Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2010
Cellular dosimetry of (111)In using monte carlo N-particle computer code: comparison with analytic methods and correlation with in vitro cytotoxicity.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cai Zhongli, Pignol Jean-Philippe, Chan Conrad, Reilly Raymond M
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Our objective was to compare Monte Carlo N-particle (MCNP) self- and cross-doses from (111)In to the nucleus of breast cancer cells with doses calculated by reported analytic methods (Goddu et al. and Farragi et al.). A further objective was to determine whether the MCNP-predicted surviving fraction (SF) of breast cancer cells exposed in vitro to (111)In-labeled diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid human epidermal growth factor ((111)In-DTPA-hEGF) could accurately predict the experimentally determined values.
METHODS: MCNP was used to simulate the transport of electrons emitted by (111)In from the cell surface, cytoplasm, or nucleus. The doses to the nucleus per decay (S values) were calculated for single cells, closely packed monolayer cells, or cell clusters. The cell and nucleus dimensions of 6 breast cancer cell lines were measured, and cell line-specific S values were calculated.
RESULTS: For self-doses, MCNP S values of nucleus to nucleus agreed very well with those of Goddu et al. (ratio of S values using analytic methods vs. MCNP = 0.962-0.995) and Faraggi et al. (ratio = 1.011-1.024). MCNP S values of cytoplasm and cell surface to nucleus compared fairly well with the reported values (ratio = 0.662-1.534 for Goddu et al.; 0.944-1.129 for Faraggi et al.). For cross doses, the S values to the nucleus were independent of (111)In subcellular distribution but increased with cluster size. S values for monolayer cells were significantly different from those of single cells and cell clusters. The MCNP-predicted SF for monolayer MDA-MB-468, MDA-MB-231, and MCF-7 cells agreed with the experimental data (relative error of 3.1%, -1.0%, and 1.7%). The single-cell and cell cluster models were less accurate in predicting the SF. For MDA-MB-468 cells, relative error was 8.1% using the single-cell model and -54% to -67% using the cell cluster model. Individual cell-line dimensions had large effects on S values and were needed to estimate doses and SF accurately.
CONCLUSION: MCNP simulation compared well with the reported analytic methods in the calculation of subcellular S values for single cells and cell clusters. Application of a monolayer model was most accurate in predicting the SF of breast cancer cells exposed in vitro to (111)In-DTPA-hEGF.
METHODS: MCNP was used to simulate the transport of electrons emitted by (111)In from the cell surface, cytoplasm, or nucleus. The doses to the nucleus per decay (S values) were calculated for single cells, closely packed monolayer cells, or cell clusters. The cell and nucleus dimensions of 6 breast cancer cell lines were measured, and cell line-specific S values were calculated.
RESULTS: For self-doses, MCNP S values of nucleus to nucleus agreed very well with those of Goddu et al. (ratio of S values using analytic methods vs. MCNP = 0.962-0.995) and Faraggi et al. (ratio = 1.011-1.024). MCNP S values of cytoplasm and cell surface to nucleus compared fairly well with the reported values (ratio = 0.662-1.534 for Goddu et al.; 0.944-1.129 for Faraggi et al.). For cross doses, the S values to the nucleus were independent of (111)In subcellular distribution but increased with cluster size. S values for monolayer cells were significantly different from those of single cells and cell clusters. The MCNP-predicted SF for monolayer MDA-MB-468, MDA-MB-231, and MCF-7 cells agreed with the experimental data (relative error of 3.1%, -1.0%, and 1.7%). The single-cell and cell cluster models were less accurate in predicting the SF. For MDA-MB-468 cells, relative error was 8.1% using the single-cell model and -54% to -67% using the cell cluster model. Individual cell-line dimensions had large effects on S values and were needed to estimate doses and SF accurately.
CONCLUSION: MCNP simulation compared well with the reported analytic methods in the calculation of subcellular S values for single cells and cell clusters. Application of a monolayer model was most accurate in predicting the SF of breast cancer cells exposed in vitro to (111)In-DTPA-hEGF.