Pitfalls in the beam modelling process of Monte Carlo calculations for proton pencil beam scanning.
Journal
The British journal of radiology
ISSN: 1748-880X
Titre abrégé: Br J Radiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0373125
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
1
2
2020
medline:
28
2
2020
entrez:
1
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Monte Carlo (MC) simulations substantially improve the accuracy of predicted doses. This study aims to determine and quantify the uncertainties of setting up such a MC system. Doses simulated with two Geant4-based MC calculation codes, but After the independent beam modelling of both systems in water (resulting in excellent range agreement) range differences of up to 3.6/4.8 mm (1.5% of total range) in bone/brain-like tissues were found, which resulted from the use of different mean water ionisation potentials during the energy tuning process. When repeating using a common definition of water, ranges in bone/brain agreed within 0.1 mm and gamma-analysis (global 1%,1mm) showed excellent agreement (>93%) for all patient fields. However, due to a lack of modelling of proton fluence loss in the descriptive pre-absorber, differences of 7% in absolute dose between the pre-absorber definitions were found. This study quantifies the influence of using different water ionisation potentials during the MC beam modelling process. Furthermore, when using a descriptive pre-absorber model, additional Faraday cup or ionisation chamber measurements with pre-absorber are necessary. This is the first study quantifying the uncertainties caused by the MC beam modelling process for proton pencil beam scanning, and a more detailed beam modelling process for MC simulations is proposed to minimise the influence of critical parameters.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32003576
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20190919
pmc: PMC7066947
doi:
Substances chimiques
Water
059QF0KO0R
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20190919Références
Phys Med. 2018 Jun;50:7-12
pubmed: 29891097
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Jul 16;63(14):145016
pubmed: 29726402
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Aug 1;92(5):1157-1164
pubmed: 26025779
Phys Med Biol. 1996 Jan;41(1):111-24
pubmed: 8685250
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Jan 21;60(2):633-45
pubmed: 25549079
Phys Med Biol. 2004 Oct 7;49(19):4543-61
pubmed: 15552416
Med Phys. 1998 May;25(5):656-61
pubmed: 9608475
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Feb 09;63(4):045003
pubmed: 29339570
Phys Med Biol. 1999 Jan;44(1):185-205
pubmed: 10071883
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Aug 23;63(17):175001
pubmed: 30010613
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jul 15;65(4):1249-59
pubmed: 16798417
Phys Med Biol. 2000 Feb;45(2):459-78
pubmed: 10701515
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Dec;15(6):NP35-NP46
pubmed: 26596915
Phys Med Biol. 2012 Jun 7;57(11):R99-117
pubmed: 22571913
Phys Med Biol. 2011 Aug 21;56(16):5203-19
pubmed: 21791731
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Nov 7;60(21):8601-19
pubmed: 26501569
Med Phys. 2012 Nov;39(11):6818-37
pubmed: 23127075
Phys Med Biol. 2009 Jun 7;54(11):N205-15
pubmed: 19436099
Phys Med Biol. 2014 Aug 7;59(15):4007-31
pubmed: 24990623
Phys Med Biol. 2010 Feb 7;55(3):711-21
pubmed: 20071752
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Sep 12;62(19):7659-7681
pubmed: 28749373
Phys Med Biol. 2012 Oct 21;57(20):6381-93
pubmed: 22996039
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Jul 21;60(14):5627-54
pubmed: 26146956