SCIENTIFIC AND INFORMATION-ANALYTICAL MAGAZINE

ISSN 1024-6177 (Print), ISSN 2618-9615 (Online)

JOURNAL DESCRIPTION

The Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety journal ISSN 1024-6177 was founded in January 1956 (before December 30, 1993 it was entitled Medical Radiology, ISSN 0025-8334). In 2018, the journal received Online ISSN: 2618-9615 and was registered as an electronic online publication in Roskomnadzor on March 29, 2018. It publishes original research articles which cover questions of radiobiology, radiation medicine, radiation safety, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine and scientific reviews. In general the journal has more than 30 headings and it is of interest for specialists working in thefields of medicine¸ radiation biology, epidemiology, medical physics and technology. Since July 01, 2008 the journal has been published by State Research Center - Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency. The founder from 1956 to the present time is the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, and from 2008 to the present time is the Federal Medical Biological Agency.

Members of the editorial board are scientists specializing in the field of radiation biology and medicine, radiation protection, radiation epidemiology, radiation oncology, radiation diagnostics and therapy, nuclear medicine and medical physics. The editorial board consists of academicians (members of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS)), the full member of Academy of Medical Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, corresponding members of the RAS, Doctors of Medicine, professor, candidates and doctors of biological, physical mathematics and engineering sciences. The editorial board is constantly replenished by experts who work in the CIS and foreign countries.

Six issues of the journal are published per year, the volume is 13.5 conventional printed sheets, 88 printer’s sheets, 1.000 copies. The journal has an identical full-text electronic version, which, simultaneously with the printed version and color drawings, is posted on the sites of the Scientific Electronic Library (SEL) and the journal's website. The journal is distributed through the Rospechat Agency under the contract № 7407 of June 16, 2006, through individual buyers and commercial structures. The publication of articles is free.

The journal is included in the List of Russian Reviewed Scientific Journals of the Higher Attestation Commission. Since 2008 the journal has been available on the Internet and indexed in the RISC database which is placed on Web of Science. Since February 2nd, 2018, the journal "Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety" has been indexed in the SCOPUS abstract and citation database.

Brief electronic versions of the Journal have been publicly available since 2005 on the website of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal: http://www.medradiol.ru. Since 2011, all issues of the journal as a whole are publicly available, and since 2016 - full-text versions of scientific articles. Since 2005, subscribers can purchase full versions of other articles of any issue only through the National Electronic Library. The editor of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal in accordance with the National Electronic Library agreement has been providing the Library with all its production since 2005 until now.

The main working language of the journal is Russian, an additional language is English, which is used to write titles of articles, information about authors, annotations, key words, a list of literature.

Since 2017 the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety has switched to digital identification of publications, assigning to each article the identifier of the digital object (DOI), which greatly accelerated the search for the location of the article on the Internet. In future it is planned to publish the English-language version of the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety for its development. In order to obtain information about the publication activity of the journal in March 2015, a counter of readers' references to the materials posted on the site from 2005 to the present which is placed on the journal's website. During 2015 - 2016 years on average there were no more than 100-170 handlings per day. Publication of a number of articles, as well as electronic versions of profile monographs and collections in the public domain, dramatically increased the number of handlings to the journal's website to 500 - 800 per day, and the total number of visits to the site at the end of 2017 was more than 230.000.

The two-year impact factor of RISC, according to data for 2017, was 0.439, taking into account citation from all sources - 0.570, and the five-year impact factor of RISC - 0.352.

Issues journals

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 64–73

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3e4354d3276.60963732

D.V. Kuzmichev, Z.Z. Mamedli, A.A. Aniskin, A.V. Polinovskiy, J.M. Madyarov, S.I. Tkachev, A.V. Egorova, A.S. Aniskina

The Evolution of Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Component of Treatment of Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

1. N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center, Moscow, Ruissia;
2. N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Ruissia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

D.V. Kuzmichev – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.;
Z.Z. Mamedli – Head of Dep., PhD Med.;
A.A. Aniskin – Resident;
A.V. Polinovskiy – Researcher, PhD Med.;
J.M. Madyarov – Doctor, PhD Med.;
S.I. Tkachev – Leading Researcher, Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.;
A.V. Egorova – PhD Med., Prof.;
A.S. Aniskina – Resident

Abstract

The results of numerous single-center and multicenter randomized and non-randomized studies on the treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) over a 70-year period are presented. The sequence of surgical, medicinal, radiation and chemoradiation treatment is represented. The doses and amount of radiation exposure are described, both in mono mode and with the use of various combinations of chemotherapeutic drugs in neoadjuvant and adjuvant regimens. The evolution of complex treatment that has shifted has shifted the emphasis to the use of chemoradiation therapy in the neoadjuvant period, and the introduction of new chemotherapeutic drugs and regimens have significantly increased the survival rates among patients with LARC. The approaches to the treatment of patients with LARC are not static and are constantly being improved. This literature review shows the chronological sequence and major current trends in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant components of the treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

Key words: locally advanced rectal cancer, complex treatment, consolidation chemotherapy, induction chemotherapy, medical pathomorphosis

REFERENCES

  1. Kaprin AD, Starinsky VV, Petrova GV. Malignant tumors in Russia in 2015. Moscow, 2017:11-2 (Russian).

  2. The Beyond TME Collaborative. Brit J Surg. 2013;2(100(8)):1009-14.

  3. Aleksic M, Hennes N, Ulrich B. Surgical treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer. Options and strategies. Dig Surg. 1998(15):342-6.

  4. Fisher B, Wolmark N, Rockette H, et al. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy for rectal cancer: results from NSABP protocol R-01. J  Nat  Cancer Institute. 1988;80(1):21-9.

  5. Treurniet-Donker AD, van Putten WL, Wereldsma JC, et al. Postoperative radiation therapy for rectal cancer. An interim analysis of a prospective, randomized multicenter trial in The Netherlands. Cancer. 1991;67(8):2042-8.

  6. Balslev I, Pedersen M, Teglbjaerg PS. Postoperative radiotherapy in Dukes’ B and C carcinoma of the rectum and rectosigmoid. A randomized multicenter study. Cancer. 1986;58(1):22-8.

  7. Randomised trial of surgery alone versus surgery followed by radiotherapy for mobile cancer of the rectum. Medical Research Council Rectal Cancer Working Party. Lancet. 1996;348(9042):1610-4.

  8. André T, Boni C, Mounedji-Boudiaf L, Navarro M. Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(23):2343-51.

  9. Twelves C, Wong A, Nowacki MP. Capecitabine as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(26):2696-704.

  10. Petersen SH, Harling H, Kirkeby LT, et al. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer operated for cure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. 3:CD004078.

  11. Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S. Systematic Review: Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer with respect to Stage of Disease. Int  Scholarly Res  Notices. 2015;2015. 710569.

  12. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. Prolongation of the disease-free interval in surgically treated rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:1465-72.

  13. Moertel CG, Childs DS. Jr, Reitemeier RJ, et al. Combined 5-fluorouracil and supervoltage radiation therapy of locally unresectable gastrointestinal cancer. Lancet. 1969;25(2):865-7.

  14. Krook JE, Moertel CG, Gunderson LL, et al. Effective surgical adjuvant therapy for high-risk rectal carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:709-15.

  15. Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. Radiation therapy and fluorouracil with or without semustine for the treatment of patients with surgical adjuvant adenocarcinoma of the rectum. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10(4):549-57.

  16. NIH consensus conference. Adjuvant therapy for patients with colon and rectal cancer. JAMA. 1990;264(11):1444-50.

  17. Haller DG, Catalano PG, MacDonald JS, Mayer RJ. Fluorouracil, leucovorin and levamisole adjuvant therapy for colon cancer: for-year results of INT-DO89. Proc. ASCO. 1997;16:265a, abs. 940.

  18. Andre T, Boni C, Mounedji-Boudiaf L, et al. Multicenter international study of oxaliplatin / 5-fluorouracil / leucovorin in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer (MOSAIC) investigators. Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2343-51.

  19. André T, Boni C, Navarro M, et al. Improved overall survival with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as adjuvant treatment in stage II or III colon cancer in the MOSAIC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3109-16.

  20. Shi Q, Sobrero A, Shields A, et al. Prospective pooled analysis of six phase III trials investigating duration of adjuvant oxaliplatin-based therapy (3 vs 6 months) for patients (pts) with stage III colon cancer (CC): The IDEA (International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant chemotherapy) collaboration. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:18.

  21. Petersen SH, Harling H, Kirkeby LT, et al. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer operated for cure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;3. CD004078.

  22. Fernández-Martos C, Pericay C, Aparicio J, et al. Phase II, randomized study of concomitant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) compared with induction CAPOX followed by concomitant chemoradiotherapy and surgery in magnetic resonance imaging-defined, locally advanced rectal cancer: Grupo cancer de recto 3 study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:859-65.

  23. Frykholm GJ, Glimelius B, Påhlman L. Preoperative or postoperative irradiation in adenocarcinoma of the rectum: final treatment results of a randomized trial and an evaluation of late secondary effects. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36:564-72.

  24. Rodel C, Liersch T, Becker H, et al. Preoperative chemo­radiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin versus fluorouracil alone in locally advanced rectal cancer: initial results of the German CAO/ARO/AIO-04 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012(13):679-87.

  25. Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial. Improved Survival with Preoperative Radiotherapy in Resectable Rectal Cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:980-87.

  26. Folkesson J, Birgisson H, Pahlman L, et al. Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial: Long Lasting Benefits From Radiotherapy on Survival and Local Recurrence Rate. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(24):5644-50.

  27. Birgisson H, Påhlman L, Gunnarsson U, Glimelius B. Adverse Effects of Preoperative Radiation Therapy for Rectal Cancer: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(34):8697-705.

  28. Sebag-Montefiore D, Stephens RJ, Steele R, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy versus selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer (MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG C016): a multicentre, randomised trial. Lancet. 2009;7(373(9666)):811-20.

  29. Bosset JF, Collette L, Calais G, et al. EORTC Radiotherapy Group Trial 22921. Chemotherapy with preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;14(11(355)):1114-23.

  30. Fernández-Martos C, Nogué M, Cejas P, et al. The role of capecitabine in locally advanced rectal cancer treatment: an update. Drugs. 2012;28(8(72)):1057-73.

  31. Hofheinz R, Wenz F, Post S, et al. Capecitabine (Cape) versus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based (neo)adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC): Long-term results of a randomized, phase III trial. 2011 ASCO Annual Meeting. 2011. Abstract 3504.

  32. Hofheinz RD, Wenz F, Post S, et al. Chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine versus fluorouracil for locally advanced rectal cancer: a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:579-88.

  33. O’Connell MJ, Colangelo LH, Beart RW, et al. Capecitabine and oxaliplatin in the preoperative multimodality treatment of rectal cancer: surgical end points from national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project trial R-04. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(18):1927-34.

  34. Aschele C, Cionini L, Lonardi S. Primary tumor response to preoperative chemoradiation with or without oxaliplatin in locally advanced rectal cancer: pathologic results of the STAR-01 randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(20):2773-80.

  35. Bujko K, Nowacki MP, Nasierowska-Guttmejer A, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing preoperative short-course radiotherapy with preoperative conventionally fractionated chemoradiation for rectal cancer. Brit J Surg. 2006;93(10):1215-23.

  36. Chua YJ, Barbachano Y, Cunningham D. Neoadjuvantcapecitabine and oxaliplatin before chemoradiotherapy and total mesorectal excision in MRI-defined poor-risk rectal cancer: a phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(3):241-8.

  37. Fernández-Martos C, Pericay C. Phase II, randomized study of concomitant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) compared with induction CAPOX followed by concomitant chemoradiotherapy and surgery in magnetic resonance imaging-defined, locally advanced rectal cancer: Grupo cancer de recto 3 study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(5):859-65.

  38. Washington MK, Berlin J, Branton P, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with primary carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(10):1539-51.

  39. Cercek A, Goodman KA, Hajj C, Weisberger E. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy first, followed by chemoradiation and then surgery, in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014;12(4):513-9.

  40. Dewdney A, Cunningham D, Tabernero J, et al. Multicenter Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial Comparing Neoadjuvant Oxaliplatin, Capecitabine, and Preoperative Radiotherapy with or without Cetuximab Followed by Total Mesorectal Excision in Patients With High-Risk Rectal Cancer (EXPERT-C). J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(14):1620-27.

  41. Nogue M, Salud A, Vicente P, et al. Addition of bevacizumab to XELOX induction therapy plus concomitant capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy in magnetic resonance imaging-defined poor-prognosis locally advanced rectal cancer: the AVACROSS study. Oncologist. 2011;16:614-20.

  42. Habr-Gama A, Perez R.O, Sabbaga J, et al. Increasing the rates of complete response to neoadjuvantchemoradiotherapy for distal rectal cancer: results of a prospective study using additional chemotherapy during the resting period. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:1927-34.

  43. Garcia-Aguilar J, Smith DD, Avila K, et al. Optimal timing of surgery after chemoradiation for advanced rectal cancer: preliminary results of a multicenter, nonrandomized phase II prospective trial. Ann Surg. 2011;254:97-102.

  44. Garcia-Aguilar J, Marcet J, Coutsoftides T, et al. Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy following chemoradiation on tumor response, adverse events, and surgical complications in patients with advanced rectal cancer treated with TME. Ann Surg. 2011;29(15): Suppl. 3514.

  45. Gao YH, Lin J.Z, An X, et al. Neoadjuvant Sandwich Treatment With Oxaliplatin and Capecitabine Administered Prior to, Concurrently With, and Following Radiation Therapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Prospective Phase 2 Trial. Int J Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;90(5):1153-60.

  46. Xiao J, Chen Z, Li W, et al. Sandwich-like neoadjuvant therapy with bevacizumab for locally advanced rectal cancer: a phase II trial. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2015;76(1):21-7.

  47. Braendengen M, Tveit KM, Berglund A. Randomized phase III study comparing preoperative radiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy in nonresectable rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(22):3687-94.

  48. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, Version 2.2018. Rectal Cancer. 2018.

  49. Glimelius B, Pahlman L, Cervantes A. ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Rectal Cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(6):81-5.

  50. Biagi JJ, Raphael M, King WD, et al. The impact of time to adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) on survival in colorectal cancer (CRC): A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(4):abstr 364.

For citation: Kuzmichev DV, Mamedli ZZ, Aniskin AA, Polinovskiy AV, Madyarov JM, Tkachev SI, Egorova AV, Aniskina AS. The Evolution of Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Component of Treatment of Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):64-73. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3e4354d3276.60963732

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 74–77

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3e5d39dc746.62423273

V.A. Klimanov1,2, J.J. Galjautdinova2, М.А. Kolyvanova2

The Ratio between Absorbed Dose, Kerma and Ionization Kerma for Small-Size Fields

1. National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia

V.A. Klimanov – Leading Researcher, Dr. Sci. Phys-Math., Prof.;
J.J. Galjautdinova – Head of Lab.;
М.А. Kolyvanova – Head of Lab.

Abstract

Purpose: Research of the relationships between spatial distributions in water of the main dosimetric values, namely the absorbed dose, kerma and ionization kerma, for small-size fields with a circular cross section created by divergent beams of bremsstrahlung spectrum with a maximum energy of 6 MeV.

Material and methods: Using the Monte-Carlo method with the codes EGSnrc and MCNP4C2, calculations were carried out for these distributions in a water phantom for beam radii on the phantom surface from 0.1 to 3.0 cm and for depths up to 40 cm. The ratio at depths up to 5 cm, where there is a so-called build-up area, is studied in particular detail.

Results: The results of calculations show that the ratio of ionization kerma to kerma for such beams at depths up to 40 cm is practically constant and equal to 0.9930 ± 0.0005. The ratio of the absorbed dose to the ionization kerma, in contrast to conventional square beams with a cross-sectional area ≥ 20 cm2, is much less than unity at radii of 1 cm at all the depths considered.

Conclusion: The data obtained show that the relationship between absorbed dose, kerma and ionization kerma for photon fields produced by beams of small cross sections is very different from that for traditional beams. This circumstance should be taken into account when conducting dosimetry of small fields.


Key words: clinical dosimetry, dose, kerma, ionization kerma, small fields

REFERENCES

  1. Loevinger R. A formalism for calculation of absorbed dose to a medium from photon and electron beams. Med Phys. 1981;8:1-12.
  2. Attix FH. Introduction to Radiological Physics and Radiation Dosimetry. New York: Wiley. 1986.
  3. Hannallah D, Zhu TC, Bjarngard DE. Electron disequilibrium in high-energy x-ray beams. Med Phys. 1996;23:1867-71.
  4. Klimanov VA. Radiobiological and dosimetric planning of radiotherapy and radionuclide therapy. Moscow: Izd. NNIU MEPhI. 2011.
  5. Kumar S, Deshpande DD, Nahum AE. Monte-Carlo-derived insights into dose–kerma–collision kerma inter-relationships for 50 keV–25 MeV photon beams in water, aluminum and copper. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:501-19.
  6. Sheikh-Bagheria D, Roger DWO. Monte Carlo calculation of nine megavoltage photon beam spectra using the BEAM code. Med Phys. 2002;29(3):391-402.
  7. Rogers DWO, Kawrakow I, Seuntjens JP, et al. National Research Council of Canada Report No. PIRS-702 (rev C) NRC Usercodes for EGSnrc (Ottawa: NRCC). 2011.
  8. MCNP–A General Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code. Version 4C, Ed. by JF Briesmeister (Los Alamos National Laboratory). 2000.

For citation: Klimanov VA, Galjautdinova JJ, Kolyvanova МА. The Ratio between Absorbed Dose, Kerma and Ionization Kerma for Small-Size Fields. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):74-7. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3e5d39dc746.62423273

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 85–88

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3e96f80d074.65473780

S.F. Vershinina

Past and Present of Radiation Diagnostics and Treatment of Malignant Tumors
(On the 100 Anniversary of FSBI A.M. Granov RRCRST of the Ministry of Healthcare Russian Federation)

Russian Scientific Center of Radiology and Surgical Technologies named after A.M. Granov, St. Petersburg, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

S.F. Vershinina – Leading Researcher, Dr. Sci. Biol.

For citation: Vershinina SF. Past and Present of Radiation of Diagnostics and Treatment of Malignant Tumors (To the 100 Anniversary of FSBI A.M. Granov RRCRST of the Ministry of Healthcare Russian Federation). Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):85-8. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3e96f80d074.65473780

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 3. P. 78–84

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3e86a478d20.08095360

E.N. Lykova1,2, M.V. Zheltonozhskaya1,2, F.Yu. Smirnov3, P.I. Rudnev4, A.P. Chernyaev1,2, I.V. Cheshigin5, V.N. Yatsenko3

Analysis of the Bremsstrahlung Photons Flux and the Neutrons Beams during the Operation of an Electrons Medical Accelerator

1. Faculty of Physics, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia;
3. A.I. Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia;
4. LLC “Center ATSP”, Moscow, Russia;
5. National Research Center «Kurchatov Institute», Moscow, Russia

E.N. Lykova – Senior Lecturer;
M.V. Zheltonozhskaya – Senior Researcher, PhD Tech.;
F.Yu. Smirnov – Medical Physicist;
P.I. Rudnev – Director;
A.P. Chernyaev – Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Phys.-Math., Prof.;
I.V. Cheshigin – Senior Researcher;
V.N. Yatsenko – Head of Lab., PhD Tech.

Abstract

Purpose: To estimate the contribution of the secondary neutron flux to the total radiation flux during the operation of Trilogy linear medical accelerator and Varian’s Clinac 2100 accelerator for assessment of impact on the health of patients and medical personnel.

High-energy linear accelerators operating at energies higher than 8 MeV generate neutron fluxes when interacting with accelerator elements and with structural materials of the room for treating patients. Neutrons can form at the accelerator head (target, collimators, smoothing filter, etc.), the procedure room, and directly in the patient’s body.

Because of the high radiobiological hazard of neutron radiation, its contribution to the total beam flux, even at a level of few percent, substantially increases the dose received by the patient.

Material and methods: Secondary neutron fluxes were investigated during the process of the linear medical accelerators Trilogy and Clinac 2100 of Varian operation by the photoactivation method using (γ, n) and (n, γ) reactions on the detection target of natural 181Ta. In addition, measurements of neutron spectra were carried out directly in the room during the operation of a medical accelerator using a spectrometer-dosimeter SDMF-1608.

Results: It was determined that the neutron flux on the tantalum target is 16 % of the gamma-ray flux on the same target when the accelerator is operated with a 18 MeV bremsstrahlung energy and 5 % when the accelerator is operated with a 20 MeV excluding thermal neutrons.

Conclusion: Finally, it may be noted that, taking into account the coefficient of relative biological efficiency (RBE) of neutron radiation for neutrons with energies of 0.1–200 keV equal to 10 compared with the RBE coefficient for gamma quanta (equal to 1), even preliminary analysis demonstrates significant underestimation of the contribution of neutrons dose to the total dose received by the patient in radiation therapy using bremsstrahlung of 18 and 20 MeV.

Key words: radiation therapy, bremstrahlung, photonuclear reactions, secondary neutrons, activation method

REFERENCES

  1. Carrillo HR, Almaraz BH, Dávila VM, Hernández AO. Neutron spectrum and doses in a 18 MV Linac. J Radioanal Nucl Chem. 2010;283:261-5.

  2. Zanini A, Durisi E, Fasolo F, Ongaro C, Visca L, Nastasi U, et al. Monte Carlo simulation of the photoneutron field in linac radiotherapy treatments with different collimation systems. Phys Med Biol. 2004;49:571-82.

  3. Pena J, Franco L, Gómez F, Iglesias A, Pardo J, Pombar M. Monte Carlo study of Siemens PRIMUS photoneutron production. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:5921-33.

  4. Seltzer SM. An assessment of the role of charged seconderies from nonelastic nuclear interaction by therapy proton beam in water. National Institute of Standards and Tehnology Technical Reports No. NISTIR 5221, 1993.

  5. Schimmerling W, Rapkin M, Wong M, Howard J. The propagation of relativistic heavy ions in multielement beam lines. Med Phys. 1986;13:217-23.

  6. Varzar SM, Tultaev AV, Chernyaev AP. The role of secondary particles in the passage of ionizing radiation through biological media. Med Fizika . 2001;9:58-67. (Russian).

  7. Satherberg A, Johansson L. Photonuclear production in tissue for different 50 MV bremstrahlung beams. Med Phys. 1998;25:683.

  8. Allen PD, Chaudhri MA. The dose contribution due to photonuclear reaction during radioterapy. Med Phys. 1982;9:904.

  9. Spurny F, Johansson L, Satherberg A, Bednar J, Turek K. The contribution of secondery heavy particles to the absorbed dose from high energy photon beam. Phys Med Biol. 1996;41:2643.

  10. Ahnesjo A, Weber L, Nilsson P. Modeling transmission and scatter or photon beam attenuator. Med Phys. 1995;22:1711.

  11. Gottschalk B, Platais R, Paganetti H. Nuclear interaction of 160 MeV protons stopping in copper: a test of Monte Carlo nuclear models. Med Phys. 1999;26:2597.

  12. Carlsson CA, Carlsson GA. Proton dosimetry with 185 MeV protons: dose buildup from secondery protons recoil electrons. Health Phys. 1977;33:481.

  13. Deasy JO. A proton dose calculation algorithm for conformal therapy simulations based on Molieres theory of lateral deflections. Phys Med. 1998;25:476.

  14. Hassan Ali Nedaie, Hoda Darestani, Nooshin Banaee, Negin Shagholi, Kheirollah Mohammadi, Arjang Shahvar et al. Neutron dose measurements of Varian and Elekta linacs by TLD600 and TLD700 dosimeters and comparison with MCNP calculations. J Med Phys 2014;39(1):10-17.

  15. Hashemi SM, Hashemi-Malayeri B, Raisali G, Shokrani P, Sharafi AA. A study of the photoneutron dose equivalent resulting from a Saturne 20 medical linac using Monte Carlo method. Nukleonika; 2007;52:39-43.

  16. PTW Freiburg GmbH, Germany. Available from: http://www.ptw.de/acrylic_and_ rw3_slab_phantoms0.html.

  17. Alireza Naseria, Asghar Mesbahia. A review on photoneutrons characteristics in radiation therapy with high-energy photon beams. Rep Practical Oncol Radiother. 2010;15:138-44.

  18. Sellin PJ, Jaffar G, Jastaniah SD. Performance of digital algorithms for n/γ pulse shape discrimination using a liquid scintillation detector. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record. 2003.

  19. Digital Gamma Neutron Discrimination with Liquid Scintillators. Application Note AN2506. Rev. 3, 09 September 2016. 00117-10-DGT20-ANXX.

  20. X and gamma reference radiation for calibrating dosemeters and dose rate meters and for determining their response as a function of photon energy. ISO 4037.

  21. Reference neutron radiations. ISO 8529.

  22. Moiseev NN, Dydyk AV. Investigation of the scintillation spectrometer-dosimeter of gamma quanta and fast neutrons. ANRI. 2016;4:24-30. (Russian).

  23. Description Spectrometer-dosimeter SDMF-1608. Available from: www.centeradc.ru.

  24. Varlamov AV, Varlamov VV, Rudenko DS, Stepanov ME. Atlas of Giant Dipole Resonances. IAEA Nuclear Data Section. Vienna: Wagramerstrasse 5, A-1400. 1999.

  25. McDermott BJ, Blain E, Daskalakis A, et al. Ta(n,γ) cross section and average resonance parameter measurements in the unresolved resonance region from 24 to 1180 keV using a filtered-beam technique. Phys Rev. 2017;96:014607(11).

For citation: Lykova EN, Zheltonozhskaya MV, Smirnov FYu, Rudnev PI, Chernyaev AP, Cheshigin IV, Yatsenko VN. Analysis of the Bremsstrahlung Photons Flux and the Neutrons Beams during the Operation of an Electrons Medical Accelerator. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64(3):78-84. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf3e86a478d20.08095360

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019. Vol. 64. No. 4. P. 0–45

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf232752e83d4.66034976

А.Б. Майзик1,

Компле

1. АО «Высокотехнологический научно-исследовательский институт неорганических материалов им. академика

А.Б. Майзик – зам. главного инженера, нач. службы, аспирант;
И.П. Коренков – г.н.с., к.т.н., д.б.н., проф.;

Abstract



Key words:

REFERENCES

For citation:

DOI: 10.12737/article_5cf232752e83d4.66034976

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

  1. 5-17_Koterov_et_al_eng
  2. 18-24_Tsishnatti_et_al_eng
  3. 25-31_Kuznetsov_et_al_eng
  4. 32-40_Khalyuzova_et_al_eng

Contact Information

 

46, Zhivopisnaya st., 123098, Moscow, Russia Phone: +7 (499) 190-95-51. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Journal location

Attendance

2949115
Today
Yesterday
This week
Last week
This month
Last month
For all time
2982
2962
5958
20395
47411
113593
2949115
Forecast today
3096

Your IP:216.73.216.100
Visitor Counter

© Журнал "Медицинская радиология и радиационная безопасность" 2020г.

Яндекс.Метрика

Наверх