JNRT2015-12-2-All-ok=update-latest

Editors

1.

1

2.

11

3.

28

4.

33

5.

38

6.

54

7.

66

8. 81

9.
88









  
 



S (D)  eDD2

 

  1
D0

I (nm1)  0.01536  Z  Z 2   1 1 
A eff IP  Tmax

2

(nm)  1
I





3.0 2H
Regr.
2.5
Conf.
2.0
Pred.
1.5
 (Gy-1)
1.0

0.5

0.0
1e+3 2e+3 2e+3 3e+3 3e+3 4e+3 4e+3

E (keV)



JOURNAL Of NUCLEAR And Related TECHNOLOGIES, Volume 12, No. 2, December 2015.

The best regression model of this relation is given as the following: (5)

 (E)  C1E  C2E 2  C3E3  C4 ,
where C1  6.55103 , C2  3.47 106 , C3  5.96 1010 , C4  6.58 and r2= 1.

Figure 2 indicates the relationship between  and energy E for helium particles. It is noted that there is an
inverse non-linear relation between these parameters. The inactivation rate decreased with the energy of helium
particles.

This relation can be demonstrated mathematically as follow:

 ( E )  C 20 E  C 21 E 2  C 22 E 3  C 23 , (6)

where C20  1.59 103 , C21  1.68107 , C22  5.97 1012 , C23  5.86 and r2= 1.

0.95 3He
0.90 Regr.
0.85 Conf.
Pred.

 (Gy-1) 0.80

0.75 r ²= 1

0.70

0.65
6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000

E (keV)

Figure 2. The relationship between inactivation rate  and energy for helium particles. The
legends provided in the small box indicate particle type, regression line, confident
interval, and predicted relation.

The relationship between Linear Energy Transfer LET for deuterons and inactivation rate is plotted in Figure
3. The inactivation rate increases gradually with LET and reached the maximum value of inactivation rate at
41 keV/ m. The predicted movement of LET against  should be decreased. This well half bell-shape response
is not established before for this particle. This distinctive response can be presented mathematically as follow:

 (LET )  C5LET  C6LET 2  C7LET 3  C8 , (7)

where C5  0.16 , C6  105 103 , C7  1.55 105 , C8  0.86 and r2= 1.

4

JOURNAL Of NUCLEAR And Related TECHNOLOGIES, Volume 12, No. 2, December 2015.

Figure 4 indicates the relationship between the inactivation rate of V79 cells and the Linear Energy Transfer
LET of helium particles. As similar of Figure 3, the inactivation rate of V79 cells increases linearly with
increasing of energy deposition rate LET up to the maximum at 59 keV/ m. This shape of correlation can be
modelled as follows:

 (LET )  C24LET  C25LET 2  C26 , (8)

where C24  8.41103 , C25  7.52 105 , C26  0.14 and r2= 1. 2H
Regr.
3.0 Conf.
Pred.
2.5

2.0

 (Gy-1) 1.5

1.0 r ²= 1

0.5

0.0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

LET (keV/m)

Figure 3. The relationship between inactivation rate  and linear energy transfer for
deuterons. The legends provided in the small box indicate particle type, regression
line, confident interval, and predicted relation.

0.95 3He
0.90 Regr.
0.85 Conf.
Pred.
 (Gy-1)
0.80

0.75 r ²= 1
0.70

0.65
42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60

LET (keV/m)

Figure 4. The relationship between inactivation rate  and linear energy transfer for helium
particles. The legends provided in the small box indicate particle type, regression
line, confident interval, and predicted relation.

The relation between inactivation rate and restricted Linear Energy Transfer for deuterons and helium-3
particles are represented in Figure 5 and Figure 6 respectively.

5

JOURNAL Of NUCLEAR And Related TECHNOLOGIES, Volume 12, No. 2, December 2015.

3.0 2H
2.5 Regr.
2.0 Conf.
Pred.

 (Gy-1) 1.5

r ²= 1

1.0

0.5

0.0 5 10 15 20 25
0

LET100 (keV/m)

Figure 5. The relationship between inactivation rate  and restricted linear energy transfer for
deuterons. The legends provided in the small box indicate particle type, regression
line, confident interval, and predicted relation.

0.95 3He
0.90 Regr.
0.85 Conf.
Pred.
 (Gy-1)
0.80

0.75 r ²= 1

0.70

0.65
22 24 26 28 30 32 34

LET100 (keV/m)

Figure 6. The relationship between inactivation rate  and restricted linear energy transfer for
helium particles. The legends provided in the small box indicate particle type,
regression line, confident interval, and predicted relation.

For both particles, the inactivation rate increases dramatically as the restricted ionization density increases.
The maximum inactivation rates of deuterons and helium-3 particles occur at 23.14 keV/ m and 32.26 keV/ m
respectively. These responses are also described mathematically as follow:

For deuterons, the model is given as follows: (9)

 (LET100 )  C9LET100  C10LET1002  C11LET1003  C12 ,
where C9  0.30 , C10  5.68 103 , C11  2.63105 , C12  0.85 and r2= 1.

6

JOURNAL Of NUCLEAR And Related TECHNOLOGIES, Volume 12, No. 2, December 2015.

For helium-3, the model is given as follows: (10)

 (LET100 )  C27LET100  C28LET1002  C29 ,
where C27  0.03 , C28  1.02 103 , C29  0.88 and r2= 1.

Figure 7 shows the relation between the inactivation rate  and the linear primary ionization I for deuterons.
As the linear ionization increases, the inactivation rate increases as well. The maximum value of linear
ionization occurs at 0.24 nm-1.

10
2H
Regr.
Conf.
Pred.

 (Gy-1) 1

r ²= 1

0.1 0.1 1
0.01

I (nm-1)

Figure 7. The relationship between inactivation rate  and linear primary ionization for
deuterons. The legends provided in the small box indicate particle type, regression
line, confident interval, and predicted relation.

This relationship can be described mathematically as follows: (11)

 (I )  C13I  C14I 2  C15I 3  C16 ,
where C13  10.83 , C14  7.64 , C15  1.84 , C16  4.61 and r2= 1.

Relationship between inactivation rate  and linear primary ionization I for helium-3 particles is shown in
Figure 8. The inactivation rate rises gradually with increasing linear ionization of helium-3 particles. The
maximum value of inactivation rate comes out at 0.9 Gy-1 when linear ionization is equal to 0.25 nm-1. The
mechanism of inactivation of V79 can be interpreted obviously in terms of this distinctive parameter. By
comparing the responses in Figure 7 with Figure 8, it can be noted that the deuterons are more capable in
producing the inactivation of V79 cells than helium-3 particles. In contrast, the helium-3 particles yield the
highest inactivation at lower energy deposition events.

7

JOURNAL Of NUCLEAR And Related TECHNOLOGIES, Volume 12, No. 2, December 2015.

0.95 3He
0.90 Regr.
0.85 Conf.
Pred.

 (Gy-1) 0.80

0.75

0.70

0.65
0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26

I (nm-1)

Figure 8. The relationship between inactivation rate  and linear primary ionization for helium
particles. The legends provided in the small box indicate particle type, regression
line, confident interval, and predicted relation.

The best fitting model which describes this relationship is given as follows: (12)

 (I )  C30I  C31I 2  C32 ,
where C30  1.40 , C31  10.21 , C32  0.64 and r2= 1.

Figure 9 illustrates the relationship between the inactivation rate of V79 cells and the mean free path  for
deuterons. The inactivation rate starts decrease sharply as the mean free path increases holding the minimum,
later the inactivation rate increases as the mean free path increases. The relation can be fitted accurately
applying the following model:

 ()  C17  C182  C19 , (13)

where C17  0.19 , C18  2.57 , C19  3.53 and r2= 1.

Finally, the relationship between inactivation rate of V79 cells and the mean free path for heluim-3 particles is
represented in Figure 10. At the beginning, the inactivation rate decrease rapidly as the mean free path
increases, subsequently the inactivation slightly decreases as the mean free path increases, beyond the
inactivation rate decreases dramatically as the mean free path of helium-3 particles rises. Mathematically this
relation is modelled according to the following expression:

 ( )  C30  C312  C323  C33 , (14)

where C30  3.54 , C31  0.63 , C32  0.04 , C33  7.43 and r2= 1.

8

JOURNAL Of NUCLEAR And Related TECHNOLOGIES, Volume 12, No. 2, December 2015.

3.5 2H
3.0 Regr.
2.5 Conf.
2.0 Pred.

 (Gy-1) 1.5 r ²= 0.9

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5 10 20 30 40 50
0

 (nm)

Figure 9. The relationship between inactivation rate  and mean free path for deuterons. The
legends provided in the small box indicate particle type, regression line, confident
interval, and predicted relation.

Representing inactivation rate of V79 cells in terms of the physical quality parameters which characterize both
deuterons and heluim-3 particles allows extensive investigation of the involved mechanism of inactivation effect
yielded by these charged particles at low doses where the radiation effects at this region is not absolutely
predictable in terms of the convention quantity the absorbed dose, that is often used as a universal physical
measure of biological effects of ionizing radiation at higher doses.

0.95 3He
0.90 Regr.
0.85 Conf.
Pred.

 (Gy-1) 0.80

0.75

0.70

0.65
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0

 (nm)

Figure 10. The relationship between inactivation rate  and mean free path for helium
particles. The legends provided in the small box indicate particle type, regression
line, confident interval, and predicted relation

9





γ σ
θ
γ

γ
γ

9Be4He1 2C1n





σθγ γ
γ

ρ

a  1.6611024   W Np     . M 
.S.D.C.t  .R. 
c p

S  1  eti

  ln 2 D  etd
T1/ 2

C  (1  etc ) / tc

θε

ϕ γ f
γ

f fast  ASP,2 .  . .  . f .  P,1
ASP,1  M 1  Q0,2 ( )  P,2

 . . 2 f
 M

 fast  th
f fast

ASP  NP / tC
SDCW

Q0 ( )

Q0 ( )  Q0  0.429  0.429
Er   1).(0.55)
(2

Er Q0  I0  0 γ
1/ E
σ α

th 1/ E1
epi
th

th  ( f f  Asp,Au  3.47
 Q0,Au ( ))  p,Au

epi  th
f

r

r   W Np c    *
.S.D.C.t P

 Np * P
.S.D.C.t
W c

εε

kc (s)  M c s s 0,s . f  Q0,s ( ) .  p,s
M s cc 0,c f  Q0,c ( )  p,c

k0,c (s)  M c ss 0,s
M s cc 0,c

k0,m (s)  k0,c (s) / k0,c (m)

α
γ

νγ

≠

r( ) Tn T0

gLu (Tn ) Tn α

α
α

αα log E r,i
log (E r,i ) ( Asp,i )Cd
ko,Au (i). p,i .FCd,i .Qo,i ( ).Ge,i

α

α

 N  N 
log E r,i 
 log E r,i log Ti 

i1 i1

N N
 N 
i1  log Ti
   

      0

 N log E r ,i 
N 
 log E r,i  i1 
N 
i1 
 

Ti  (E r,i ) ( Asp,i )Cd
ko,Au (i). p,i .FCd,i .Qo,i ( ).Ge,i

α α
log (E r,i ) log E r,i

(FCd,i .RCd,i 1).Qo,i ( ).Ge,i / Gth,i

α

Ti  (FCd,i .RCd,i (E r,i ) / Gth,i
1).Qo,i ( ).Ge,i

(a  b)Q0,1( )Ge,1 / Gth,1  aQ0,2 ( )Ge,2 / Gth,2  bQ0,3( )Ge,3 / Gth,3  0

a  1 Asp,2 . k0,Au (1) .  p,1 1 ;b  1 Asp,3 . k0, Au (1) .  p,1 1
Asp,1 k0,Au (2)  p,2  Asp,1 k0, Au (3)  p,3 
 

γ

γγ

f  (FCd RCd 1)GeQ0 () / Gth

Q0 ( ) α
γ
γ

Ge,1 k0,Au (1) .  p,1 .Q0,1 ( )  Ge,2 Asp,1 .Q0,2 ( )
k0,Au (2)  p,2 Asp,2
f  Asp,1
Gth,2 k0,Au (1) 
Asp,2  Gth,1 k0,Au (2) .  p,1
p,2

S0,Lu ( )

S0,Lu ( )

S0 ( )  S0  (1eV )
Er

r( ) Tn T0
r( ) Tn T0

γ γ

Tn T0 Gth, 2 . k0, Au (1) .  p,1 .g1 (Tn )  Gth,1. ASP,1 .g2 (Tn ) gLu (Tn )
k0, Au (2)  p,2 ASP,2 .S0,1 ( )
r( ) 
ASP,1 k0, Au (1) 
Gr ,2 . ASP,2 .S0,2 ( )  Gr ,1. k0, Au (2) .  p,1
p,2

Tn r( ) Tn T0

r( ) Tn T0  Gth .g(Tn )

RCd .FCd  g(Tn ).(1eV )  2 W ( )  Gr .S0 ( )  Gr .S0 ( )
 K.(1  2 ).ECd  


W ()  W .(Er ) (1eV )

K  1 ECd E0  0.0253
4 E0

gLu (Tn )

gLu (Tn ) ν

γν γ γ

γ Tn

g Lu (Tn )    k AS P P  Lu   g1/ v (Tn )  r( )  Tn T0  s0,Lu ( )
   
  0, Au .  Tn T0  s0,1/ v ( )  r( )

  k ASP P  v
  0, Au . 
   1 /

r( ) Tn T0 gLu (Tn )
gLu (Tn ) Tn

H   NP / tC  . 1 . Gth,m . f  Ge,m .Q0,m ( ) .  p,m
 SDCW a k0,m (a) Gth,a . f  Ge,a .Q0,a ( )  p,a

ASP,m

H

W

W   NP / tC  1 g Au (Tn )  r( ) Tn T0  S0,Au ( )   p,m
 SDCW a  k0,m (a)  g a (Tn )  r( ) Tn T0  S0,a ( )  p,a

ASP,m

γ

γγ γγ γγ γ

S0 () r( ) Tn T0 gLu (Tn ) Tn f  f fast th  epi fast
th epi th fα

α

epi

f fast  fast
 fast
f fast

S0 () r( ) Tn T0 gLu (Tn ) Tn

νγ S0 () r( ) Tn T0 gLu (Tn ) Tn

≠





α

α

α

αα

α





α















.

.
.





.



INTRODUCTION



University MOH MOH
Hosp / others 38%
Private Hospital
31%
University Hosp /
Private others
Hospital

31%

PET-CT Both Gamma Camera /
8% 23% SPECT-CT
PET-CT
Gamma
Camera / Both
SPECT-CT

69%

Others Physician / Specialist /
(technologist Medical Officer
/radiographer )
Pharmacist
17%

Pharmacist Physician /
31% Specialist /

n = 23 Medical
Officer

52%

No. of Centre 8 1 2
Tc-99m Ga-67 Cr-51
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

8 7 52500 60000
7 500 mCi-1000 mCi
No. of Centre 6 50000 Cost (RM)
5 40000
4
3 30000
2
1 20000
0
1 7500 10000
> 1000 mCi
0

No. of Centre 4 1
5 Fluorine-18 FDG Gallium-68 Generator
4
3
2
1
0

3 2 6000 7500 8000
100-200 mCi 1 7000
2 200-500 mCi 6000
No. of Centre 5000
4000 Cost (RM)
1 3000
2000
0 1000
0

9 8 2
8 Iodine-131 Iodine-131 MIBG
7
6
5
No. of Centre 4
3
2
1
0

4A5c0ti0vity (mCi) 4200 84000 15750 Cost9(0R0M00)
4000 Iodine-131 4.5 80000
3500 Iodine-131 MIBG 70000
3000 60000
2500 50000
2000 40000
1500 30000
1000 20000
10000
500 0
0

4

3
3

No. of Centre 2 1 111
1

0

Y-90 Microsphere Y-90 Re-186 (bone Ir-192 Sm-153 (bone

Synovectomy pain palliation) (Brachytherapy) pain palliation)

60 51
50
40 24
No of Patients 30
20 542
10

0

Y-90 Y-90 Re-186 (bone Ir-192 Sm-153 (bone

Microsphere Synovectomy pain palliation) (Brachytherapy) pain palliation)