The calculated risk of fatal secondary malignancies from intensity-modulated radiation therapy

被引:351
作者
Kry, SF
Salehpour, M
Followill, DS
Stovall, M
Kuban, DA
White, RA
Rosen, II
机构
[1] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Radiat Phys, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[3] Univ Texas, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Biomath, Houston, TX 77030 USA
来源
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS | 2005年 / 62卷 / 04期
关键词
IMRT; risk; secondary malignancies; neutrons; secondary radiation;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.03.053
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: Out-of-field radiation doses to normal tissues may be associated with an increased risk of secondary malignancies, particularly in long-term survivors. Step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), an increasingly popular treatment modality, yields higher out-of-field doses than do conventional treatments, because of an increase in required monitor units (beam-on time). Methods: We used published risk coefficients (NRCP Report 116) and out-of-field dose equivalents to multiple organ sites to estimate a conservative maximal risk of fatal secondary malignancy associated with 6 IMRT approaches and 1 conventional external-beam approach for prostate cancer. Results: Depending on treatment energy, the IMRT treatments required 3.5-4.9 times as many monitor units to deliver as did the conventional treatment. The conservative maximum risk of fatal second malignancy was 1.7% for conventional radiation, 2.1% for IMRT using 10-MV X-rays, and 5.1% for IMRT using 18-MV X-rays. Intermediate risks were associated with IMRT using 6-MV X-rays: 2.9% for treatment with the Varian accelerator and 3.7% for treatment with the Siemens accelerator, as well as using 15-MV X-rays: 3.4% (Varian) and 4.0% (Siemens). Conclusion: The risk of fatal secondary malignancy differed substantially between IMRT and conventional radiation therapy for prostate cancer, as well as between different IMRT approaches. Perhaps this risk should be considered when choosing the optimal treatment technique and delivery system for patients who will undergo prostate radiation. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:1195 / 1203
页数:9
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1993, 115 NCRP
[2]  
BOICE JD, 1985, J NATL CANCER I, V74, P955
[3]  
Brenner DJ, 2000, CANCER, V88, P398, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(20000115)88:2<398::AID-CNCR22>3.0.CO
[4]  
2-V
[5]   Photonuclear dose calculations for high-energy photon beams from Siemens and Varian linacs [J].
Chibani, O ;
Ma, CMC .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2003, 30 (08) :1990-2000
[6]   Cancer-specific mortality after surgery or radiation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed during the prostate-specific antigen era [J].
D'Amico, AV ;
Moul, J ;
Carroll, PR ;
Sun, L ;
Lubeck, D ;
Chen, MH .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2003, 21 (11) :2163-2172
[7]  
Dong L., 2000, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, V48, P342, DOI 10.1016/S0360-3016(00)80489-7
[8]   Estimates of whole-body dose equivalent produced by beam intensity modulated conformal therapy [J].
Followill, D ;
Geis, P ;
Boyer, A .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1997, 38 (03) :667-672
[9]   PERIPHERAL DOSE FROM MEGAVOLT BEAMS [J].
FRAASS, BA ;
VANDEGEIJN, J .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1983, 10 (06) :809-818
[10]   Radiation-induced second cancers: The impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT [J].
Hall, EJ ;
Wuu, CS .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2003, 56 (01) :83-88