The carbon footprint of external beam radiotherapy and its impact in health technology assessment.
Carbon footprint
Health technology assessment
Hypofractionation
Journal
Clinical and translational radiation oncology
ISSN: 2405-6308
Titre abrégé: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 101713416
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2024
Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
30
03
2024
revised:
03
06
2024
accepted:
29
07
2024
medline:
1
9
2024
pubmed:
1
9
2024
entrez:
30
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The major drivers of carbon dioxide (CO We describe the carbon footprint of four typical centers. We explore direct EBRT associated factors such as the impact of fractionation and use of MRI-LINAC, as well as indirect factors (e.g. patient rides). Treatment strategy related CO A typical EBRT treatment emits from 185 kgCO Carbon footprint of EBRT is not neglectable and could be mitigated. When safely feasible, hypofractionation is one of the main factors to decrease this impact. Taking into account CO
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The major drivers of carbon dioxide (CO
Material and methods
UNASSIGNED
We describe the carbon footprint of four typical centers. We explore direct EBRT associated factors such as the impact of fractionation and use of MRI-LINAC, as well as indirect factors (e.g. patient rides). Treatment strategy related CO
Results
UNASSIGNED
A typical EBRT treatment emits from 185 kgCO
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Carbon footprint of EBRT is not neglectable and could be mitigated. When safely feasible, hypofractionation is one of the main factors to decrease this impact. Taking into account CO
Identifiants
pubmed: 39211397
doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100834
pii: S2405-6308(24)00111-3
pmc: PMC11359761
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100834Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s).
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
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2023 Jan 1;115(1):39-47
pubmed: 36309074
Am J Clin Pathol. 2021 Sep 8;156(4):540-549
pubmed: 33822876
Med J Aust. 2020 May;212(8):377-382
pubmed: 32304240
Int J Public Health. 2014 Jun;59(3):565-9
pubmed: 24752429
Sci Total Environ. 2010 Dec 1;409(1):33-42
pubmed: 20937518
Lancet Oncol. 2024 Jun;25(6):790-801
pubmed: 38821084
Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2022 May 03;24:100459
pubmed: 35538935
Phys Med. 2023 Aug;112:102652
pubmed: 37552912
Environ Sci Technol. 2009 Mar 15;43(6):1689-95
pubmed: 19368158
JAMA Oncol. 2023 Mar 1;9(3):365-373
pubmed: 36633877
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020 Apr;36(2):96-103
pubmed: 32340631
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2022 Mar;34(3):e105-e106
pubmed: 34895991
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Dec 1;105(5):1086-1094
pubmed: 31419510
Radiother Oncol. 2022 Aug;173:306-312
pubmed: 35772576
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023 Jan;197(2):405-416
pubmed: 36396774
Eur Urol. 2023 May;83(5):463-471
pubmed: 36635108