Development of Clinical Application Program for Radiotherapy Induced Cancer Risk Calculation Using Monte Carlo Engine in Volumetric-modulated Arc Therapy

Overview

Journal Radiat Oncol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Oncology
Radiology

Date 2021 Jun 13

PMID 34118968

Citations 4

Authors

Dong-Jin Kang

Young-Joo Shin

Seonghoon Jeong

Jae-Yong Jung

Hakjae Lee

Boram Lee

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study is to develop a clinical application program that automatically calculates the effect for secondary cancer risk (SCR) of individual patient. The program was designed based on accurate dose calculations using patient computed tomography (CT) data and Monte Carlo engine. Automated patient-specific evaluation program was configured to calculate SCR.

Methods: The application program is designed to re-calculate the beam sequence of treatment plan using the Monte Carlo engine and patient CT data, so it is possible to accurately calculate and evaluate scatter and leakage radiation, difficult to calculate in TPS. The Monte Carlo dose calculation system was performed through stoichiometric calibration using patient CT data. The automatic SCR evaluation program in application program created with a MATLAB was set to analyze the results to calculate SCR. The SCR for organ of patient was calculated based on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII models. The program is designed to sequentially calculate organ equivalent dose (OED), excess absolute risk (EAR), excess relative risk (ERR), and the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) in consideration of 3D dose distribution analysis. In order to confirm the usefulness of the developed clinical application program, the result values from clinical application program were compared with the manual calculation method used in the previous study.

Results: The OED values calculated in program were calculated to be at most approximately 13.3% higher than results in TPS. The SCR result calculated by the developed clinical application program showed a maximum difference of 1.24% compared to the result of the conventional manual calculation method. And it was confirmed that EAR, ERR and LAR values can be easily calculated by changing the biological parameters.

Conclusions: We have developed a patient-specific SCR evaluation program that can be used conveniently in the clinic. The program consists of a Monte Carlo dose calculation system for accurate calculation of scatter and leakage radiation and a patient-specific automatic SCR evaluation program using 3D dose distribution. The clinical application program that improved the disadvantages of the existing process can be used as an index for evaluating a patient treatment plan.

Citing Articles

A framework for in-field and out-of-field patient specific secondary cancer risk estimates from treatment plans using the TOPAS Monte Carlo system.

Meyer I, Peters N, Tamborino G, Lee H, Bertolet A, Faddegon B Phys Med Biol. 2024; 69(16).

PMID: 39019051 PMC: 11345907. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad64b6.

A generalization performance study on the boosting radiotherapy dose calculation engine based on super-resolution.

Wang Y, Liu Y, Bai Y, Zhou Q, Xu S, Pang X Z Med Phys. 2023; 34(2):208-217.

PMID: 36631314 PMC: 11639714. DOI: 10.1016/j.zemedi.2022.10.006.

Experimental Validation of an Analytical Program and a Monte Carlo Simulation for the Computation of the Far Out-of-Field Dose in External Beam Photon Therapy Applied to Pediatric Patients.

De Saint-Hubert M, Suesselbeck F, Vasi F, Stuckmann F, Rodriguez M, Dabin J Front Oncol. 2022; 12:882506.

PMID: 35875147 PMC: 9300838. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.882506.

Assessment of dose perturbations for metal stent in photon and proton radiotherapy plans for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Lee B, Cho S, Park H, Kang S, Kim J, Chung J Radiat Oncol. 2022; 17(1):125.

PMID: 35842636 PMC: 9288675. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-022-02100-8.

References

Ruben J, Lancaster C, Jones P, Smith R . A comparison of out-of-field dose and its constituent components for intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus conformal radiation therapy: implications for carcinogenesis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 81(5):1458-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.08.008. View

Newhauser W, Durante M . Assessing the risk of second malignancies after modern radiotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011; 11(6):438-48. PMC: 4101897. DOI: 10.1038/nrc3069. View

Kourinou K, Mazonakis M, Lyraraki E, Stratakis J, Damilakis J . Scattered dose to radiosensitive organs and associated risk for cancer development from head and neck radiotherapy in pediatric patients. Phys Med. 2012; 29(6):650-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2012.08.001. View

Berris T, Mazonakis M, Stratakis J, Tzedakis A, Fasoulaki A, Damilakis J . Calculation of organ doses from breast cancer radiotherapy: a Monte Carlo study. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013; 14(1):4029. PMC: 5713920. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v14i1.4029. View

Mesbahi A, Seyednejad F, Gasemi-Jangjoo A . 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. 2010; 28(5):398-403. DOI: 10.1007/s11604-010-0432-2. View

Cakir A, Akgun Z, Fayda M, Agaoglu F . Comparison of three dimensional conformal radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for low radiation exposure of normal tissue in patients with prostate cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015; 16(8):3365-70. DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.8.3365. View

Ferrari P, Gualdrini G . MCNPX internal dosimetry studies based on the NORMAN-05 voxel model. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2007; 127(1-4):209-13. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncm273. View

Ling C, Burman C, Chui C, Kutcher G, Leibel S, LoSasso T . Conformal radiation treatment of prostate cancer using inversely-planned intensity-modulated photon beams produced with dynamic multileaf collimation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996; 35(4):721-30. DOI: 10.1016/0360-3016(96)00174-5. View

Joosten A, Matzinger O, Jeanneret-Sozzi W, Bochud F, Moeckli R . Evaluation of organ-specific peripheral doses after 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional and hybrid intensity modulated radiation therapy for breast cancer based on Monte Carlo and convolution/superposition algorithms: implications for secondary cancer risk.... Radiother Oncol. 2013; 106(1):33-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2012.11.012. View

10.

Schneider W, Bortfeld T, Schlegel W . Correlation between CT numbers and tissue parameters needed for Monte Carlo simulations of clinical dose distributions. Phys Med Biol. 2000; 45(2):459-78. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/45/2/314. View

11.

Teoh M, Clark C, Wood K, Whitaker S, Nisbet A . Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a review of current literature and clinical use in practice. Br J Radiol. 2011; 84(1007):967-96. PMC: 3473700. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/22373346. View

12.

Yoon M, Shin D, Kim J, Kim J, Kim D, Park S . Craniospinal irradiation techniques: a dosimetric comparison of proton beams with standard and advanced photon radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 81(3):637-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.06.039. View

13.

Kim S, Min B, Yoon M, Kim J, Shin D, Lee S . Secondary radiation doses of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and proton beam therapy in patients with lung and liver cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2011; 98(3):335-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.01.018. View

14.

Lee B, Jeong S, Chung K, Yoon M, Park H, Han Y . Feasibility of a GATE Monte Carlo platform in a clinical pretreatment QA system for VMAT treatment plans using TrueBeam with an HD120 multileaf collimator. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019; 20(10):101-110. PMC: 6806485. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12718. View

15.

Schneider U, Zwahlen D, Ross D, Kaser-Hotz B . Estimation of radiation-induced cancer from three-dimensional dose distributions: Concept of organ equivalent dose. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005; 61(5):1510-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.12.040. View

16.

Sanchez-Nieto B, Medina-Ascanio K, Rodriguez-Mongua J, Doerner E, Espinoza I . Study of out-of-field dose in photon radiotherapy: A commercial treatment planning system versus measurements and Monte Carlo simulations. Med Phys. 2020; 47(9):4616-4625. PMC: 7586840. DOI: 10.1002/mp.14356. View

17.

Howell R . Second Primary Cancers and Cardiovascular Disease after Radiation Therapy. NCRP Report No. 170. Med Phys. 2017; 39(12):7729-7731. DOI: 10.1118/1.4765651. View

18.

Constantin M, Perl J, LoSasso T, Salop A, Whittum D, Narula A . Modeling the truebeam linac using a CAD to Geant4 geometry implementation: dose and IAEA-compliant phase space calculations. Med Phys. 2011; 38(7):4018-24. DOI: 10.1118/1.3598439. View

19.

Schneider U, Pedroni E, Lomax A . The calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 1996; 41(1):111-24. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/41/1/009. View

20.

Yohannes I, Kolditz D, Langner O, Kalender W . A formulation of tissue- and water-equivalent materials using the stoichiometric analysis method for CT-number calibration in radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 2012; 57(5):1173-90. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/5/1173. View