Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Neutron
Therapy
Sevil
Rahnama
UBC
#53255097
Physics
404
December
2,
2011
Abstract
Fast Neutron Therapy, first introduced in 1938, has emerged as an advance radiation therapy that is capable of killing very large, and radio-resistant tumors. Using high-energy neutrons, the beam is capable of producing very large secondary charged particles (electrons) that are able to cause double-stranded DNA damage that can effectively destroy the cell. Other therapy methods only damage the DNA and the cell can repair itself. The therapy causes considerable damage to the cells, and thus can sometimes cause irreversible damage to the normal tissues. Therefore, this treatment is only used when the other radiation therapies fail. In the following paper, fast neutron therapy is discussed in detail. First, the reactions creating the neutrons are covered. This is followed by the discussion of the gantry and the MLC that are used to apply the dosage on the patient. Next, the dosage used for treatment is discussed. Finally, some advantages and disadvantages of the fast neutron therapy are discussed. University of Washington, Wayne State University and FermiLab are the center of research on the therapy and much of the details are taken from these institutes.
List of Figures
Figure 1: A cyclotron a device that rotates and accelerates a particle by changing the gradient of the magnetic field, thus making the particle speed up spirally. Image taken from (Gagnon) ...................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2: The icon conical flattening filter used to bring the proton beam to the beryllium sample and the parallel-sided aperture used to collect the neutrons. Image is courtesy of (Kiger, Sakamoto, & Harling) ........................................................... 8 Figure 3: The drawing of an MLC system showing (with the filter and the aperture located inside it) is shown on the left. The University of Washington Clinical Neutron Therapy System (CNTS) is shown on the right. ................................................ 8 Figure 4: A tumor cell targeted by the CNTS system. Note the high resolution of isolating the tumorous cell from the skin around. Image is courtesy of University of Washington. ............................................................................................................ 9 Figure 5: The gantry system holding the MLC ........................................................................... 10 Figure 6:FNT vs X-ray or proton therapy. The FNT produces high-LET electrons capable of performing double-stranded DNA damage while the X-ray therapy only does single-stranded DNA damage. ............................................................................ 11 Figure 7: The comparison of X-ray, neutron and proton therapy. The table is courtesy of (Jones, 2008). .......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 8: The correlation of LET and the RBE. The higher the LET generally represents a higher RBE value. ............................................................................................... 12 Figure 9: A salivary gland tumor treated with NFT. Picture courtesy of (Lennox). .. 14
List
of
Abbreviation
CNTS
FNT
LET
RBE
RT
Clinical
Neutron
Therapy
System
Fast
Neutron
Therapy
Linear
Energy
Transfer
Relative
Biological
Effect
Radiation
Therapy
Table of Content
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. 3 List of Abbreviation .................................................................................................................................. 4 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Fast Neutron Therapy .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.1. Producing the beam of neutrons ....................................................................................... 7 1.2. Neutron bombardment .......................................................................................................... 8 1.3. Neutron treatment and the dosage amount ............................................................... 10 2. Comparison of neutron vs. other radiation therapies .................................................... 13 2.1. Advantages of FNT ................................................................................................................ 13 2.2. Disadvantages of FNT .......................................................................................................... 13 3. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 1: A cyclotron a device that rotates and accelerates a particle by changing the gradient of the magnetic field, thus making the particle speed up spirally. Image taken from (Gagnon)
This beam is then passed through an iron conical flattening filter, towards a thick beryllium target of thickness 3.8cm (Bewley, Meulders, Octave-Prignot, & Page, 1980) using very high magnetic field gradient. The beryllium-proton reaction creates a scattering of fast neutrons that are then collimated by a parallel-sided aperture. This system is known as MLC. The filter and the aperture is shown in the figure below.
Figure 2: The icon conical flattening filter used to bring the proton beam to the beryllium sample and the parallel-sided aperture used to collect the neutrons. Image is courtesy of (Kiger, Sakamoto, & Harling)
The collimated neutrons have a typical energy of 20MeV (Goodhead, Berry, Bance, & Gray, 1978) and can then be used in the therapy. The diagram below shows an MLC system along with its masking complementary component.
Figure 3: The drawing of an MLC system showing (with the filter and the aperture located inside it) is shown on the left. The University of Washington Clinical Neutron Therapy System (CNTS) is shown on the right.
the previous section, is typically a multi-leaf collimator with 40 both steel and plastic leaves (shown on Figure 3 on the right) used to for the conformal shaping of the treatment field (Risler, Emery, & Laramore). In other words, the parallel beam of neutron passes through the field-shaping device (shown on the right) to create the required shape. On the image above, for example, the final field would be a distorted trapezoid. The resolution of the system is therefore dependent on the number of leaves used on the masking.
Figure 4: A tumor cell targeted by the CNTS system. Note the high resolution of isolating the tumorous cell from the skin around. Image is courtesy of University of Washington.
The head of the system would be as far as 150cm from the targeted cells, although it can also be closer as well (Risler, Emery, & Laramore). The figure below shows a typical gantry assembled neutron therapy system. As a safety measure, the treatment room is isolated with a 240cm thick concrete wall that can effectively block 99% of the particle beams (Risler, Emery, & Laramore).
These targeted cells are therefore typically killed. Figure below shows the DNA breakdown in action.
Figure 6:FNT vs X-ray or proton therapy. The FNT produces high-LET electrons capable of performing double- stranded DNA damage while the X-ray therapy only does single-stranded DNA damage.
To compare two different therapy methods, relative biological effect (RBE) is implemented. RBE is defined as the dosage of two therapy methods to obtain the same biological effect. The table below summarizes this ratio (using the X-ray as the basis).
Figure 7: The comparison of X-ray, neutron and proton therapy. The table is courtesy of (Jones, 2008).
We can see that NFT is about 3 times more effective than X-ray, meaning that you require one third of the dosage of X-ray to achieve the same effect. This correlation is a direct result of the property of high-LET property of the neutron. The diagram below shows this correlation.
Figure 8: The correlation of LET and the RBE. The higher the LET generally represents a higher RBE value.
Radiation therapy is generally drastically enhanced in the presence of oxygen. Unfortunately, the tumor/cancerous cells generally have lower oxygen concentration an effect commonly known as tumor hypoxia. Under all other types of therapy then, oxygen is injected into the area to increase the effect of the therapy. FNT however, is known to overcome the tumor hypoxia, thus simplifying the task considerably. The table above also compares the oxygen modification factor (the higher the number, the more the treatment is dependent on the oxygen level). Once again, FNT is shown to have the lowest factor.
For cells that are curable by alternative RT methods, it is preferable to not use NFT since the NFT can cause more damage to normal tissues. Some (Jones, 2008) also believe that NFT is only good for very superficial, slow-growing cancers with very little tissue coverage. Other studies have found a 71% survival rate for patients with various different cancers and tumors who all went under NFT treatment (Schartz, Einck, Bellon, & Laramore, 2001). Schartz et al. conclude that FNT is effective for soft tissues cartilaginous sarcomas.
Figure 9: A salivary gland tumor treated with NFT. Picture courtesy of (Lennox).
4. Conclusion
As
a
result
of
the
high
linear
energy
transport
of
the
neutron
beam,
the
therapy
has
shown
to
be
superior
to
other
radiation
therapy
methods
for
treating
very
large
tumors,
especially
those
who
are
radio-resistant
and/or
the
tumor
cells
in
areas
with
low
oxygen
concentration.
NFT
has
a
higher
BFE
(as
high
as
three
times
X-ray)
-
one
can
achieve
the
same
biological
effect
with
a
lower
dosage.
This
can
lower
the
time
of
treatment
as
well
as
the
number
of
dosages
applied.
The
treatment
has
shown
to
have
a
success
rate
of
71%
for
the
patients
that
had
otherwise
no
treatment.
There
have
been
cases
of
the
treatment
to
cause
irreversible
side
effects;
there
is
still
more
research
required
to
understand
the
entire
biological
response
for
such
rare
cases.
Bibliography
Bewley,
D.
K.,
Meulders,
J.
P.,
Octave-Prignot,
M.,
&
Page,
B.
C.
(1980).
Neutron
beams
from
protons
on
beryllium.
IOP
Science
,
887-892.
Cohen,
L.,
&
Awschalom,
M.
(1982).
Fast
Neutron
Radiation
Therapy.
Annual
Review
,
359-90.
Gagnon,
S.
(n.d.).
Cyclotron.
Retrieved
November
26,
2011,
from
Jefferson
Lab:
http://education.jlab.org/glossary/cyclotron.html
Goodhead,
D.
T.,
Berry,
R.
J.,
Bance,
D.
A.,
&
Gray,
P.
(1978).
Fast
Neutron
Therapy
Beam
Produced
by
26MeV
Protons
on
Beryllium.
IOP
Science
,
144-148.
Johns,
L.
E.,
&
Cunningham,
J.
R.
(1978).
The
Physics
of
Radiology.
Springfield:
Charles
C
Thomas.
Jones,
B.
(2008,
January
17).
The
neutron-therapy
saga:
a
cautionary
tale.
Retrieved
November
25,
2010,
from
Medical
Physics
Web:
http://medicalphysicsweb.org/cws/article/opinion/32466
Kiger,
W.
S.,
Sakamoto,
S.,
&
Harling,
O.
K.
Effects
on
neutron
collimation,
beam
size,
and
spectrum
on
in-phantom
performance
of
realistic
epithermal
neutron
beams
on
BNCT.
In
F.
Hawthorne,
Frontiers
in
neutron
capture
therapy.
Boston.
Lennox,
A.
J.
High-energy
neutron
therapy
for
radioresistance
cancers.
Northern
Illinois
University
Institute
for
Neutron
Therapy
at
Fermilab.
Batavia:
Fermi
National
Accelerator
Laboratory.
Risler,
R.,
Emery,
R.,
&
Laramore,
G.
R.
Routine
Operation
of
the
University
of
Washington
Fast
Neutron
Therapy
Facility
and
Plan
for
Improvements.
Washington:
University
of
Washington.
Schartz,
D.
L.,
Einck,
J.,
Bellon,
J.,
&
Laramore,
G.
E.
(2001).
Fast
neutron
radiotherapy
for
soft
tissue
and
cartilaginous
sarcomas
at
high
risk
for
local
recurrence.
Elsevier
,
449-456.