. 2018 Dec 07;7(12):
pubmed: 30544551
J Clin Med. 2019 Feb 12;8(2):
pubmed: 30759863
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2005 Jul 22;333(1):216-22
pubmed: 15939397
Med Phys. 2003 Jun;30(6):1162-82
pubmed: 12852541
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Mar;18(2):62-68
pubmed: 28300369
J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2009 Apr-Jun;9(2):61-71
pubmed: 19516081
J Biomech. 2003 Aug;36(8):1079-86
pubmed: 12831732
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019 May;48(4):20180267
pubmed: 30663343
Br J Radiol. 2018 Apr;91(1084):20170863
pubmed: 29293373
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2016 Jul;27(7):118
pubmed: 27259708
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020 Mar;103:103574
pubmed: 32090904
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016 Apr;44(4):392-9
pubmed: 26867807
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Aug;21(8):6-14
pubmed: 32476247
Radiat Res. 1994 Aug;139(2):178-84
pubmed: 8052693
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2017 Sep;29(9):557-561
pubmed: 28662794
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Nov 15;54(4):1276-85
pubmed: 12419457