Skip to main content
Log in

Quantifying tumor-selective radiation dose enhancements using gold nanoparticles: a monte carlo simulation study

  • Published:
Biomedical Microdevices Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gold nanoparticles can enhance the biological effective dose of radiation delivered to tumors, but few data exist to quantify this effect. The purpose of this project was to build a Monte Carlo simulation model to study the degree of dose enhancement achievable with gold nanoparticles. A Monte Carlo simulation model was first built using Geant4 code. An Ir-192 brachytherapy source in a water phantom was simulated and the calculation model was first validated against previously published data. We then introduced up to 1013 gold nanospheres per cm3 into the water phantom and examined their dose enhancement effect. We compared this enhancement against a gold-water mixture model that has been previously used to attempt to quantify nanoparticle dose enhancement. In our benchmark test, dose-rate constant, radial dose function, and two-dimensional anisotropy function calculated with our model were within 2% of those reported previously. Using our simulation model we found that the radiation dose was enhanced up to 60% with 1013 gold nanospheres per cm3 (9.6% by weight) in a water phantom selectively around the nanospheres. The comparison study indicated that our model more accurately calculated the dose enhancement effect and that previous methodologies overestimated the dose enhancement up to 16%. Monte Carlo calculations demonstrate that biologically-relevant radiation dose enhancement can be achieved with the use of gold nanospheres. Selective tumor labeling with gold nanospheres may be a strategy for clinically enhancing radiation effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako et al., Geant4—a simulation toolkit. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 506, 250–303 (2003). doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis et al., Geant4 developments and applications. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53, 270–278 (2006). doi:10.1109/TNS.2006.869826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Angelopoulos, P. Baras, L. Sakelliou et al., Monte Carlo dosimetry of a new Ir-192 high dose rate brachytherapy source. Med. Phys. 27, 2521–2527 (2000). doi:10.1118/1.1315316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • F. Ballester, C. Hernández, J. Pèrez-Calatayud et al., Monte Carlo calculation of dose rate distributions around Ir-192 wires. Med. Phys 24, 1221–1228 (1997). doi:10.1118/1.598142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • F. Ballester, J. Pèrez-Calatayud, V. Puchades et al., Monte Carlo dosimetry of Buchler high dose rate Ir-192 source. Med. Phys 28, 2586–2591 (2001). doi:10.1118/1.1420398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. Bullis, Remotely activated nanoparticles destroy cancer. Technology Review 2007. http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/17956/. Published January 2, 2007. Accessed November 25, 2007

  • S.H. Cho, Estimation of tumor dose enhancement due to gold nanoparticles during typical radiation treatments: a preliminary Monte Carlo study. Phys. Med. Biol 50, N-163–N-173 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S.J. Douglas, S.S. Davis, L. Illum, Nanoparticles in drug delivery. Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carrier Syst. 3, 133–161 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  • A.M. Gobin, M.H. Lee, N.J. Halas et al., Nano Lett 7, 1929–1934 (2007). doi:10.1021/nl070610y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Granero, J. Pèrez-Calatayud, F. Ballester, Monte Carlo calculation of the TG-43 dosimetric parameters of a new BEBIG Ir-192 HDR source. Radiother. Oncol 76, 79–85 (2005). doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2005.06.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J.F. Hainfeld, D.N. Slatkin, H.M. Smilowitz, The use of gold nanoparticles to enhance radiotherapy in mice. Phys. Med. Biol. 49, 309-N–315 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J.F. Hainfeld, D.N. Slatkin, T.M. Focella et al., Gold nanoparticles: a new X-ray contrast agent. Br. J. Radiol. 79, 248–253 (2006). doi:10.1259/bjr/13169882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D.M. Herold, I.J. Das, C.C. Stobbe et al., Gold microspheres: a selective technique for producing biologically effective dose enhancement. Int. J. Radiat. Biol 76, 1357–1364 (2000). doi:10.1080/09553000050151637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Hu, J.Y. Chen, Z.Y. Li et al., Gold nanostructures: engineering their plasmonic properties for biomedical applications. Chem. Soc. Rev 35, 1084–1094 (2006). doi:10.1039/b517615h

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • H.E. Johns, J.W. Hunt, S.O. Fedoruk, Surface back-scatter in the 100 kV to 400 kV range. Br. J. Radiol. 27, 443–448 (1954)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K.L. Kelly, E. Coronado, L.L. Zhao et al., The optical properties of metal nanoparticles: The influences of size, shape, and dielectric environment. J Phys Chem B Condens Matter Mater Surf Interfaces Biophys 107, 668–677 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Loo, A. Lowery, N. Halas, J. West, R. Drezek, Immunotargeted nanoshells for integrated cancer imaging and therapy. Nano Lett. 5(4)), 709–711 (2005). doi:10.1021/nl050127s

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. Nath, L.L. Anderson, G. Luxton et al., Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy source: recommendations of AAPM radiation therapy committee task group No. 43. Med. Phys 22, 209–234 (1995). doi:10.1118/1.597458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. Noguez, Surface plasmons on metal nanoparticles: The influence of shape and physical environment. J. Phys. Chem. C. Nanomaterials Interfaces 111, 3806–3819 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • NuDat 2.4. National Nuclear Data Center. Nuclear data from NuDat, a web-based database maintained by the National Nuclear Data Center. Upton, NY, USA: Brookhaven National Laboratory; http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2. Accessed November 25, 2007

  • J. Panyam, V. Labhasetwar, Biodegradable nanoparticles for drug and gene delivery to cells and tissue. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev 55, 329–347 (2003). doi:10.1016/S0169-409X(02)00228-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Physics Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology., Stopping-power and range tables for electrons. http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/ESTAR.html . Accessed November 25, 2007

  • M.J. Rivard, B.M. Coursey, L.A. Dewerd et al., Update of AAPM task group No. 43 report: a revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations. Med. Phys. 31, 633–674 (2004). doi:10.1118/1.1646040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J.L. Robar, Generation and modeling of megavoltage photon beams for contrast-enhanced radiation therapy. Phys. Med. Biol 51, 5487–5504 (2006). doi:10.1088/0031-9155/51/21/007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J.L. Robar, S.A. Riccio, M.A. Martin, Tumor dose enhancement using modified megavoltage photon beams and contrast media. Phys. Med. Biol 47, 2433–2449 (2002). doi:10.1088/0031-9155/47/14/305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J.H. Sakamoto, B.R. Smith, B. Xie et al., The molecular analysis of breast cancer utilized targeted nanoparticle based ultrasound contrast agents. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 4, 627–636 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Schmid, Nanoparticles: from theory to application (Wiley-Vch Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA; Weinheim, Germany, 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • D.C. Sullivan, M. Ferrari, Nanotechnology and tumor imaging: seizing an opportunity. Mol. Imaging 3, 364–369 (2004). doi:10.1162/1535350042973526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • F. Verhaegen, B. Reniers, E. Deblois et al., Dosimetric and microdosimetric study of contrast-enhanced radiotherapy with kilovolt X-rays. Phys. Med. Biol 50, 3555–3569 (2005). doi:10.1088/0031-9155/50/15/005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J.F. Williamson, Monte Carlo evaluation of kerma at a point for photon transport problems. Med. Phys. 14, 567–576 (1987). doi:10.1118/1.596069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • X-5 Monte Carlo Team, MCNP-A General Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code, Version 5. LA-UR-03-1987. Los Alamos National Laboratory: Los Alamos, NM, 2004

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors are unaware of any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may exist.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sean X. Zhang.

Additional information

This study was partially funded by a grant from the U. S. Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program (W81XWH-06-1-0672) and by the institutional core grant (CA 16672). The authors also wish to acknowledge the Department of Scientific Publications at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center for its editorial assistance during the preparation of this article.

Appendix

Appendix

Radiation interaction coefficients for gold nanosphere solution σ gold-nano and gold-water mixture σ gold-water

If the total cross section of each target molecule is represented by σ, the cross section of each water molecule is σ H2O and the cross section of each gold atom is σ Au , then the total interaction probability of a photon with each phantom molecule is proportional to σ. However, σ differs between the gold-water mixture and the gold nanosphere solution. In the gold-water mixture model, if it has a gold concentration of 9.7% by weight,

$$ \begin{gathered} \sigma = \frac{{\frac{90.3}{18} \times N_A }}{{\left( {\frac{90.3}{18} + \frac{9.7}{197}} \right) \times N_A }} \times \sigma_{{H_2 O}} + \frac{{\frac{9.7}{197} \times N_A }}{{\left( {\frac{90.3}{18} + \frac{9.7}{197}} \right) \times N_A }} \times \sigma_{Au} \hfill \\ = 0.99 \times \sigma_{{H_2 O}} + 0.01 \times \sigma_{Au} \hfill \\ \end{gathered} $$
(1)

Where N A  = 6.022 × 1023 mol−1 is the Avogadro constant.

In the gold nanosphere solution model, the cross section was calculated independently, that is

$$ \sigma = \sigma_{{H_2 O}} \;{\text{or}}\sigma_{Au} . $$
(2)

If we assume that the total number of water molecules is N1 and the total number of gold atoms is N2, then the total number of phantom molecules is N = (N1 + N2). In the gold-water mixture model, the total cross section was calculated as

$$ \sigma_{gold - water} = \left( {N_1 + N_2 } \right) \times \left( {0.99 \times \sigma_{{H_2 O}} + 0.01 \times \sigma_{Au} } \right). $$
(3)

In the gold nanoparticle solution model, the total cross section was calculated as

$$ \sigma_{gold - nano} = \left( {N_1 \cdot x\% } \right) \times \sigma_{{H_2 O}} + N_2 \cdot \left( {100 - x} \right)\% \times \sigma_{Au}, $$
(4)

Where x% and (100-x)% are the percentages of water molecules and gold atoms in the solution, which will depend on the distribution of gold nanoparticles in the solution. It is obvious that σ gold-water is differs from σ gold-nano , which accounts for the different dose enhancement estimations generated by the two models. The gold nanoparticle geometry model we created in our study simulated the gold nanoparticle solution more closely than gold-water mixture model used in the previous studies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhang, S.X., Gao, J., Buchholz, T.A. et al. Quantifying tumor-selective radiation dose enhancements using gold nanoparticles: a monte carlo simulation study. Biomed Microdevices 11, 925–933 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10544-009-9309-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10544-009-9309-5

Keywords

Navigation