Experimental validation of Geant4 nuclear interaction models in dose calculations of therapeutic carbon ion beams

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Medical physics Pub Date : 2025-05-29 DOI:10.1002/mp.17906
Yihan Jia, Martina Favaretto, Lisa Hartl, Markus Stock, Dietmar Georg, Loïc Grevillot, Andreas F. Resch
{"title":"Experimental validation of Geant4 nuclear interaction models in dose calculations of therapeutic carbon ion beams","authors":"Yihan Jia,&nbsp;Martina Favaretto,&nbsp;Lisa Hartl,&nbsp;Markus Stock,&nbsp;Dietmar Georg,&nbsp;Loïc Grevillot,&nbsp;Andreas F. Resch","doi":"10.1002/mp.17906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The choice of nuclear interaction models in Monte Carlo simulations affects the dose calculation accuracy for light ion beam therapy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed to evaluate the dose calculation accuracy and simulation time of three GATE-RTiON/<span>Geant4</span> physics lists for therapeutic carbon ion beams, assessing their suitability for independent dose calculation in patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The normalized beam models for physics lists QGSP_BIC_HP_EMZ, QGSP_INCLXX_HP_EMZ, and Shielding_EMZ were validated against measurements regarding the accuracy of range, spot size and reference dose. Normalized transversal dose profiles (<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>D</mi>\n <mo>/</mo>\n <msub>\n <mi>D</mi>\n <mrow>\n <mi>m</mi>\n <mi>a</mi>\n <mi>x</mi>\n </mrow>\n </msub>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$D/D_{max}$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>) and field size factor (FSF) were compared with measurements. The accuracy of simulated target dose in 103 fields (various energies, field sizes, depths, and dose gradient <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <msub>\n <mo>∇</mo>\n <mi>D</mi>\n </msub>\n <annotation>$\\nabla _D$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> complexity) of energy-modulated scanned beams was evaluated at 3181 positions. The median of global dose difference <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>m</mi>\n <mi>e</mi>\n <mi>d</mi>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <msub>\n <mi>Δ</mi>\n <mi>D</mi>\n </msub>\n <mo>)</mo>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$med(\\Delta _D)$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> was calculated at different depth ranges.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The three physics lists with validated beam models showed similar accuracy in <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>D</mi>\n <mo>/</mo>\n <msub>\n <mi>D</mi>\n <mrow>\n <mi>m</mi>\n <mi>a</mi>\n <mi>x</mi>\n </mrow>\n </msub>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$D/D_{max}$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> and FSF in the Bragg peak region and proximal depths, while QGSP_INCLXX_HP agreed most closely for <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>D</mi>\n <mo>/</mo>\n <msub>\n <mi>D</mi>\n <mrow>\n <mi>m</mi>\n <mi>a</mi>\n <mi>x</mi>\n </mrow>\n </msub>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$D/D_{max}$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> in the fragmentation tail. Accounting for <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <msub>\n <mo>∇</mo>\n <mi>D</mi>\n </msub>\n <annotation>$\\nabla _D$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>-related uncertainty, <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>m</mi>\n <mi>e</mi>\n <mi>d</mi>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <msub>\n <mi>Δ</mi>\n <mi>D</mi>\n </msub>\n <mo>)</mo>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$med(\\Delta _D)$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> remained within ±1.1% for QGSP_INCLXX_HP, while exhibiting an overall increasing trend with depth for QGSP_BIC_HP (up to 2.3%) and a decreasing trend for Shielding (down to −4.1%), respectively. By tuning the number-of-primaries/monitor unit conversion (<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <msub>\n <mi>k</mi>\n <mrow>\n <mi>N</mi>\n <mo>/</mo>\n <mi>MU</mi>\n </mrow>\n </msub>\n <annotation>$k_{\\rm N/MU}$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>) as a function of energy, <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>m</mi>\n <mi>e</mi>\n <mi>d</mi>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <msub>\n <mi>Δ</mi>\n <mi>D</mi>\n </msub>\n <mo>)</mo>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$med(\\Delta _D)$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> of QGSP_BIC_HP was reduced to within ±1.3%, at the cost of reduced accuracy in the simulated reference dose. The simulation time of Shielding was 1.8 times that of QGSP_BIC_HP and 1.5 times that of QGSP_INCLXX_HP.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>QGSP_INCLXX_HP demonstrated high dosimetric accuracy in the target region of energy-modulated fields. QGSP_BIC_HP and Shielding showed physics model-related inaccuracies in simulated target dose. Additional <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <msub>\n <mi>k</mi>\n <mrow>\n <mi>N</mi>\n <mo>/</mo>\n <mi>MU</mi>\n </mrow>\n </msub>\n <annotation>$k_{\\rm N/MU}$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> tuning improved their target dose calculation accuracy with a trade-off of reference dose accuracy. The computationally efficient QGSP_INCLXX_HP and QGSP_BIC_HP are viable candidates for dose calculation applications of carbon ion beam therapy, such as in silico PSQA.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18384,"journal":{"name":"Medical physics","volume":"52 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mp.17906","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mp.17906","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The choice of nuclear interaction models in Monte Carlo simulations affects the dose calculation accuracy for light ion beam therapy.

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the dose calculation accuracy and simulation time of three GATE-RTiON/Geant4 physics lists for therapeutic carbon ion beams, assessing their suitability for independent dose calculation in patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA).

Methods

The normalized beam models for physics lists QGSP_BIC_HP_EMZ, QGSP_INCLXX_HP_EMZ, and Shielding_EMZ were validated against measurements regarding the accuracy of range, spot size and reference dose. Normalized transversal dose profiles ( D / D m a x $D/D_{max}$ ) and field size factor (FSF) were compared with measurements. The accuracy of simulated target dose in 103 fields (various energies, field sizes, depths, and dose gradient D $\nabla _D$ complexity) of energy-modulated scanned beams was evaluated at 3181 positions. The median of global dose difference m e d ( Δ D ) $med(\Delta _D)$ was calculated at different depth ranges.

Results

The three physics lists with validated beam models showed similar accuracy in D / D m a x $D/D_{max}$ and FSF in the Bragg peak region and proximal depths, while QGSP_INCLXX_HP agreed most closely for D / D m a x $D/D_{max}$ in the fragmentation tail. Accounting for D $\nabla _D$ -related uncertainty, m e d ( Δ D ) $med(\Delta _D)$ remained within ±1.1% for QGSP_INCLXX_HP, while exhibiting an overall increasing trend with depth for QGSP_BIC_HP (up to 2.3%) and a decreasing trend for Shielding (down to −4.1%), respectively. By tuning the number-of-primaries/monitor unit conversion ( k N / MU $k_{\rm N/MU}$ ) as a function of energy, m e d ( Δ D ) $med(\Delta _D)$ of QGSP_BIC_HP was reduced to within ±1.3%, at the cost of reduced accuracy in the simulated reference dose. The simulation time of Shielding was 1.8 times that of QGSP_BIC_HP and 1.5 times that of QGSP_INCLXX_HP.

Conclusions

QGSP_INCLXX_HP demonstrated high dosimetric accuracy in the target region of energy-modulated fields. QGSP_BIC_HP and Shielding showed physics model-related inaccuracies in simulated target dose. Additional k N / MU $k_{\rm N/MU}$ tuning improved their target dose calculation accuracy with a trade-off of reference dose accuracy. The computationally efficient QGSP_INCLXX_HP and QGSP_BIC_HP are viable candidates for dose calculation applications of carbon ion beam therapy, such as in silico PSQA.

Abstract Image

Geant4核相互作用模型在治疗性碳离子束剂量计算中的实验验证。
背景:蒙特卡罗模拟中核相互作用模型的选择影响光离子束治疗的剂量计算精度。目的:本研究旨在评价三种GATE-RTiON/Geant4治疗碳离子束物理表的剂量计算精度和模拟时间,评估其在患者特异性质量保证(PSQA)中独立剂量计算的适用性。方法:对物理列表QGSP_BIC_HP_EMZ、QGSP_INCLXX_HP_EMZ和Shielding_EMZ的归一化光束模型进行距离、光斑大小和参考剂量的精度验证。标准化横向剂量谱(D / D ma x $D/D_{max}$)和场尺寸因子(FSF)与测量值进行了比较。评估了能量调制扫描光束在3181个位置的103个场(不同能量、场大小、深度和剂量梯度∇D $\nabla _D$复杂性)中模拟靶剂量的精度。计算了不同深度范围的总剂量差中位数med (Δ d) $med(\Delta _D)$。结果:经过验证的三种物理列表在布拉格峰区和近端深度的D / D ma x $D/D_{max}$和FSF的精度相似,而QGSP_INCLXX_HP在破碎尾的D / D ma x $D/D_{max}$的精度最接近。考虑到∇D $\nabla _D$相关的不确定性,m e D (Δ D) $med(\Delta _D)$保持在±1.1以内% for QGSP_INCLXX_HP, while exhibiting an overall increasing trend with depth for QGSP_BIC_HP (up to 2.3%) and a decreasing trend for Shielding (down to -4.1%), respectively. By tuning the number-of-primaries/monitor unit conversion ( k N / MU $k_{\rm N/MU}$ ) as a function of energy, m e d ( Δ D ) $med(\Delta _D)$ of QGSP_BIC_HP was reduced to within ±1.3%, at the cost of reduced accuracy in the simulated reference dose. The simulation time of Shielding was 1.8 times that of QGSP_BIC_HP and 1.5 times that of QGSP_INCLXX_HP.Conclusions: QGSP_INCLXX_HP demonstrated high dosimetric accuracy in the target region of energy-modulated fields. QGSP_BIC_HP and Shielding showed physics model-related inaccuracies in simulated target dose. Additional k N / MU $k_{\rm N/MU}$ tuning improved their target dose calculation accuracy with a trade-off of reference dose accuracy. The computationally efficient QGSP_INCLXX_HP and QGSP_BIC_HP are viable candidates for dose calculation applications of carbon ion beam therapy, such as in silico PSQA.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical physics
Medical physics 医学-核医学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
15.80%
发文量
660
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: Medical Physics publishes original, high impact physics, imaging science, and engineering research that advances patient diagnosis and therapy through contributions in 1) Basic science developments with high potential for clinical translation 2) Clinical applications of cutting edge engineering and physics innovations 3) Broadly applicable and innovative clinical physics developments Medical Physics is a journal of global scope and reach. By publishing in Medical Physics your research will reach an international, multidisciplinary audience including practicing medical physicists as well as physics- and engineering based translational scientists. We work closely with authors of promising articles to improve their quality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信