A Monte Carlo study of the relative biological effectiveness in surface brachytherapy.
Monte Carlo
relative biological effectiveness
surface HDR brachytherapy
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
revised:
11
05
2022
received:
08
02
2022
accepted:
15
05
2022
pubmed:
2
6
2022
medline:
19
8
2022
entrez:
1
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This work aims to simulate clustered DNA damage from ionizing radiation and estimate the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for radionuclide (rBT)- and electronic (eBT)-based surface brachytherapy through a hybrid Monte Carlo (MC) approach, using realistic models of the sources and applicators. Damage from ionizing radiation has been studied using the Monte Carlo Damage Simulation algorithm using as input the primary electron fluence simulated using a state-of-the-art MC code, PENELOPE-2018. Two For rBT, an RBE value of about 1.01 has been found for the applicators and phantoms considered. In the case of eBT, RBE values for the Esteya system show an almost constant RBE value of about 1.06 for all depths and materials. For INTRABEAM, variations in the range of 1.12-1.06 are reported depending on phantom composition and depth. Modifications in the Esteya system, filtration, and tube kilovoltage give rise to variations in the same range. Current clinical practice does not incorporate biological effects in surface brachytherapy. Therefore, the same absorbed dose is administered to the patients independently on the particularities of the rBT or eBT system considered. The almost constant RBE values reported for rBT support that assumption regardless of the details of the patient geometry, the presence of a flattening filter in the applicator design, or even significant modifications in the photon energy spectra above 300 keV. That is not the case for eBT, where a clear dependence on the eBT system and the characteristics of the patient geometry are reported. A complete study specific for each eBT system, including detailed applicator characteristics (size, shape, filtering, among others) and common anatomical locations, should be performed before adopting an existing RBE value.
Substances chimiques
Radioisotopes
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5576-5588Subventions
Organisme : FEDER/MCIyU-AEI
ID : PGC2018-101302-B
Informations de copyright
© 2022 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Perera E, Gnaneswaran N, Staines C, Win AK, Sinclair R. Incidence and prevalence of non-melanoma skin cancer in Australia: a systematic review. Australas J Dermatol. 2015;56(4):258-267. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajd.12282
Rogers HW, Weinstock MA, Feldman SR, Coldiron BM. Incidence estimate of nonmelanoma skin cancer (keratinocyte carcinomas) in the US population, 2012. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151(10):1081. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.1187
Rubió-Casadevall J, Hernandez-Pujol AM, Ferreira-Santos MC, et al. Trends in incidence and survival analysis in non-melanoma skin cancer from 1994 to 2012 in Girona, Spain: a population-based study. Cancer Epidemiol. 2016;45:6-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2016.09.001
Leiter U, Keim U, Eigentler T, et al. Incidence, mortality, and trends of nonmelanoma skin cancer in Germany. J Invest Dermatol. 2017;137(9):1860-1867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2017.04.020
Shah C, Ouhib Z, Kamrava M, et al. The American Brachytherapy society consensus statement for skin brachytherapy. Brachytherapy. 2020;19(4):415-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2020.04.004
Fulkerson RK, Perez-Calatayud J, Ballester F, et al. Surface brachytherapy: joint report of the AAPM and the GEC-ESTRO Task Group No. 253. Med Phys. 2020;47(10):e951-e987. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14436
Perez-Calatayud J, Ballester F, Das RK, et al. Dose calculation for photon-emitting brachytherapy sources with average energy higher than 50 keV: report of the AAPM and ESTRO. Med Phys. 2012;39(5):2904-2929. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3703892
Ballester-Sánchez R, Pons-Llanas O, Candela-Juan C, et al. Electronic brachytherapy for superficial and nodular basal cell carcinoma: a report of two prospective pilot trials using different doses. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2016;1(1):48-55. https://doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2016.57531
Nath R, Rivard MJ, DeWerd LA, et al. Guidelines by the AAPM and GEC-ESTRO on the use of innovative brachytherapy devices and applications: report of Task Group 167. Med Phys. 2016;43(6 pt 1):3178-3205. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4951734
Bistrović M, Bišćan M, Viculin T. RBE of 20 kV and 70 kV X-rays determined for survival of V 79 cells. Radiother Oncol. 1986;7(2):175-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(86)80097-4
Hoshi M, Antoku S, Nakamura N, et al. Soft X-ray dosimetry and RBE for survival of Chinese Hamster V79 cells. Int J Radiat Biol. 1988;54(4):577-591. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553008814552021
Marthinsen ABL, Gisetstad R, Danielsen S, Frengen J, Strickert T, Lundgren S. Relative biological effectiveness of photon energies used in brachytherapy and intraoperative radiotherapy techniques for two breast cancer cell lines. Acta Oncol (Madr). 2010;49(8):1261-1268. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2010.504226
Liu Q, Schneider F, Ma L, Wenz F, Herskind C. Relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) of 50 kV X-rays measured in a phantom for intraoperative tumor-bed irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2013;85(4):1127-1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.08.005
Brenner DJ, Leu C-S, Beatty JF, Shefer RE. Clinical relative biological effectiveness of low-energy x-rays emitted by miniature x-ray devices. Phys Med Biol. 1999;44(2):323-333. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/44/2/002
Hsiao Y, Stewart RD. Monte Carlo simulation of DNA damage induction by x-rays and selected radioisotopes. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(1):233-244. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/1/016
Reniers B, Liu D, Rusch T, Verhaegen F. Calculation of relative biological effectiveness of a low-energy electronic brachytherapy source. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(24):7125-7135. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/24/008
Kirkby C, Ghasroddashti E, Poirier Y, Tambasco M, Stewart RD. RBE of kV CBCT radiation determined by Monte Carlo DNA damage simulations. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58(16):5693-5704. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/58/16/5693
Stewart RD, Streitmatter SW, Argento DC, et al. Rapid MCNP simulation of DNA double strand break (DSB) relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for photons, neutrons, and light ions. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(21):8249-8274. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/21/8249
White SA, Reniers B, de Jong EEC, Rusch T, Verhaegen F. A comparison of the relative biological effectiveness of low energy electronic brachytherapy sources in breast tissue: a Monte Carlo study. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61(1):383-399. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/61/1/383
Famulari G, Pater P, Enger SA. Microdosimetric evaluation of current and alternative brachytherapy sources-a Geant4-DNA simulation study. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2018;100(1):270-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.09.040
Valdes-Cortez C, Ballester F, Vijande J, et al. Depth-dose measurement corrections for the surface electronic brachytherapy beams of an Esteya ® unit: a Monte Carlo study. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(24):245026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab9773
Gimenez-Alventosa V, Gimenez V, Ballester F, Vijande J, Andreo P. Correction factors for ionization chamber measurements with the ‘Valencia’ and ‘large field Valencia’ brachytherapy applicators. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(12):125004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aac27a
Salvat F. PENELOPE-2018: A Code System for Monte Carlo Simulation of Electron and Photon Transport. 2019. Available from as a function of the region of interest (ROI).
Sempau J, Badal A, Brualla L. A PENELOPE-based system for the automated Monte Carlo simulation of clinacs and voxelized geometries-application to far-from-axis fields. Med Phys. 2011;38(11):5887-5895. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3643029
Ballester F, Carlsson Tedgren Å, Granero D, et al. A generic high-dose rate 192Ir brachytherapy source for evaluation of model-based dose calculations beyond the TG-43 formalism. Med Phys. 2015;42(6 pt 1):3048-3062. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4921020
Ma Y, Vijande J, Ballester F, et al. A generic TG-186 shielded applicator for commissioning model-based dose calculation algorithms for high-dose-rate 192Ir brachytherapy. Med Phys. 2017;44(11):5961-5976. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12459
Valdes-Cortez C, Niatsetski Y, Perez-Calatayud J, Ballester F, Vijande J. A Monte Carlo-based dosimetric characterization of Esteya ®, an electronic surface brachytherapy unit. Med Phys. 2019;46(1):356-369. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13275
Croce O, Hachem S, Franchisseur E, Marcié S, Gérard J-P, Bordy J-M. Contact radiotherapy using a 50 kV X-ray system: evaluation of relative dose distribution with the Monte Carlo code PENELOPE and comparison with measurements. Radiat Phys Chem. 2012;81(6):609-617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2012.01.033
Ye S-J, Brezovich IA, Pareek P, Naqvi SA. Benchmark of PENELOPE code for low-energy photon transport: dose comparisons with MCNP4 and EGS4. Phys Med Biol. 2004;49(3):387-397. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/49/3/003
Sabbatucci L, Salvat F. Theory and calculation of the atomic photoeffect. Radiat Phys Chem. 2016;121:122-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2015.10.021
Cullen DE, Hubbell JH, Kissel L. EPDL97: The Evaluated Photo Data Library ‘97 Version. Vol 6. 1997. https://doi.org/10.2172/295438 (last accessed June 6, 2022)
Ribberfors R. X-ray incoherent scattering total cross sections and energy-absorption cross sections by means of simple calculation routines. Phys Rev A. 1983;27(6):3061-3070. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.27.3061
Perkins ST, Cullen DE, Chen MH, Hubbell JH, Rathkopf J, Scofield JH. Tables and Graphs of Atomic Subshell and Relaxation Data Derived from the LLNL Evaluated Atomic Data Library (EADL), Z = 1-100, Technical Report UCRL-ID-50400. 1991.
Deslattes RD, Kessler EG, Indelicato P, de Billy L, Lindroth E, Anton J. X-ray transition energies: new approach to a comprehensive evaluation. Rev Mod Phys. 2003;75(1):35-99. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.75.35
Bearden JA. X-ray wavelengths. Rev Mod Phys. 1967;39(1):78-124. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.39.78
Sakata D, Belov O, Bordage MC, et al. Fully integrated Monte Carlo simulation for evaluating radiation induced DNA damage and subsequent repair using Geant4-DNA. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75982-x
Semenenko VA, Stewart RD. Fast Monte Carlo simulation of DNA damage formed by electrons and light ions. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51(7):1693-1706. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/7/004
Semenenko VA, Stewart RD. A fast Monte Carlo algorithm to simulate the spectrum of DNA damages formed by ionizing radiation. Radiat Res. 2004;161(4):451-457. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR3140
Stewart RD, Yu VK, Georgakilas AG, Koumenis C, Park JH, Carlson DJ. Effects of radiation quality and oxygen on clustered DNA lesions and cell death. Radiat Res. 2011;176(5):587-602. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR2663.1
Candela-Juan C, Vijande J, García-Martínez T, et al. Comparison and uncertainty evaluation of different calibration protocols and ionization chambers for low-energy surface brachytherapy dosimetry. Med Phys. 2015;42(8):4954-4964. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4927059
Venselaar J, Perez-Calatayud J. A Practical Guide to Quality Control of Brachytherapy Equipment. ESTRO Booklet No. 8. ESTRO; 2004.
Garcia-Martinez T, Chan J-P, Perez-Calatayud J, Ballester F. Dosimetric characteristics of a new unit for electronic skin brachytherapy. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2014;1(1):45-53. https://doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2014.40770
Schneider F, Clausen S, Thölking J, Wenz F, Abo-Madyan Y. A novel approach for superficial intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) using a 50 kV X-ray source: a technical and case report. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014;15(1):167-176. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i1.4502
Vijande J, Granero D, Perez-Calatayud J, Ballester F. Monte Carlo dosimetric study of the flexisource Co-60 high dose rate source. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2012;4(1):34-44. https://doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2012.27950
Granero D, Pérez-Calatayud J, Gimeno J, et al. Design and evaluation of a HDR skin applicator with flattening filter. Med Phys. 2008;35(2):495-503. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2825622
Granero D, Candela-Juan C, Vijande J, et al. Technical note: dosimetry of Leipzig and Valencia applicators without the plastic cap. Med Phys. 2016;43(5):2087-2090. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4944784
Vijande J, Ballester F, Ouhib Z, Granero D, Pujades-Claumarchirant MC, Perez-Calatayud J. Dosimetry comparison between TG-43 and Monte Carlo calculations using the Freiburg Flap for skin high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy. 2012;11(6):528-535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2011.11.005
Papiez L, Battista JJ. Radiance and particle fluence. Phys Med Biol. 1994;39(6):1053-1062. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/39/6/011
Hsiao Y-Y, Hung T-H, Tu S-J, Tung C-J. Fast Monte Carlo simulation of DNA damage induction by Auger-electron emission. Int J Radiat Biol. 2014;90(5):392-400. https://doi.org/10.3109/09553002.2014.892649
Berger MJ, Inokuti M, Anderson HH, et al. Stopping powers for electrons and positrons. ICRU report 37. J Int Comm Radiat Units Meas. 1984;os19(2):NP-NP. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/os19.2.Report37
Bairlein K, Hupe O. Influence of new mass energy-absorption coefficients from ICRU report no. 90 on air kerma to dose equivalent conversion coefficients. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2018;2018(90):1-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncy213
Beaulieu L, Carlsson Tedgren Å, Carrier J-F, et al. Report of the Task Group 186 on model-based dose calculation methods in brachytherapy beyond the TG-43 formalism: current status and recommendations for clinical implementation. Med Phys. 2012;39(10):6208-6236. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4747264
White DR, Griffith RV, Wilson IJ. Report 46: photon, electron, proton and neutron interaction data for body tissues. J Int Comm Radiat Units Meas. 1992;os24(1):1-207. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/os24.1.Report46
Andreo P. Data for the dosimetry of low- and medium-energy kV X-rays. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64(20):205019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab421d
Sechopoulos I, Rogers DWOO, Bazalova-Carter M, et al. RECORDS: improved reporting of Monte Carlo radiation transport studies: report of the AAPM Research Committee Task Group 268. Med Phys. 2018;45(1):e1-e5. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12702
Valdes-Cortez C, Niatsetski Y, Ballester F, Vijande J, Candela-Juan C, Perez-Calatayud J. On the use of the absorbed depth-dose measurements in the beam calibration of a surface electronic high-dose-rate brachytherapy unit, a Monte Carlo-based study. Med Phys. 2020;2:693-702. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13920
Watson PGF, Popovic M, Seuntjens J. Determination of absorbed dose to water from a miniature kilovoltage X-ray source using a parallel-plate ionization chamber. Phys Med Biol. 2017;63(1):015016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa9560
Alvarez DSA, Watson PGF, Popovic M, Jean Heng V, Evans MDC, Seuntjens J. Monte Carlo calculation of the relative TG-43 dosimetry parameters for the INTRABEAM electronic brachytherapy source. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(24):245041. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/abc6f1
Abudra'a A, Chauvenet B, Gouriou J, Plagnard J, Itti R, Aubineau-Lanièce I. Dosimetry formalism and calibration procedure for electronic brachytherapy sources in terms of absorbed dose to water. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(14):145006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab9772
Pérez-Calatayud J, Granero D, Ballester F, et al. A dosimetric study of Leipzig applicators. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2005;62(2):579-584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.02.028
Granero D, Vijande J, Ballester F, Rivard MJ. Dosimetry revisited for the HDR 192Ir brachytherapy source model mHDR-v2. Med Phys. 2010;38(1):487-494. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3531973
García-Toraño E, Peyres V, Bé M-M, Dulieu C, Lépy M-C, Salvat F. Simulation of decay processes and radiation transport times in radioactivity measurements. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect B Beam Interact Mater At. 2017;396:43-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2017.02.002
Sempau J, Badal A, Brualla L. APENELOPE-based system for the automated Monte Carlo simulation of clinacs and voxelized geometries-application to far-from-axis fields. Med Phys. 2011;38(11):5887-5895. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3643029
NUDAT 3.0. National Nuclear Data Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory. https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat3/ (last accessed June 6, 2022)
Sakurai JJ. Advanced Quantum Mechanics. 1st ed. Addison and Wesley; 1967.
Born M. Atomic Physics. Blackie and Son; 1969.
Baym G. Lectures in Quantum Mechanics. Westview Press; 1974.
Streitmatter SW, Stewart RD, Jenkins PA, Jevremovic T. DNA double strand break (DSB) induction and cell survival in iodine-enhanced computed tomography (CT). Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(15):6164-6184. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa772d
Liu Q, Ghosh P, Magpayo N, et al. Lung cancer cell line screen links Fanconi anemia/BRCA pathway defects to increased relative biological effectiveness of proton radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2015;91(5):1081-1089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.12.046
Deschavanne PJ, Fertil B. A review of human cell radiosensitivity in vitro. Int J Radiat Oncol. 1996;34(1):251-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(95)02029-2
Taghian A, Suit H, Pardo F, et al. In vitro intrinsic radiation sensitivity of glioblastoma multiforme. Int J Radiat Oncol. 1992;23(1):55-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(92)90543-Q
Flint DB, Bright SJ, McFadden CH, et al. Cell lines of the same anatomic site and histologic type show large variability in intrinsic radiosensitivity and relative biological effectiveness to protons and carbon ions. Med Phys. 2021;48(6):3243-3261. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14878
West C, Davidson S, Roberts S, Hunter R. The independence of intrinsic radiosensitivity as a prognostic factor for patient response to radiotherapy of carcinoma of the cervix. Br J Cancer. 1997;76(9):1184-1190. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1997.531
Guinot JL, Rembielak A, Perez-Calatayud J, et al. GEC-ESTRO ACROP recommendations in skin brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2018;126(3):377-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2018.01.013
Ouhib Z, Kasper M, Perez Calatayud J, et al. Aspects of dosimetry and clinical practice of skin brachytherapy: the American Brachytherapy Society working group report. Brachytherapy. 2015;14(6):840-858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2015.06.005