Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.02.011

Bragg-curve simulation of carbon-ion beams for particle-therapy applications: A study with the GEANT4 toolkit  

Hamad, Morad Kh. (Physics Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals)
Publication Information
Nuclear Engineering and Technology / v.53, no.8, 2021 , pp. 2767-2773 More about this Journal
Abstract
We used the GEANT4 Monte Carlo MC Toolkit to simulate carbon ion beams incident on water, tissue, and bone, taking into account nuclear fragmentation reactions. Upon increasing the energy of the primary beam, the position of the Bragg-Peak transfers to a location deeper inside the phantom. For different materials, the peak is located at a shallower depth along the beam direction and becomes sharper with increasing electron density NZ. Subsequently, the generated depth dose of the Bragg curve is then benchmarked with experimental data from GSI in Germany. The results exhibit a reasonable correlation with GSI experimental data with an accuracy of between 0.02 and 0.08 cm, thus establishing the basis to adopt MC in heavy-ion treatment planning. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov K-S test further ascertained from a statistical point of view that the simulation data matched the experimentally measured data very well. The two-dimensional isodose contours at the entrance were compared to those around the peak position and in the tail region beyond the peak, showing that bone produces more dose, in comparison to both water and tissue, due to secondary doses. In the water, the results show that the maximum energy deposited per fragment is mainly attributed to secondary carbon ions, followed by secondary boron and beryllium. Furthermore, the number of protons produced is the highest, thus making the maximum contribution to the total dose deposition in the tail region. Finally, the associated spectra of neutrons and photons were analyzed. The mean neutron energy value was found to be 16.29 MeV, and 1.03 MeV for the secondary gamma. However, the neutron dose was found to be negligible as compared to the total dose due to their longer range.
Keywords
Hadrontherapy; Monte Carlo simulation; Geant4; Fragmentation;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 W. Bragg, R. Kleeman, On the a particles of radium, and their loss of range in passing through various atoms and molecules, The London, Edinburgh, And Dublin Philosophical Magazine And Journal Of Science 10 (1905) 318-340, https://doi.org/10.1080/14786440509463378.   DOI
2 L. Sihver, D. Schardt, T. Kanai, Depth-dose distributions of high-energy carbon, oxygen and neon beams in water, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 18 (1998), https://doi.org/10.11323/jjmp1992.18.1_1.   DOI
3 P. Petti, A. Lennox, Hadronic radiotherapy, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part Sci. 44 (1994) 155-197, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ns.44.120194.001103.   DOI
4 M. Hultqvist, J. Lillhok, L. Lindborg, I. Gudowska, H. Nikjoo, Nanodosimetry in a 12C ion beam using Monte Carlo simulations, Radiat. Meas. 45 (2010) 1238-1241, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2010.05.033.   DOI
5 G. Kraft, M. Scholz, U. Bechthold, Tumor therapy and track structure, Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 38 (1999) 229-237, https://doi.org/10.1007/s004110050163.   DOI
6 S. Brons, G. Taucher-Scholz, M. Scholz, G. Kraft, A track structure model for simulation of strand breaks in plasmid DNA after heavy ion irradiation, Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 42 (2003) 63-72, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-003-0184-9.   DOI
7 A. Khorshidi, Accelerator-based methods in radio-material 99Mo/99mTc production alternatives by Monte Carlo method: the scientific-expedient considerations in nuclear medicine, J. Multiscale Model. (JMM) 11 (1) (2020) 1930001, https://doi.org/10.1142/S1756973719300016.   DOI
8 Jose R. Alonso, Review of ion beam therapy, Present and Future (2000). United States, https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/765471.
9 E.J. Hall, Radiobiology for the Radiologist, fourth ed., Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1993.
10 O. Jakel, D. Schulz-Ertner, C. Karger, A. Nikoghosyan, J. Debus, Heavy ion therapy: status and perspectives, Technol. Canc. Res. Treat. 2 (2003) 377-387, https://doi.org/10.1177/153303460300200503.   DOI
11 J. Blackledge, Statistical modelling and analysis, Digital Image Processing (2005) 512-540, https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857099464.4.512.
12 G. Christodoulakis, S. Satchel, The validity of credit risk model validation methods, The Analytics Of Risk Model Validation (2008) 27-43, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-075068158-2.50006-8.
13 D. Schulz-Ertner, O. Jakel, W. Schlegel, Radiation therapy with charged particles, Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 16 (2006) 249-259, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2006.04.008.   DOI
14 M. Ashoor, A. Khorshidi, L. Sarkhosh, Appraisal of new density coefficient on integrated-nanoparticles concrete in nuclear protection, Kerntechnik 85 (1) (2020) 9-14, https://doi.org/10.3139/124.190016.   DOI
15 Geant4 User's Guide. https://geant4.web.cern.ch/support/user_documentation, 2012.
16 J. Soltani-Nabipour, A. Khorshidi, F. Shojai, K. Khorami, Evaluation of dose distribution from 12C ion in radiation therapy by FLUKA code, Nuclear Engineering And Technology 52 (2020) 2410-2414, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.03.010.   DOI
17 A. Lechner, V. Ivanchenko, J. Knobloch, Validation of recent Geant4 physics models for application in carbon ion therapy, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. Mater. Atoms 268 (2010) 2343-2354, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2010.04.008.   DOI
18 S. Dababneh, E. Al-Nemri, J. Sharaf, Application of Geant4 in routine close geometry gamma spectroscopy for environmental samples, J. Environ. Radioact. 134 (2014) 27-34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2014.02.019.   DOI
19 R Development Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org.
20 E. Mocanu, P. Nguyen, M. Gibescu, Deep learning for power system data analysis, Big Data Application In Power Systems (2018) 125-158, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-811968-6.00007-3.
21 M. Hultqvist, I. Gudowska, Secondary doses delivered to an anthropomorphic male phantom under prostate irradiation with proton and carbon ion beams, Radiat. Meas. 45 (2010) 1410-1413, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2010.05.020.   DOI
22 A. Khorshidi, Molybdenum-99 production via lead and bismuth moderators and milli-structure-98Mo samples by the indirect production technique using the Monte Carlo method, Phys. Usp. 62 (9) (2019) 931-940, https://doi.org/10.3367/UFNe.2018.09.038441.   DOI
23 I. Pshenichnov, I. Mishustin, W. Greiner, Neutrons from fragmentation of light nuclei in tissue-like media: a study with the GEANT4 toolkit, Phys. Med. Biol. 50 (2005) 5493-5507, https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/50/23/005.   DOI
24 O. Jakel, Medical physics aspects of particle therapy, Radiat. Protect. Dosim. 137 (2009) 156-166, https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncp192.   DOI
25 J. Soltani-Nabipour, M. Popovici, G. Cata-Danil, Residual Nuclei Produced by 290 MeV/u 12C ions beam in a liquid water target, Rom. Rep. Phys. 62 (2010) 37-46. http://194.102.58.21/2010_62_01/art04Soltanidoc.pdf. accessed 9 September 2020.
26 R. Woods, Validation of registration accuracy, Handbook Of Medical Image Processing And Analysis (2009) 569-575, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012373904-9.50043-x.
27 J.S. Nabipour, A. Khorshidi, Spectroscopy and optimizing semiconductor detector data under X and g photons using image processing technique, J. Med. Imag. Radiat. Sci. 49 (2) (2018) 194-200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2018.01.004.   DOI
28 G. Kraft, Tumor therapy with heavy charged particles, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 45 (2000) S473-S544, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0146-6410(00)00112-5.   DOI
29 P. Azimi, A. Movafeghi, Proton therapy in neurosurgery: a historical review and future perspective based on currently available new generation systems, Int. J. Clin. Neurosci. 3 (2) (2016) 59-80, https://doi.org/10.22037/icnj.v3i2.13324.   DOI
30 E. Haettner, Experimental Study on Carbon Ion Fragmentation in Water Using GSI Therapy Beams, KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, 2006.
31 S. Malmir, A. Asghar Mowlavi, S. Mohammadi, Enhancement evaluation of energy deposition and secondary particle production in gold nanoparticle aided tumor using proton therapy, Int. J. Canc. Manag. 10 (10) (2017), e10719, https://doi.org/10.5812/ijcm.10719.   DOI
32 A. Khorshidi, Neutron activator design for 99Mo production yield estimation via lead and water moderators in transmutation's analysis, Instrum. Exp. Tech. 61 (2) (2018) 198-204, https://doi.org/10.1134/S002044121802015X.   DOI
33 G. Knoll, Radiation Detection and Measurement, third ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999, pp. 31-32.
34 E. Segre, H. Staub, H. Bethe, et al., Experimental Nuclear Physics, first ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1953.
35 A. Cuadra-Sanchez, J. Aracil, Finding the optimal Aggregation period, Traffic Anomaly Detection (2015) 11-27, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-78548-012-6.50002-3.   DOI
36 Dosimetry and Medical Radiation Physics Section, Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy, The International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2000. http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/trs398_scr.pdf. accessed 9 September 2020.