Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:45:48.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measurement of the photon and thermal neutron doses of contralateral breast surface in breast cancer radiotherapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2019

Hamed Bagheri ,
Razzagh Abedi Firouzjah  and
Bagher Farhood Open the ORCID record for Bagher Farhood [Opens in a new window]
Hamed Bagheri
Affiliation:
AJA Radiation Sciences Research Center, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Razzagh Abedi Firouzjah
Affiliation:
Medical Physics Department, Faculty of Medicine, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran
Bagher Farhood*
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics and Radiology, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
*
Author for correspondence: Bagher Farhood, Department of Radiology and Medical Physics, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran. Tel: +98 9129234207. Fax: +98 31 55548883. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction and purpose:

During the radiation therapy of tumoral breast, the contralateral breast (CB) will receive scattered doses. In the present study, the photon and thermal neutron dose values received by CB surface during breast cancer radiation therapy were measured.

Materials and methods:

The right breast region of RANDO phantom was considered as CB, and the measurements of photon and thermal neutron dose values were carried out on this region surface. The phantom was irradiated with 18 MV photon beams, and the dose values were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD-600 and TLD-700) chips for 11 × 13, 11 × 17 and 11 × 21 cm2 field sizes in the presence of physical and dynamic wedges.

Results:

The total dose values (photon + thermal neutron) received by the CB surface in the presence of physical wedge were 12·06%, 15·75% and 33·40% of the prescribed dose, respectively, for 11 × 13, 11 × 17 and 11 × 21 cm2 field sizes. The corresponding dose values for dynamic wedge were 9·18%, 12·92% and 29·26% of the prescribed dose, respectively. Moreover, the results showed that treatment field size and wedge type affect the received photon and thermal neutron doses at CB surface.

Conclusion:

According to our results, the total dose values received at CB surface during breast cancer radiotherapy with high-energy photon beams are remarkable. In addition, the dose values received at CB surface when using a physical wedge were greater than when using a dynamic wedge, especially for medial tangential fields.

Keywords

breast cancercontralateral breastneutron doseradiotherapysurface dose
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 226 - 232
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Farhood, B, Toossi, M T B, Ghatei, N, Mohamadian, N, Mozaffari, A, Knaup, C.A comparison between skin dose of breast cancer patients at the breast region, measured by thermoluminescent dosimeter in the presence and absence of bolus. J Cancer Res Ther 2018; 14: 1214–1219.Google ScholarPubMed
Farhood, B, Geraily, G, Alizadeh, A.Incidence and mortality of various cancers in Iran and compare to other countries: a review article. Iran J Public Health 2018; 47: 309–316.Google ScholarPubMed
Jemal, A, Bray, F, Center, M M, Ferlay, J, Ward, E, Forman, D.Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61: 69–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, C, Zhang, W, Lu, Jet al.Dosimetric comparison and evaluation of three radiotherapy techniques for use after modified radical mastectomy for locally advanced left-sided breast cancer. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 12274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Group EBCTC. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10 801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet 2011; 378: 1707–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santiago, RJ, Wu, L, Harris, Eet al.Fifteen-year results of breast-conserving surgery and definitive irradiation for stage I and II breast carcinoma: the University of Pennsylvania experience. J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 58: 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veronesi, U, Cascinelli, N, Mariani, Let al.Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1227–1232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, B, Anderson, S, Bryant, Jet al.Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1233–1241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vicini, F A, Sharpe, M, Kestin, Let al.Optimizing breast cancer treatment efficacy with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 54: 1336–1344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vicini, F A, Remouchamps, V, Wallace, Met al.Ongoing clinical experience utilizing 3D conformal external beam radiotherapy to deliver partial-breast irradiation in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phy 2003; 57: 1247–1253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falcao, R, Facure, A, Silva, A.Neutron dose calculation at the maze entrance of medical linear accelerator rooms. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2006; 123: 283–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bagheri, H, Rabie Mahdavi, S, Shekarchi, B, Manouchehri, F, Farhood, B.Measurement of the contralateral breast photon and thermal neutron doses in breast cancer radiotherapy: a comparison between physical and dynamic wedges. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2018; 178: 73–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farhood, B, Ghorbani, M, Abdi Goushbolagh, N, Najafi, M, Geraily, G.Different methods of measuring neutron dose/fluence generated in the radiation therapy of megavoltage beams. Health Phys 2019 (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J Y, Followill, D S, Wang, X A, Kry, S F.Accuracy and sources of error of out-of field dose calculations by a commercial treatment planning system for intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatments. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013; 14: 4139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahdavi, S R, Tutuni, M, Farhood, B, et al.Measurement of peripheral dose to pelvic region and associated risk for cancer development after breast intraoperative electron radiation therapy. J Radiol Prot 2019; 39: 278–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
La Tessa, C, Berger, T, Kaderka, Ret al.Out-of-field dose studies with an anthropomorphic phantom: comparison of X-rays and particle therapy treatments. Radiother Oncol 2012; 105: 133–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tubiana, M.Can we reduce the incidence of second primary malignancies occurring after radiotherapy? A critical review. Radiother Oncol 2009; 91: 4–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bilge, H, Ozbek, N, Okutan, M, Cakir, A, Acar, H.Surface dose and build-up region measurements with wedge filters for 6 and 18 MV photon beams. Jpn J Radiol 2010; 28: 110–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goggins, W, Gao, W, Tsao, H.Association between female breast cancer and cutaneous melanoma. Int J Cancer. 2004; 111: 792–794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shore, RE.Radiation‐induced skin cancer in humans. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2001; 36: 549–554.Google ScholarPubMed
Ghavami, S M, Ghiasi, H.Estimation of secondary skin cancer risk due to electron contamination in 18-MV LINAC-based prostate radiotherapy. Iran J Med Phys 2016; 13: 236–249.Google Scholar
Prabhakar, R, Haresh, K, Julka, Pet al.A study on contralateral breast surface dose for various tangential field techniques and the impact of set-up error on this dose. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2007; 30: 42–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alzoubi, A, Kandaiya, S, Shukri, A, Elsherbieny, E.Contralateral breast dose from chest wall and breast irradiation: local experience. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2010; 33: 137–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warlick, W B, James, H, Earley, L, Moeller, J H, Gaffney, D K, Leavitt, D D.Dose to the contralateral breast: a comparison of two techniques using the enhanced dynamic wedge versus a standard wedge. Med Dosim 1997; 22: 185–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaderka, R, Schardt, D, Durante, Met al.Out-of-field dose measurements in a water phantom using different radiotherapy modalities. Phys Med Biol 2012; 57: 5059–5074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triolo, A, Marrale, M, Brai, M.Neutron–gamma mixed field measurements by means of MCP–TLD600 dosimeter pair. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 2007; 264: 183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhavere, F, Huyskens, D, Struelens, L.Peripheral neutron and gamma doses in radiotherapy with an 18 MV linear accelerator. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2004; 110: 607–612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schauer, D A, Linton, O W.NCRP report No. 160, ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States, medical exposure—are we doing less with more, and is there a role for health physicists? Health Phys 2009; 97: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy (supplement to ICRU Report 50). ICRU Report 62. Bethesda, MD: International Commission of Radiation Units and Measurements, 1999.Google Scholar
Ghavami, S-M, Mesbahi, A, Mohammadi, E.The impact of automatic wedge filter on photoneutron and photon spectra of an 18-MV photon beam. Radiat Prot Dosim 2009; 138: 123–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hashemi, S M, Hashemi-Malayeri, B, Raisali, G, Shokrani, P, Sharafi, A A, Torkzadeh, F.Measurement of photoneutron dose produced by wedge filters of a high energy linac using polycarbonate films. J Radiat Res 2008; 49: 279–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mesbahi, A, Keshtkar, A, Mohammadi, E, Mohammadzadeh, M.Effect of wedge filter and field size on photoneutron dose equivalent for an 18MV photon beam of a medical linear accelerator. Appl Radiat Isot 2010; 68: 84–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naseri, A, Mesbahi, A.A review on photoneutrons characteristics in radiation therapy with high-energy photon beams. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2010; 15: 138–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tercilla, O, Krasin, F, Lawn-Tsao, L.Comparison of contralateral breast doses from 12 beam block and isocentric treatment techniques for patients treated with primary breast irradiation with 60 Co. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1989; 17: 205–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller-Runkel, R, Kalokhe, UP.Scatter dose from tangential breast irradiation to the uninvolved breast. Radiology 1990; 175: 873–876.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hong, L, Hunt, M, Chui, Cet al.Intensity-modulated tangential beam irradiation of the intact breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 44: 1155–1164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, E A, Fraass, B A, Pierce, L J (ed.) Clinical aspects of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 2002; 12: 250–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woo, T C, Pignol, J-P, Rakovitch, Eet al.Body radiation exposure in breast cancer radiotherapy: impact of breast IMRT and virtual wedge compensation techniques. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 65: 52–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borghero, Y O, Salehpour, M, McNeese, M Det al.Multileaf field-in-field forward-planned intensity-modulated dose compensation for whole-breast irradiation is associated with reduced contralateral breast dose: a phantom model comparison. Radiother Oncol 2007; 82: 324–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donovan, E, Bleakley, N, Denholm, Eet al.Randomised trial of standard 2D radiotherapy (RT) versus intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients prescribed breast radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2007; 82: 254–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pignol, J-P, Olivotto, I, Rakovitch, Eet al.A multicenter randomized trial of breast intensity-modulated radiation therapy to reduce acute radiation dermatitis. J Clini Oncol 2008; 26: 2085–2092.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohashi, T, Takeda, A, Shigematsu, Net al.Dose distribution analysis of axillary lymph nodes for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with a field-in-field technique for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 73: 80–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, X G, Bednarz, B, Paganetti, H.A review of dosimetry studies on external-beam radiation treatment with respect to second cancer induction. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53: 193–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Akram, M, Iqbal, K, Isa, M, Afzal, M, Buzdar, S A.Optimum reckoning of contra lateral breast dose using physical wedge and enhanced dynamic wedge in radiotherapy treatment planning system. Int J Radiat Res 2014; 12: 295–302.Google Scholar