skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Constituent Components of Out-of-Field Scatter Dose for 18-MV Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy: A Comparison With 6-MV and Implications for Carcinogenesis

Abstract

Purpose: To characterize and compare the components of out-of-field dose for 18-MV intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and their 6-MV counterparts and consider implications for second cancer induction. Methods and Materials: Comparable plans for each technique/energy were delivered to a water phantom with a sloping wall; under full scatter conditions; with field edge abutting but outside the bath to prevent internal/phantom scatter; and with shielding below the linear accelerator head to attenuate head leakage. Neutron measurements were obtained from published studies. Results: Eighteen-megavolt IMRT produces 1.7 times more out-of-field scatter than 18-MV 3D-CRT. In absolute terms, however, differences are just approximately 0.1% of central axis dose. Eighteen-megavolt IMRT reduces internal/patient scatter by 13%, but collimator scatter (C) is 2.6 times greater than 18-MV 3D-CRT. Head leakage (L) is minimal. Increased out-of-field photon scatter from 18-MV IMRT carries out-of-field second cancer risks of approximately 0.2% over and above the 0.4% from 18-MV 3D-CRT. Greater photoneutron dose from 18-MV IMRT may result in further maximal, absolute increased risk to peripheral tissue of approximately 1.2% over 18-MV 3D-CRT. Out-of-field photon scatter remains comparable for the same modality irrespective of beam energy. Machine scatter (C+L) from 18 versusmore » 6 MV is 1.2 times higher for IMRT and 1.8 times for 3D-CRT. It is 4 times higher for 6-MV IMRT versus 3D-CRT. Reduction in internal scatter with 18 MV versus 6 MV is 27% for 3D-CRT and 29% for IMRT. Compared with 6-MV 3D-CRT, 18-MV IMRT increases out-of-field second cancer risk by 0.2% from photons and adds 0.28-2.2% from neutrons. Conclusions: Out-of-field photon dose seems to be independent of beam energy for both techniques. Eighteen-megavolt IMRT increases out-of-field scatter 1.7-fold over 3D-CRT because of greater collimator scatter despite reducing internal/patient scatter. Out-of-field carcinogenic risk is thus increased (but improved in-field dose conformity may offset this). Potentially increased carcinogenic risk should be weighed against any benefit 18-MV IMRT may provide.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [1];  [2];  [3]; ; ;  [1]
  1. William Buckland Radiotherapy Centre, The Alfred, Melbourne (Australia)
  2. (Australia)
  3. Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane (Australia)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22420451
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 90; Journal Issue: 3; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2014 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; CARCINOGENESIS; CARCINOGENS; COLLIMATORS; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; HEAD; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; NEOPLASMS; NEUTRON DOSIMETRY; NEUTRON LEAKAGE; PATIENTS; PHANTOMS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; SHIELDING; THREE-DIMENSIONAL CALCULATIONS

Citation Formats

Ruben, Jeremy D., E-mail: jeremy.ruben@wbrc.org.au, Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Smith, Ryan, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Lancaster, Craig M., Haynes, Matthew, Jones, Phillip, and Panettieri, Vanessa. Constituent Components of Out-of-Field Scatter Dose for 18-MV Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy: A Comparison With 6-MV and Implications for Carcinogenesis. United States: N. p., 2014. Web. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2014.05.052.
Ruben, Jeremy D., E-mail: jeremy.ruben@wbrc.org.au, Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Smith, Ryan, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Lancaster, Craig M., Haynes, Matthew, Jones, Phillip, & Panettieri, Vanessa. Constituent Components of Out-of-Field Scatter Dose for 18-MV Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy: A Comparison With 6-MV and Implications for Carcinogenesis. United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2014.05.052.
Ruben, Jeremy D., E-mail: jeremy.ruben@wbrc.org.au, Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Smith, Ryan, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Lancaster, Craig M., Haynes, Matthew, Jones, Phillip, and Panettieri, Vanessa. Sat . "Constituent Components of Out-of-Field Scatter Dose for 18-MV Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy: A Comparison With 6-MV and Implications for Carcinogenesis". United States. doi:10.1016/J.IJROBP.2014.05.052.
@article{osti_22420451,
title = {Constituent Components of Out-of-Field Scatter Dose for 18-MV Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy: A Comparison With 6-MV and Implications for Carcinogenesis},
author = {Ruben, Jeremy D., E-mail: jeremy.ruben@wbrc.org.au and Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne and Smith, Ryan and Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne and Lancaster, Craig M. and Haynes, Matthew and Jones, Phillip and Panettieri, Vanessa},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To characterize and compare the components of out-of-field dose for 18-MV intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) and their 6-MV counterparts and consider implications for second cancer induction. Methods and Materials: Comparable plans for each technique/energy were delivered to a water phantom with a sloping wall; under full scatter conditions; with field edge abutting but outside the bath to prevent internal/phantom scatter; and with shielding below the linear accelerator head to attenuate head leakage. Neutron measurements were obtained from published studies. Results: Eighteen-megavolt IMRT produces 1.7 times more out-of-field scatter than 18-MV 3D-CRT. In absolute terms, however, differences are just approximately 0.1% of central axis dose. Eighteen-megavolt IMRT reduces internal/patient scatter by 13%, but collimator scatter (C) is 2.6 times greater than 18-MV 3D-CRT. Head leakage (L) is minimal. Increased out-of-field photon scatter from 18-MV IMRT carries out-of-field second cancer risks of approximately 0.2% over and above the 0.4% from 18-MV 3D-CRT. Greater photoneutron dose from 18-MV IMRT may result in further maximal, absolute increased risk to peripheral tissue of approximately 1.2% over 18-MV 3D-CRT. Out-of-field photon scatter remains comparable for the same modality irrespective of beam energy. Machine scatter (C+L) from 18 versus 6 MV is 1.2 times higher for IMRT and 1.8 times for 3D-CRT. It is 4 times higher for 6-MV IMRT versus 3D-CRT. Reduction in internal scatter with 18 MV versus 6 MV is 27% for 3D-CRT and 29% for IMRT. Compared with 6-MV 3D-CRT, 18-MV IMRT increases out-of-field second cancer risk by 0.2% from photons and adds 0.28-2.2% from neutrons. Conclusions: Out-of-field photon dose seems to be independent of beam energy for both techniques. Eighteen-megavolt IMRT increases out-of-field scatter 1.7-fold over 3D-CRT because of greater collimator scatter despite reducing internal/patient scatter. Out-of-field carcinogenic risk is thus increased (but improved in-field dose conformity may offset this). Potentially increased carcinogenic risk should be weighed against any benefit 18-MV IMRT may provide.},
doi = {10.1016/J.IJROBP.2014.05.052},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 3,
volume = 90,
place = {United States},
year = {Sat Nov 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014},
month = {Sat Nov 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014}
}
  • Purpose: To investigate differences in scatter and leakage between 6-MV intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT); to describe the relative contributions of internal patient scatter, collimator scatter, and head leakage; and to discuss implications for second cancer induction. Methods and Materials: Dose was measured at increasing distances from the field edge in a water bath with a sloping wall (1) under full scatter conditions, (2) with the field edge abutting but outside the bath to prevent internal (water) scatter, and (3) with the beam aperture plugged to reflect leakage only. Results: Internal patient scatter from IMRTmore » is 11% lower than 3DCRT, but collimator scatter and head leakage are five and three times higher, respectively. Ultimately, total scattered dose is 80% higher with IMRT; however this difference is small in absolute terms, being 0.14% of prescribed dose. Secondary dose from 3DCRT is mostly due to internal patient scatter, which contributes 70% of the total and predominates until 25 cm from the field edge. For IMRT, however, machine scatter/leakage is the dominant source, contributing 65% of the secondary dose. Internal scatter predominates for just the first 10 cm from field edge, collimator scatter for the next 10 cm, and head leakage thereafter. Conclusions: Out-of-field dose is 80% higher with IMRT, but differences are tiny in absolute terms. Reductions in internal patient scatter with IMRT are outweighed by increased machine scatter and leakage, at least for small fields. Reductions from IMRT in dose to tissues within the portals and in internal scatter, which predominates close to the field edge, means that calculations based solely on dose to distant tissues may overestimate carcinogenic risks.« less
  • Purpose: To give a preliminary report of clinical and treatment factors associated with toxicity in men receiving high-dose radiation therapy (RT) on a phase 3 dose-escalation trial. Methods and Materials: The trial was initiated with 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) and amended after 1 year to allow intensity modulated RT (IMRT). Patients treated with 3D-CRT received 55.8 Gy to a planning target volume that included the prostate and seminal vesicles, then 23.4 Gy to prostate only. The IMRT patients were treated to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles to 79.2 Gy. Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2.0, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/Europeanmore » Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer late morbidity scores were used for acute and late effects. Results: Of 763 patients randomized to the 79.2-Gy arm of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0126 protocol, 748 were eligible and evaluable: 491 and 257 were treated with 3D-CRT and IMRT, respectively. For both bladder and rectum, the volumes receiving 65, 70, and 75 Gy were significantly lower with IMRT (all P<.0001). For grade (G) 2+ acute gastrointestinal/genitourinary (GI/GU) toxicity, both univariate and multivariate analyses showed a statistically significant decrease in G2+ acute collective GI/GU toxicity for IMRT. There were no significant differences with 3D-CRT or IMRT for acute or late G2+ or 3+ GU toxicities. Univariate analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in late G2+ GI toxicity for IMRT (P=.039). On multivariate analysis, IMRT showed a 26% reduction in G2+ late GI toxicity (P=.099). Acute G2+ toxicity was associated with late G3+ toxicity (P=.005). With dose–volume histogram data in the multivariate analysis, RT modality was not significant, whereas white race (P=.001) and rectal V70 ≥15% were associated with G2+ rectal toxicity (P=.034). Conclusions: Intensity modulated RT is associated with a significant reduction in acute G2+ GI/GU toxicity. There is a trend for a clinically meaningful reduction in late G2+ GI toxicity with IMRT. The occurrence of acute GI toxicity and large (>15%) volumes of rectum >70 Gy are associated with late rectal toxicity.« less
  • Various radiotherapy planning methods for T1N0 laryngeal cancer have been proposed to decrease normal tissue toxicity. We compare helical tomotherapy (HT), linac-based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and 3-D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) techniques for T1N0 laryngeal cancer. Overall, 10 patients with T1N0 laryngeal cancer were selected and evaluated. Furthermore, 10 radiotherapy treatment plans have been created for all 10 patients, including HT, IMRT, VMAT, and 3D-CRT. IMRT, VMAT, and HT plans vs 3D-CRT plans consistently provided superior planning target volume (PTV) coverage. Similar target coverage was observed between the 3 IMRT modalities. Compared with 3D-CRT, IMRT, HT,more » and VMAT significantly reduced the mean dose to the carotid arteries. VMAT resulted in the lowest mean dose to the submandibular and thyroid glands. Compared with 3D-CRT, IMRT, HT, and VMAT significantly increased the maximum dose to the spinal cord It was observed that the 3 IMRT modalities studied showed superior target coverage with less variation between each plan in comparison with 3D-CRT. The 3D-CRT plans performed better at the D{sub max} of the spinal cord. Clinical investigation is warranted to determine if these treatment approaches would translate into a reduction in radiation therapy–induced toxicities.« less
  • Purpose: To assess the cost-effectiveness of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) in the treatment of head-and neck-cancer (HNC). Methods and Materials: We used a Markov model to simulate radiation therapy-induced xerostomia and dysphagia in a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old HNC patients. Model input parameters were derived from PARSPORT (CRUK/03/005) patient-level trial data and quality-of-life and Medicare cost data from published literature. We calculated average incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from the US health care perspective as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and compared our ICERs with current cost-effectiveness standards whereby treatment comparators less thanmore » $50,000 per QALY gained are considered cost-effective. Results: In the first 2 years after initial treatment, IMRT is not cost-effective compared with 3D-CRT, given an average ICER of $101,100 per QALY gained. However, over 15 years (remaining lifetime on the basis of average life expectancy of a 65-year-old), IMRT is more cost-effective at $34,523 per QALY gained. Conclusion: Although HNC patients receiving IMRT will likely experience reduced xerostomia and dysphagia symptoms, the small quality-of-life benefit associated with IMRT is not cost-effective in the short term but may be cost-effective over a patient's lifetime, assuming benefits persist over time and patients are healthy and likely to live for a sustained period. Additional data quantifying the long-term benefits of IMRT, however, are needed.« less
  • Purpose: To compare the cost-effectiveness of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for anal cancer and determine disease, patient, and treatment parameters that influence the result. Methods and Materials: A Markov decision model was designed with the various disease states for the base case of a 65-year-old patient with anal cancer treated with either IMRT or 3D-CRT and concurrent chemotherapy. Health states accounting for rates of local failure, colostomy failure, treatment breaks, patient prognosis, acute and late toxicities, and the utility of toxicities were informed by existing literature and analyzed with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivitymore » analysis. Results: In the base case, mean costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy in years (QALY) for IMRT and 3D-CRT were $32,291 (4.81) and $28,444 (4.78), respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $128,233/QALY for IMRT compared with 3D-CRT. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that IMRT was cost-effective in 22%, 47%, and 65% of iterations at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per QALY, respectively. Conclusions: In our base model, IMRT was a cost-ineffective strategy despite the reduced acute treatment toxicities and their associated costs of management. The model outcome was sensitive to variations in local and colostomy failure rates, as well as patient-reported utilities relating to acute toxicities.« less