Commissioning the neutron production of a Linac: development of a simple tool for second cancer risk estimation.

PURPOSE: Knowing the contribution of neutron to collateral effects in treatments is both a complex and a mandatory task. This work aims to present an operative procedure for neutron estimates in any facility using a neutron digital detector. METHODS: The authors' previous work established a linear relationship between the total second cancer risk due to neutrons (TR(n)) and the number of MU of the treatment. Given that the digital detector also presents linearity with MU, its response can be used to determine the TR(n) per unit MU, denoted as m, normally associated to a generic Linac model and radiotherapy facility. Thus, from the number of MU of each patient treatment, the associated risk can be estimated. The feasibility of the procedure was tested by applying it in eight facilities; patients were evaluated as well. RESULTS: From the reading of the detector under selected irradiation conditions, m values were obtained for different machines, ranging from 0.25 × 10(-4)% per MU for an Elekta Axesse at 10 MV to 6.5 × 10(-4)% per MU for a Varian Clinac at 18 MV. Using these values, TR(n) of patients was estimated in each facility and compared to that from the individual evaluation. Differences were within the range of uncertainty of the authors' methodology of equivalent dose and risk estimations. CONCLUSIONS: The procedure presented here allows an easy estimation of the second cancer risk due to neutrons for any patient, given the number of MU of the treatment. It will enable the consideration of this information when selecting the optimal treatment for a patient by its implementation in the treatment planning system.

SU-E-T-466: TCP and NTCP: Is That All?

PURPOSE: Concerns about the secondary cancer risks associated to the peripheral neutron and photon contamination in photon modern radiotherapy (RT) techniques (e.g., Intensity Modulated RT -IMRT- or Intensity Modulated Arc Therapy -IMAT) have been widely raised. Benefits in terms of better tumor coverage have to be balanced against the drawbacks of poorer organ at risk sparing and secondary cancer risk in order to make the decision on the optimum treatment technique. The aim of this study was to develop a tool which estimates treatment success taking into consideration the neutron secondary cancer probability. METHODS: A methodology and benchmark dataset for radiotherapy real time assessment of patient neutron dose and application to a novel digital detector (DD) has been carried out (submitted to PMB, 2011). Our DD provides real time neutron equivalent dose distribution in relevant organs along the patient. This information, together with TCP and NTCP estimated from the DVH of target and organs at risks, respectively, have been built into a general biological model which allows us to evaluate the success of the treatments (Sánchez-Nieto et al., ESTRO meeting 2012). This model has been applied to make estimation of treatment success in a variety of treatment techniques (3DCRT, forward and inverse IMRT, RapidArc, Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Helical Tomotherapy) to low and high energy. RESULTS: MU-demanding techniques at high energies were able to deliver treatment plans with the highest complicated-free tumour control. Nevertheless, neutron peripheral dose must be taken into consideration as the associated risk could be of the same order of magnitude than the usually considered NTCPs. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology developed to provide an online organ neutron peripheral dose can be successfully combined with biological models to make predictions on treatment success taking into consideration secondary cancer risks.