Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Sep 1;31(Pt 5):1189-1196.
doi: 10.1107/S1600577524006878. Epub 2024 Aug 22.

Prediction of the treatment effect of FLASH radiotherapy with synchrotron radiation from the Circular Electron-Positron Collider (CEPC)

Junyu Zhang  1 , Xiangyu Wu  1 , Pengyuan Qi  2 , Jike Wang  1
Affiliations

Prediction of the treatment effect of FLASH radiotherapy with synchrotron radiation from the Circular Electron-Positron Collider (CEPC)

Junyu Zhang et al. J Synchrotron Radiat. .

Abstract

The Circular Electron-Positron Collider (CEPC) in China can also work as an excellent powerful synchrotron light source, which can generate high-quality synchrotron radiation. This synchrotron radiation has potential advantages in the medical field as it has a broad spectrum, with energies ranging from visible light to X-rays used in conventional radiotherapy, up to several megaelectronvolts. FLASH radiotherapy is one of the most advanced radiotherapy modalities. It is a radiotherapy method that uses ultra-high dose rate irradiation to achieve the treatment dose in an instant; the ultra-high dose rate used is generally greater than 40 Gy s-1, and this type of radiotherapy can protect normal tissues well. In this paper, the treatment effect of CEPC synchrotron radiation for FLASH radiotherapy was evaluated by simulation. First, a Geant4 simulation was used to build a synchrotron radiation radiotherapy beamline station, and then the dose rate that the CEPC can produce was calculated. A physicochemical model of radiotherapy response kinetics was then established, and a large number of radiotherapy experimental data were comprehensively used to fit and determine the functional relationship between the treatment effect, dose rate and dose. Finally, the macroscopic treatment effect of FLASH radiotherapy was predicted using CEPC synchrotron radiation through the dose rate and the above-mentioned functional relationship. The results show that the synchrotron radiation beam from the CEPC is one of the best beams for FLASH radiotherapy.

Keywords: CEPC; Circular Electron–Positron Collider; FLASH radiotherapy; simulations; synchrotron radiation; treatment effect.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The simplified layout of CEPC beamline elements from the bending magnet to the aim position for the simulation. (Top) Without filters and (bottom) with filters. SAD is the source-to-aim distance and BM denotes the bending magnet.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) The beam cross section at the bending magnet exit. Phase-space diagrams in (b) horizontal and (c) vertical coordinates at the end of the bending magnet. Each point represents a photon.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The number distribution of photons at a position 35 cm in front of the water phantom in which the maximum number of photons is normalized to 1.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Dose distribution. (a) The percentage depth dose PDD with different conditions in which the maximum dose is normalized to 1. (b) The dose profile in the horizontal direction in which the maximum dose without filters is normalized to 1.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Differences at the edge of the slit between dose calculations regarding and ignoring photon polarization without filters. The x axis represents the horizontal position. The y axis represents the deviation between the polarized and non-polarized simulations.
Figure 6
Figure 6
The relationship between NTCP, dose and dose rate. Within a certain range, as the dose rate increases, the tolerated dose of normal tissues also increases.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Prediction of the treatment effect with the CEPC medical beamline. Black dots represent published experimental data, while the left-hand red dot represents the simulation result for the CEPC with filters and the right-hand red dot represents the simulation result for the CEPC without filters.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Agostinelli, S., Allison, J., Amako, K., Apostolakis, J., Araujo, H., Arce, P., Asai, M., Axen, D., Banerjee, S., Barrand, G., Behner, F., Bellagamba, L., Boudreau, J., Broglia, L., Brunengo, A., Burkhardt, H., Chauvie, S., Chuma, J., Chytracek, R., Cooperman, G., Cosmo, G., Degtyarenko, P., Dell’Acqua, A., Depaola, G., Dietrich, D., Enami, R., Feliciello, A., Ferguson, C., Fesefeldt, H., Folger, G., Foppiano, F., Forti, A., Garelli, S., Giani, S., Giannitrapani, R., Gibin, D., Gómez Cadenas, J. J., González, I., Gracia Abril, G., Greeniaus, G., Greiner, W., Grichine, V., Grossheim, A., Guatelli, S., Gumplinger, P., Hamatsu, R., Hashimoto, K., Hasui, H., Heikkinen, A., Howard, A., Ivanchenko, V., Johnson, A., Jones, F. W., Kallenbach, J., Kanaya, N., Kawabata, M., Kawabata, Y., Kawaguti, M., Kelner, S., Kent, P., Kimura, A., Kodama, T., Kokoulin, R., Kossov, M., Kurashige, H., Lamanna, E., Lampén, T., Lara, V., Lefebure, V., Lei, F., Liendl, M., Lockman, W., Longo, F., Magni, S., Maire, M., Medernach, E., Minamimoto, K., Mora de Freitas, P., Morita, Y., Murakami, K., Nagamatu, M., Nartallo, R., Nieminen, P., Nishimura, T., Ohtsubo, K., Okamura, M., O’Neale, S., Oohata, Y., Paech, K., Perl, J., Pfeiffer, A., Pia, M. G., Ranjard, F., Rybin, A., Sadilov, S., Di Salvo, E., Santin, G., Sasaki, T., Savvas, N., Sawada, Y., Scherer, S., Sei, S., Sirotenko, V., Smith, D., Starkov, N., Stoecker, H., Sulkimo, J., Takahata, M., Tanaka, S., Tcherniaev, E., Safai Tehrani, E., Tropeano, M., Truscott, P., Uno, H., Urban, L., Urban, P., Verderi, M., Walkden, A., Wander, W., Weber, H., Wellisch, J. P., Wenaus, T., Williams, D. C., Wright, D., Yamada, T., Yoshida, H. & Zschiesche, D. (2003). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 506, 250–303.
    1. Alaghband, Y., Cheeks, S. N., Allen, B. D., Montay-Gruel, P., Doan, N.-L., Petit, B., Jorge, P. G., Giedzinski, E., Acharya, M. M., Vozenin, M. & Limoli, C. L. (2020). Cancers, 12, 1671. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Borghini, A., Labate, L., Piccinini, S., Panaino, C. M. V., Andreassi, M. G. & Gizzi, L. A. (2024). Int. J. Mol. Sci.25, 2546. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bourhis, J., Sozzi, W. J., Jorge, P. G., Gaide, O., Bailat, C., Duclos, F., Patin, D., Ozsahin, M., Bochud, F., Germond, J.-F., Moeckli, R. & Vozenin, M. C. (2019). Radiother. Oncol.139, 18–22. - PubMed
    1. CEPC Study Group (2018). arXiv:1809.00285.

LinkOut - more resources