Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T21:30:18.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the dose perturbation arising from conventional and the novel PEEK prosthesis materials during high energy radiotherapy with 15 MV photons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2021

Najmeh Mohammadi Open the ORCID record for Najmeh Mohammadi [Opens in a new window]
Najmeh Mohammadi*
Affiliation:
Physics Department, Faculty of Sciences, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran
*
Author for correspondence: Najmeh Mohammadi, Physics Department, Faculty of Sciences, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran. Tel: 098 4133443801. Postal Address: 51335-1996. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim:

This study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric effects of the metal prosthesis in radiotherapy by Siemens Primus 15 MV linac accelerator. In addition, it proposed the new material could lead to less dose perturbation.

Materials and methods:

The depth dose distributions of typical hip prostheses were calculated for 15 MV photons by MCNP-4C code. Five metal prostheses were selected to reveal the correlation between material type, density and dose perturbations of prostheses. Furthermore, the effects of the location and thickness of the prosthesis on the dose perturbation were also discussed and analysed.

Results:

The results showed that the Co-Cr-Mo alloy as the prosthesis had more influence on the dose at the interface of metal tissue. The dose increased at the entrance of this prosthesis and experienced the reduction when passed through it. Finally, the impact of the new PEEK biomedical polymer materials was also investigated, and the lowest dose perturbations were introduced based on the obtained results.

Conclusion:

It was found that the mean relative dose before and after of PEEK prosthesis was 99·2 and 97·1%, respectively. Therefore, this new biomedical polymer material was proposed to replace the current metal implants.

Keywords

15 MV photondose perturbationmetal prosthesisMonte Carlo methodPEEK
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 22 , 2023 , e17
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Reft, C, Alecu, R, Das, IJ et al. Dosimetric considerations for patients with HIP prostheses undergoing pelvic irradiation. Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 63. Med Phys 2003; 30 (6): 1162–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, S-Y, Chu, T-C, Lin, J-P, liu, M-T. The effect of a metal hip prosthesis on the radiation dose in therapeutic photon beam irradiations. Appl Radiat Isot 2002; 57 (1): 17–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aziz, MA, Kamarulzaman, FN M, Termizi, NAS M, Raof, N A, Tajuddin, AA. Effects of density from various hip prosthesis materials on 6 MV photon beam: a Monte Carlo study. J Radiother Pract 2017; 16 (2): 155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keall, PJ, Siebers, JV, Jeraj, R, Mohan, R. Radiotherapy dose calculations in the presence of hip prostheses. Med Dosim 2003; 28 (2): 107–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mesbahi, A, Nejad, FS. Dose attenuation effect of hip prostheses in a 9-MV photon beam: commercial treatment planning system versus Monte Carlo calculations. Radiat Med 2007; 25 (10): 529–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buffard, E, Gdchwind, R, Makovicka, L, Martin, E, Meunier, C, David, C. Study of the impact of artificial articulations on the dose distribution under medical irradiation. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 2005; 229 (1): 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inal, A, Sarpün, IH. Dosimetric evaluation of phantoms including metal objects with high atomic number for use in intensity modulated radiation therapy. Radiat Environ Biophys 2020; 59:503–510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buffard, E, Gschwind, R, Makovicka, L, David, C. Monte Carlo calculations of the impact of a hip prosthesis on the dose distribution. Nucl Instrum Meth B 2006; 251 (1): 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhushan, M, Tripathi, D, Yadav, G, Kumar, L, Dewan, A, Kumar, G. Effect of hip prosthesis on photon beam characteristics in radiological physics. APJCP 2020; 21 (6): 1731–1738.Google ScholarPubMed
Bahreyni Toossi, MT, Behmadi, M, Ghorbani, M, Gholamhosseinian, H. A Monte Carlo study on electron and neutron contamination caused by the presence of hip prosthesis in photon mode of a 15 MV Siemens PRIMUS linac. J Appl Clin Med phys 2013; 14 (5): 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çatlı, S, Tanır, G. Experimental and Monte Carlo evaluation of Eclipse treatment planning system for effects on dose distribution of the hip prostheses. Med Dosim 2013; 38 (3): 332–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wieslander, E, Knöös, T. Dose perturbation in the presence of metallic implants: treatment planning system versus Monte Carlo simulations. Phys Med Biol 2003; 48 (20): 3295–3305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ding, GX, Christine, WY. A study on beams passing through hip prosthesis for pelvic radiation treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 51 (4): 1167–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briesmeister, JF, MCNP-A General Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code, Version 4C. LA-13709-M, 2000.Google Scholar
Mohammadi, N, Miri-Hakmiabad, H, Rafat-Motavalli, L, Akbari, F, Abdollahi, S. Neutron spectrometry and determination of neutron contamination around the 15 MV Siemens Primus LINAC. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 2015; 304 (3): 1001–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammadi, K, Hassani, M, Ghorbani, M, Farhood, B, Knaup, C. Evaluation of the accuracy of various dose calculation algorithms of a commercial treatment planning system in the presence of hip prosthesis and comparison with Monte Carlo. J Cancer Res Ther 2017; 13 (3): 501–509.Google ScholarPubMed
Carolan, M, Dao, P. Foax C, Metcalfe P. Effect of hip prostheses on radiotherapy dose. Australas Radiol 2000; 44 (3): 290–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICRU 24. Determination of absorbed dose in a patient irradiated by beams of X or gamma rays in radiotherapy procedures. 1976. BethesdaGoogle Scholar
Verma, S, Sharma, N, Kango, S, Sharma, S. Developments of PEEK (Polyetheretherketone) as a biomedical material: a focused review. Eur Polym J 2021; 110295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enab, TA, Bondok, NE. Material selection in the design of the tibia tray component of cemented artificial knee using finite element method. Mater Des 2013; 44: 454–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merola, M, Affatato, S. Materials for hip prostheses: a review of wear and loading considerations. Materials 2019; 12 (3): 495–519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, H, Suonan, A, Zhou, J, et al. PEEK (Polyether-ether-ketone) and its composite materials in orthopedic implantation. Arab J Chem 2021; 1–19.Google Scholar
Guo, Y, Chen, S, Wang, J, Lu, B. Medical applications of polyether ether ketone. Transl Surg 2018; 3 (1): 12–16.Google Scholar
Li, CS, Vannabouuathong, C, Sprague, S, Bhandari, M. The use of carbon-fiber-reinforced (CFR) PEEK material in orthopedic implants: a systematic review. Clin Med Insights: Arthritis Musculoskelet Disorders 2015; 8: 33–45.Google ScholarPubMed
de Ruiter, L, Janssen, D, Briscoe, A, Verdonschot, N. The mechanical response of a polyetheretherketone femoral knee implant under a deep squatting loading condition. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H: J Eng Med 2017; 231 (12): 1204–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar