Design of a neutron applicator to reduce damage in cardiac implantable electronic devices

  • Ahad Ollah EzzatiEmail author
  • Matthew T. Studenski
Regular Article


The purpose of this study was to design a simple neutron applicator to reduce neutron damage in CIEDs from high energy photon beams. MCNP was used to simulate gantry mounted neutron applicators with different dimensions and composition. Applicator mass was fixed at 10kg and mounted to the wedge accessory mount. Polyethylene and borated polyethylene with different boron weight composition were considered. Using silicon damage response functions, the probability of neutron damage induced in CIEDs was calculated. The applicators reduced the probability of damage to the CIED. The probability of damage was reduced by up to a factor of 3.4 depending on the off axis distance. Applicators with a thickness of 4cm and a boron composition of 3.5% demonstrated the greatest reduction in neutron damage probability. The applicator also reduced the in-field damage probability up to 170%. Using simple neutron applicators can decrease the CIED damage probability both in field and out of field for patients who would benefit from high energy photon therapy.


  1. 1.
    C.W. Hurkmans et al., Radiat. Oncol. 7, 198 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    F.M. Kusumoto et al., Heart Rhythm 14, e503 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Thomas et al., J. Electrocardiol. 37, 73 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D.Y. Gelblum, H. Amols, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 73, 1525 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Hashii et al., Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 85, 840 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Zaremba et al., Europace 16, 612 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Brambatti et al., Heart Rhythm 12, 2148 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.D. Grant et al., JAMA Oncol. 1, 624 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Zaremba et al., Europace 18, 479 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.H. Indik et al., Heart Rhythm 14, e97 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Vega-Carrillo et al., J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 283, 261 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    I. Israngkul-Na-Ayuthaya, S. Suriyapee, P. Pengvanich, J. Radiat. Res. 56, 919 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A.O. Ezzati, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 130, 150 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Ezzati, M.T. Studenski, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 122, 186 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A.O. Ezzati, M.T. Studenski, Med. Phys. 44, 5660 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    K.R. DePriest, Impact of ASTM Standard E722 update on radiation damage metrics, SAND Report, SAND2014-5005 (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K.R. DePriest, Silicon Damage Response Function Derivation and Verification: Assessment of Impact on ASTM Standard E722 (Sandia National Laboratories (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM, 2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D.B. Pelowitz, MCNPXTM user’s manual (Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R.M. Howell et al., Med. Phys. 36, 4039 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Fisica and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of TabrizTabrizIran
  2. 2.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of MiamiMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations