Out-Of-Field Dose Measurement and Second Cancer-Risk Estimation Following External Beam Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy for Cervical Cancer Treatment: A Phantom Study

Document Type : Original Paper


1 Assistant professor,department of radiological physics,SP Medical college

2 SP Medical college, Bikaner, Rajasthan, india

3 SMS Medical collge,jaipur

4 Professor and Head,Department of Radiological physics, SMS Medical College,Jaipur, Rajajsthan,India

5 SP Medical college,bikaner,rajasthan,India


Introduction: The present study aimed to measure the scatter and leakage dose received by out-of-field organs while delivering Radiotherapy (RT) treatment of cervical cancer. Moreover, this study estimated the risk of second cancer (SC). The doses to out-of-field organs were measured using a lithium fluoride (TLD 100) dosimeter while delivering External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT) by 6 MV photon beam with Brachytherapy Boost (BB) treatment in the humanoid phantom.
Material and Methods: The excess absolute risk of SC for the stomach, colon, liver, lung, breast, and kidney, as well as excess relative risk for the thyroid, were estimated based on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII report.
Results: The out-of-field organ doses varied with respect to distance between organs. The colon (3DCRT-282.13 cGy and IMRT-381.24 cGy in 25 fractions) and kidney (70.65 cGy in 3 fractions) received the highest doses with EBRT and BB, respectively. For most of the aforementioned organs, the calculated dose was 0.2 Gy/fraction according to the treatment planning system. With the age at exposure (i.e., 30 years) as a reference, the highest LARs were associated with the colon (0.74%) and breast (2.76%) in 3DCRT plus BB and IMRT plus BB, respectively. The lifetime attributable risk of SC was also shown to decrease with increasing the age at exposure for all the organs.
Conclusion: Although all the evaluated out-of-field organs in this study showed some levels of risk, the risk was more frequently reported for the colon, stomach, and breast with IMRT technique than that in 3DCRT.


Main Subjects

  1. References


    1. World Health Organization. Early diagnosis and screening: Cervical cancer. WHO. 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/cancer/prevention/diagnosis-screening/cervical-cancer/en.
    2. Saurabh B, Jignasa S, Aanchal J, Ganesh B. Burden of cervical cancer and role of screening in India. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2016; 37(4): 278–85.
    3. Chaturveti AK, Engels EA, Gilbert ES, Chen BE, Storm H, Lynch CF, et al. Second cancers among 104,760 survivors ofcervical cancer: Evaluation of long-term risk. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 2007; 99: 1634–43.
    4. Gallagher MJ, Brereton HD, Rostock RA, Zero JM, Zekoski DA, Poyss LF, et al. A prospective study of treatment techniques to minimize the volume of pelvic small bowel with reduction of acute and late effects associated with pelvic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1986;12:1565–73.
    5. Bucci MK, Bevan A, Roach MR. Advances in radiation therapy: conventional to 3D, to IMRT, to 4D, and beyond. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55:117–34.
    6. Bryant AK, Huynh-Le MP, Simpson DR, Mell LK, Gupta S, Murphy JD. Intensity modulated radiation therapy versus conventional radiation for anal cancer in the veterans affairs system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;102:109–15.
    7. Gallagher MJ, Brereton HD, Rostock RA, Zero JM, Zekoski DA, Poyss LF, et al. A prospective study of treatment techniques to minimize the volume of pelvic small bowel with reduction of acute and late effects associated with pelvic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1986; 12:1565–73.
    8. Hall E, Wuu CS. Radiation-induced second cancers: The impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003; 56:83-8.
    9. Han K, Milosevic M, Fyles A, Pintilie M, Viswanathan AN. Trends in the utilization of brachytherapy in cervical cancer in the United States. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys .2013;87:111-9.
    10. Small W, Beriwal S, Demanes DJ, Dusenbery KE, Eifel P, Erickson B, et al. American brachytherapy society consensus guidelines for adjuvant vaginal cuff brachytherapy after hysterectomy. Brachytherapy. 2012 ;11(1):58-67.
    11. Boram L, Sung H, Hyeyoung K, Jaeman S, Jiwon S, Youngyih H, et al. Secondary cancer-incidence risk estimates for external radiotherapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy in cervical cancer: phantom study. J Appl Clin Med phys. 2016 ; 17(5): 124–32.
    12. Pagnetti H. Assessment of the risk for developing a second malignancy from scattered and secondary radiation in radiation therapy. Health Phys. 2012; 103(5): 652–61.
    13. O’Connor MK. Risk of low-dose radiation and the BEIR VII report: A critical review of what it does and doesn’t say. Phys Med. 2017; 43:153-8.
    14. Jessie Y, David S, Xin A, Stephen 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(2):4139.
    15. National Research Council. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII, Phase 2. Estimating cancer risk. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science. 2006:267–312.
    16. Valentin J. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4):1–332.
    17. 17.Das IJ, Cheng CW, Watts RJ, Ahnesjo A, GibbonsJ, Li X A. Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM. Med Phys. 2008;35 (9):4186–215.
    18. 18.Starkschall G, Steadham RE Jr, Popple RA, Ahman S, Rosen II. Beam-commissioning methodology for a three-dimensional convolution/superposition photon dose algorithm. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2000;1(1):8-27.
    19. Ruben JD, Davis S, Evans C, Jones P, Gagliardi F, Haynes M, et al.The effect of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on radiation-induced second malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2008;70: 1530–36.
    20. 20.Adams EJ, Convery DJ, Cosgrove VP, Nair HA, Staffurth JN, Vaarkamp J. Clinical implementation of dynamic and step-and-shoot IMRT to treat prostate cancer with high risk of pelvic lymph node involvement. Radiother Oncol. 2004; 70:1–10.
    21. 21.Bohsung J, Gillis S, Arrans R, Bakai A, De Wagter C, Knöös T. IMRT treatment planning— A comparativeinter-system and inter-centre planning exercise of the ESTROQUASIMODO group. Radiother Oncol. 2005;76: 354–61.
    22. Wiezorek T, Brachwitz T, Georg D, Blank E, Fotina I, Habl G, et al. Rotational IMRT techniques compared to fixed gantry IMRT and tomotherapy: multi-institutional planning study for head-and-neck cases. Radiation Oncology. 2011;6(1):20.
    23. 23.Lee YC, Hsieh CC, Li CY, Chuang JP, Lee JC. Secondary cancers after radiation therapy for primary prostate or rectal cancer. World J Surg. 2016;40(4):895–905.
    24. Teng CJ, Huon LK, Hu YW, Yeh CM, Chao Y, Yang MH, et al. Secondary primary malignancy risk in patients with cervical cancer in Taiwan: a nationwide population-based study. Medicine. 2015;94(43).
    25. Kry F, Bedantz B, Howell MR, DauerL, Followill D, Klein E. AAPM TG 158: Measurement and calculation of doses outside the treatedvolume from external-beam radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2017; 44(10):391-429.
    26. Senkus E, Konefka T, Nowaczyk M, Jaseem J. Second lower genital tract squamous cell carcinoma following cervical cancer.A clinical study of 46 patients. Acta obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79(9):765-70.
    27. Boice JD, Day NE, Andersen A, Brinton LA, Brown R, Choi NW, et al. Second cancers following radiation treatment for cervical cancer. An international collaboration among cancer registries. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1985;74(5):955–75.