Abstract
This study aims to calculate the dose delivered to the upstream surface of a biocompatible flexible absorber covering lead for electron beam treatment of skin and subcutaneous tumour lesions for head and neck. Silicone (Ecoflex™ 00–30, Smooth-On, Easton, PA, USA) was used to cover the lead to absorb backscattered electrons from lead. A 3D printer (Zortrax M300, Zortrax, Olsztyn, Poland) was used to fabricate the lead shield. Analytic calculation, simplified Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, and detailed MC simulation which includes a modeling of metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) detector were performed to determine the electron backscatter factor (EBF) for 6 MeV and 9 MeV electron beams of a Varian iX Silhouette. MCNP6.2 was used to calculate the EBF and corresponding measurements were carried out by using MOSFET detectors. The EBF was experimentally measured by the ratio of dose at the upstream surface of the silicone to the same point without the presence of the lead shield. The results derived by all four methods agreed within 2.8% for 6 MeV and 3.4% for 9 MeV beams. In detailed MC simulations, for 6 MeV, dose to the surface of 7-mm-thick absorber was 103.7 \(\pm\) 1.9% compared to dose maximum (Dmax) without lead. For 9 MeV, the dose to the surface of the 10-mm-thick absorber was 104.1 \(\pm\) 2.1% compared to Dmax without lead. The simplified MC simulation was recommended for practical treatment planning due to its acceptable calculation accuracy and efficiency. The simplified MC simulation was completed within 20 min using parallel processing with 80 CPUs, while the detailed MC simulation required 40 h to be done. In this study, we outline the procedures to use the lead shield covered by silicone in clinical practice from fabrication to dose calculation.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Das IJ, Cheng C, Mitra RK, Kassaee A, Tochner Z, Solin LJ (2004) Transmission and dose perturbations with high- Z material in clinical electron beams. Med Phys 31(12):3213–3221
Klevenhagen SC, Lambert GD, Arbabi A (1982) Backscattering in electron beam therapy for energies between 3 and 35 MeV. Phys Med Biol 27(3):363–373
Butson M, Chen T, Rattanavoang S et al (2015) Reducing shield thickness and backscattered radiation using a multilayered shield for 6–10 MeV electron beams. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 38:619–626
Hopley S, Cassidy D, Rattray G, Grocott R, Bonnell P (1999) Intra-oral shielding for electrons. Radiographer 46(3):147–151
Chow JC, Grigorov GN (2008) Monte Carlo simulation of backscatter from lead for clinical electron beams using EGSnrc. Med Phys 35(4):1241–1250
Shiu AS, Tung SS, Gastorf RJ, Hogstrom KR, Morrison WH, Peters LJ (1996) Dosimetric evaluation of lead and tungsten eye shields in electron beam treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 35(3):599–604
Wani AL, Ara A, Usmani JA (2017) Lead toxicity: a review Interdiscip Toxicol 8(2):55–64
Saeed S, Hasan S, Kuldeep K, Choudhury P (2017) Lead poisoning: a persistent health hazard-general and oral aspects. Biomed Pharmacol J 10(1):439–445
Gupta SK, Saxena P, Pant VA, Pant AB (2012) Release and toxicity of dental resin composite. Toxicol Int 19(3):225–234
Stanislawski L, Lefeuvre M, Bourd K, Soheili-Majd E, Goldberg M, Périanin A (2003) TEGDMA-induced toxicity in human fibroblasts is associated with early and drastic glutathione depletion with subsequent production of oxygen reactive species. J Biomed Mater Res A 66:476–482
EFSA (2008) EFSA Safety of aluminium from dietary intake—scientific opinion of the panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and food contact materials (AFC). EFSA J 6(7):1–34
Cortizo MC, de Mele MFL, Cortizo AM (2004) Metallic dental material biocompatibility in osteoblastlike cells. Biol Trace Elem Res 100(2):151–168
Bolt AM, Mann KK (2016) Tungsten: an emerging toxicant, alone or in combination. Curr Envir Health Rpt 3:405–415
Lorber M, Calafat AM (2012) Dose reconstruction of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate using a simple pharmacokinetic model. Environ Health Perspect 120(12):1705–1710
Babich MA, Osterhout CA (2010) Toxicity review of diisononyl phthalate (DINP). Bethesda, MD, US Consumer Product Saefety Commission. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3255.1443
University of Massachusetts Lowell (2011) Phthalates and Their Alternatives: Health and Environmental Concerns. Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, Technical Briefing Available from: https://www.uml.edu/docs/Phthalate%20and%20their%20Alternatives_tcm18-229903.pdf.
Reifschneider, Anna, The New U.S. FDA Regulations on Biocompatibility and Reprocessing for Medical Devices (September 25, 2017). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Regulatory Affairs. 2017. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3104134
Chiu T, Tan J, Brenner M, Gu X, Yang M, Westover K, Strom T, Sher D, Jiang S, Zhao B (2018) Three-dimensional printer-aided casting of soft, custom silicone boluses (SCSBs) for head and neck radiation therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol 8:e167–e174
An HJ, Kim MS, Kim J, Son J, Choi CH, Park JM, Kim JI (2019) Geometric evaluation of patient-specific 3D bolus from 3D printed mold and casting method for radiation therapy. Prog Med Phys 30(1):32–37
Lambert GD, Klevenhagen SC (1982) Penetration of backscattered electrons in polystyrene for energies between 1 to 25 MeV. Phys Med Biol 27:721
Goorley T, James M, Booth T, Brown F, Bull J, Cox LJ, Durkee J, Elson J, Fensin M, Forster RA, Hendricks J, Hughes HG, Johns R, Kiedrowski B, Martz R, Mashnik S, McKinney G, Pelowitz D, Prael R, Sweezy J, Waters L, Wilcox T, Zukaitis T (2012) Initial MCNP6 release overview. Nucl Technol 180:298–315
Panettieri V, Duch MA, Jornet N, Ginjaume M, Carrasco P, Badal A, Ortega X, Ribas M (2007) Monte Carlo simulation of MOSFET detectors for high-energy photon beams using the PENELOPE code. Phys Med Biol 52:303–316
Chow JCL, Leung MKK (2008) Monte Carlo simulation of MOSFET dosimeter for electron backscatter using the GEANT4 code. Med Phys 35(6):2383–2390
Funding
This work was supported by National Research Foundation of Korea funded (No. 2019M2A2B4095126 and No. 2020R1F1A1073430).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Ethical standards
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kwon, O., Jin, H., Son, J. et al. Dose calculation of 3D printing lead shield covered by biocompatible silicone for electron beam therapy. Phys Eng Sci Med 44, 1061–1069 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-021-01041-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-021-01041-y