2009
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/8/001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stray radiation dose and second cancer risk for a pediatric patient receiving craniospinal irradiation with proton beams

Abstract: Proton beam radiotherapy unavoidably exposes healthy tissue to stray radiation emanating from the treatment unit and secondary radiation produced within the patient. These exposures provide no known benefit and may increase a patient's risk of developing a radiogenic cancer. The aims of this study were to calculate doses to major organs and tissues and to estimate second cancer risk from stray radiation following craniospinal irradiation (CSI) with proton therapy. This was accomplished using detailed Monte Car… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
116
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 100 publications
(121 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
5
116
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, this estimate is hard to prove without an accurate measurement of the neutron spectrum. Monte Carlo simulations for a 10-year-old boy receiving craniospinal treatment of 30.6 Gy plus a boost of 23.4 Gy to the clinical target showed the maximum equivalent dose to the head region is 1429 mSv (16). If we use the simulation's beam configuration, then the dose equivalent to the head is estimated to be 1016 mSv, which is within 30% of the simulation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…However, this estimate is hard to prove without an accurate measurement of the neutron spectrum. Monte Carlo simulations for a 10-year-old boy receiving craniospinal treatment of 30.6 Gy plus a boost of 23.4 Gy to the clinical target showed the maximum equivalent dose to the head region is 1429 mSv (16). If we use the simulation's beam configuration, then the dose equivalent to the head is estimated to be 1016 mSv, which is within 30% of the simulation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Although there has been significant progress in RT technology (61), there remain concerns on treatment-related acute and long-term side effects. This problem is more pronounced in pediatric populations due to the development of organs and tissues and the longer life expectancy, which include the effect of radiation on growth, intellectual development, endocrine organ function and secondary cancer development; thus, the pediatric radiation dose to normal tissues should be reduced as much as possible (62)(63)(64)(65)(66). PBT has the advantage of reducing the dose exposure of normal tissue, which may lead to fewer adverse effects.…”
Section: Pbt For Different Cancersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the relationship between RT and secondary cancer has been clarified. For example, the risk of breast cancer after chest irradiation is reportedly 16-fold higher than normal (4), and glioma and meningioma develop in 3-20% of patients after intracranial irradiation (5). PBT reduces the incidence of secondary cancer, because a smaller amount of normal tissue is irradiated.…”
Section: Pediatric Cancermentioning
confidence: 99%