Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to determine the critical organ doses in 223Ra, 89Sr, 153Sm, and 32P treatments via dosimetry using the phantoms.
Material and Methods: The OpenDose was used to calculate S values (mGy MBq-1s-1) for bone surface, red bone marrow, urinary bladder wall, testes, ovaries, uterus, and kidneys using male (ICRP110AM) and female (ICRP110AF) phantoms. The cortical thoracic spine was modeled as metastasis. Moreover, the absorbed doses were computed via MIRD formalism according to the activities of 3.3, 148, 2220, and 370 MBq for ICRP110AM and 4.015, 148, 2701, and 370 MBq for ICRP110AF in 223Ra, 89Sr, 153Sm, and 32P treatments, respectively.
Results: Whilst the maximum bone surface doses were found as 1.22E+02 and 8.51E+01 mGy at 32P treatment, the minimum bone surface doses were calculated as 8.42E-02 and 8.26E-02 mGy at 223Ra. In terms of the comparison of red bone marrow, urinary bladder wall, and kidney doses, 153Sm and 89Sr treatments showed maximum doses of 2.45E-03, 1.50E-03, 3.23E-07, 5.45E-06, 1.20E-01, 1.49E-01 mGy and the minimum doses with 3.46E-05, 1.99E-05, 6.33E-09, 8.77E-09, 1.19E-04, 1.15E-04 mGy, respectively. The maximum testes and ovaries-uterus doses were found as 6.17E-08, 7.40E-06, 3.46E-07 mGy in 153Sm treatment, and minimum testes and ovaries doses as 1.70E-09, 1.34E-07 mGy in 223Ra. The minimum uterus dose with 7.03E-09 mGy was determined in 89Sr treatment.
Conclusion: It is observed that 223Ra produces low critical organ doses in the treatment of painful bone metastasis. Among the beta-emitting radionuclides, 89Sr stands out by showing optimal dosimetric results.
Keywords: Dosimetry, medical physics, bone metastases, radionuclides, ovaries doses, uterus dose.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000337634] [PMID: 22740795]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2018.12.005] [PMID: 31176435]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cbr.2012.1258] [PMID: 23075374]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4521] [PMID: 26427837]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70206-0] [PMID: 15925817]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2011.01.507] [PMID: 21353506]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-3947-x] [PMID: 29453701]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1450-1147.157124] [PMID: 26097421]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000096935] [PMID: 17192733]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2012.04.001] [PMID: 22521546]
[PMID: 12571218]
[PMID: 15299062]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10967-020-07159-9]
[PMID: 7527458]
[PMID: 1378887]
[PMID: 3920361]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2019.05.012] [PMID: 31311763]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1450-1147.89780] [PMID: 22144871]
[PMID: 7686217]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3900-4] [PMID: 29234845]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.240366] [PMID: 32169912]
[PMID: 19897132]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874471011104040283] [PMID: 22202151]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1540-y] [PMID: 15127241]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/2630480] [PMID: 29853804]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13139-017-0509-2] [PMID: 29942398]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2020.11.028] [PMID: 33353771]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/21/001] [PMID: 17047259]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3380223] [PMID: 20527551]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HP.0b013e3182a82b37] [PMID: 24562070]