Abstract
Background: It is estimated that more than 1 million people are diagnosed with liver malignancy each year and one of the treatments is radioembolization with Y-90 and Ho-166.
Objective: The aim of this study is to calculate the absorbed doses caused by Y-90 and Ho-166 in tumor and liver parenchyma using a phantom via Monte Carlo method.
Methods: A liver model phantom including a tumor imitation of sphere (r =1.5cm) was defined in GATE. The total activity of 40 mCi Y-90 and Ho-166 was prescribed into tumor imitation as source and 2x2x2 mm3 voxel-sized Dose- Actors were identified at 30 locations. The simulation, performed to calculate the absorbed doses left by particles during 1 second for Y-90 and Ho-166, was run for a total of 10 days and 11 days, respectively. Total doses were calculated by taking the doses occurring in 1 second as a reference.
Results: The maximum absorbed doses were found to be 2.334E+03±1.576E+01 Gy for Y-90 and 7.006E+02±6.013E- 01 Gy for Ho-166 at the center of tumor imitation. The minimum absorbed doses were found to be 2.133E-03±1.883E- 01 Gy for Y-90 and 1.152E-02±1.036E-03 Gy for Ho-166 at the farthest location from source. The mean absorbed doses in tumor imitation were found to be 1.50E+03±1.36E+00 Gy and 4.58E+02±4.75E-01 Gy for Y-90 and Ho-166, respectively. And, the mean absorbed doses in normal parenchymal tissue were found to be2.07E+01±9.58E-02 Gy and 3.79E+00±2.63E-02 Gy for Y-90 and Ho-166, respectively.
Conclusion: Based on the results, Ho-166 is a good alternative to Y-90 according to dosimetric evaluation.
Keywords: Monte Carlo method, dosimetry, Y-90, Ho-166, phantom, modelling and simulation.
Graphical Abstract
[PMID: 19521312]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-5-15] [PMID: 17359531]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000236744.34720.73] [PMID: 17056999]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2013.00324] [PMID: 24459634]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)06002-X] [PMID: 10489968]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mednuc.2017.12.002]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11523-018-0550-9] [PMID: 29423595]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.186825] [PMID: 28864619]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdm111] [PMID: 17434893]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/snuc.2001.27043] [PMID: 11710775]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cr9804386] [PMID: 11749482]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02841866409134063] [PMID: 14203057]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/187152007780618207] [PMID: 17504155]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-29-70] [PMID: 20550679]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40658-018-0221-z] [PMID: 30386924]
[PMID: 16818957]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/694/1/012059]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.138.801]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.142.7.675] [PMID: 17638807]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1812-2] [PMID: 21494856]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2014.00255] [PMID: 25353006]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.06.092] [PMID: 20171524]