Automated Monte-Carlo re-calculation of proton therapy plans using <scp>Geant4/Gate</scp>: implementation and comparison to plan-specific quality assurance measurements

Aitkenhead, A.; Sitch, P.; Richardson, Jenna; Winterhalter, Carla; Patel, Imran; Mackay, Ranald I

doi:10.1259/bjr.20200228

Cited by 21 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[21]. A set of in‐house developed scripts (AUTOMC 22 ) written in GNU Octave 23 (v.4.4.1), which automatically create GATE macro files, launch simulations and analyse simulation results, have been developed for clinical proton therapy dose calculations at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust. This system performs all its MC calculations using GATE v.8.1/ Geant4 v.10.3.3 2 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, doses are measured at multiple depths in a Solid Water phantom using a the Octavius 1500 XDR array (PTW, Freiburg) for relative dose distributions and a PTW 31021 Semiflex 3D ion chamber for absolute dose values (see Ref. [22] for more details). Two example fields (one inhomogeneous field with range‐shifter and one homogeneous field without range‐shifter, patient 1 and patient 2 of Table II) were simulated to 0.25% statistical uncertainty at the 90–100% dose level (see Ref.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The CT calibration was based on the stoichiometric calibration by Schneider et al (Phys Med Biol 29), and Ref. [22] in detail describes the procedure to ensure matching CT calibrations (based on same scanner parametrization, reference tissues, and ionization values) between treatment planning system and AUTOMC. Patients were chosen to represent a range of several potential dose calculation issues, that is, different range‐shifter options, heterogeneous anatomical sites, and treatments with metal implants.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mean energy and energy spread are automatically and iteratively adjusted such that depth dose curves measured with a Bragg peak chamber (diameter 84 mm) are reproduced (tuning process, see Ref. [22] for more details). For this study, error bars on the mean energy were determined by repeating this tuning process with different initial energies.…”

Section: A1 Beam-model Tuningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of GATE‐RTion (GATE/Geant4) Monte Carlo simulation settings for proton pencil beam scanning quality assurance

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geant4 is a multipurpose Monte Carlo simulation tool for modeling particle transport in matter. It provides a wide range of settings, which the user may optimize for their specific application. This study investigates GATE/Geant4 parameter settings for proton pencil beam scanning therapy. Methods: GATE8.1/Geant4.10.3.p03 (matching the versions used in GATE-RTion1.0) simulations were performed with a set of prebuilt Geant4 physics lists (QGSP_BIC, QGSP_BIC_EMY, QGSP_BIC_EMZ, QGSP_BIC_HP_EMZ), using 0.1mm-10mm as production cuts on secondary particles (electrons, photons, positrons) and varying the maximum step size of protons (0.1mm, 1mm, none). The results of the simulations were compared to measurement data taken during clinical patient specific quality assurance at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust pencil beam scanning proton therapy facility. Additionally, the influence of simulation settings was quantified in a realistic patient anatomy based on computer tomography (CT) scans. Results: When comparing the different physics lists, only the results (ranges in water) obtained with QGSP_BIC (G4EMStandardPhysics_Option0) depend on the maximum step size. There is clinically negligible difference in the target region when using High Precision neutron models (HP) for dose calculations. The EMZ electromagnetic constructor provides a closer agreement (within 0.35 mm) to

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A1 Beam-model Tuningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of GATE‐RTion (GATE/Geant4) Monte Carlo simulation settings for proton pencil beam scanning quality assurance

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Briefly, s w,det is obtained as the ratio of converted energy per unit mass (CEMA) to water and CEMA to detector material for the same fluence as collected in GATE. The GATE‐RTion v.1.0 platform, 24 whose capabilities for clinical use in light ion beam therapy have been demonstrated in the context of proton radiography 24 and independent dose calculation, 24,25 was used. This method was first validated by comparing s w,air results for single‐energy proton and carbon ion beams with data from the literature 6,7,19 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monte Carlo computation of 3D distributions of stopping power ratios in light ion beam therapy using GATE‐RTion

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a novel method for the calculation of three-dimensional (3D) Bragg-Gray water-to-detector stopping power ratio (s w,det ) distributions for proton and carbon ion beams. Methods: Contrary to previously published fluence-based calculations of the stopping power ratio, the s w,det calculation method used in this work is based on the specific way GATE/Geant4 scores the energy deposition. It only requires the use of the so-called DoseActor, as available in GATE, for the calculation of the s w,det at any point of a 3D dose distribution. The simulations are performed using GATE-RTion v1.0, a dedicated GATE release that was validated for the clinical use in light ion beam therapy. Results: The Bragg-Gray water-to-air stopping power ratio (s w,air ) was calculated for monoenergetic proton and carbon ion beams with the default stopping power data in GATE-RTion v1.0 and the new ICRU90 recommendation. The s w,air differences between the use of the default and the ICRU90 configuration were 0.6% and 5.4% at the physical range (R 80 -80% dose level in the distal dose falloff) for a 70 MeV proton beam and a 120 MeV/u carbon ion beam, respectively. For protons, the s w, det results for lithium fluoride, silicon, gadolinium oxysulfide, and the active layer material of EBT2 (radiochromic film) were compared with the literature and a reasonable agreement was found. For a real patient treatment plan, the 3D distributions of s w,det in proton beams were calculated. Conclusions: Our method was validated by comparison with available literature data. Its equivalence with Bragg-Gray cavity theory was demonstrated mathematically. The capability of GATE-RTion v1.0 for the s w,det calculation at any point of a 3D dose distribution for simple and complex proton and carbon ion plans was presented.

show abstract

Commissioning and clinical implementation of an independent dose calculation system for scanned proton beams

Dreindl,

Bolsa‐Ferruz,

Fayos‐Sola

et al. 2024

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeExperimental patient‐specific QA (PSQA) is a time and resource‐intensive process, with a poor sensitivity in detecting errors. Radiation therapy facilities aim to substitute it by means of independent dose calculation (IDC) in combination with a comprehensive beam delivery QA program. This paper reports on the commissioning of the IDC software tool myQA iON (IBA Dosimetry) for proton therapy and its clinical implementation at the MedAustron Ion Therapy Center.MethodsThe IDC commissioning work included the validation of the beam model, the implementation and validation of clinical CT protocols, and the evaluation of patient treatment data. Dose difference maps, gamma index distributions, and pass rates (GPR) have been reviewed. The performance of the IDC tool has been assessed and clinical workflows, simulation settings, and GPR tolerances have been defined.ResultsBeam model validation showed agreement of ranges within ± 0.2 mm, Bragg‐Peak widths within ± 0.1 mm, and spot sizes at various air gaps within ± 5% compared to physical measurements. Simulated dose in 2D reference fields deviated by ‐0.3% ± 0.5%, while 3D dose distributions differed by 1.8% on average to measurements. Validation of the CT calibration resulted in systematic differences of 2.0% between IDC and experimental data for tissue like samples. GPRs of 99.4 ± 0.6% were found for head, head and neck, and pediatric CT protocols on a 2%/2 mm gamma criterion. GPRs for the adult abdomen protocol were at 98.9% on average with 3%/3 mm. Root causes of GPR outliers, for example, implants were identified and evaluated.ConclusionIDC has been successfully commissioned and integrated into the MedAustron clinical workflow for protons in 2021. IDC has been stepwise and safely substituting experimental PSQA since February 2021. The initial reduction of proton experimental PSQA was about 25% and reached up to 90% after 1 year.

show abstract

Automated Monte-Carlo re-calculation of proton therapy plans using Geant4/Gate: implementation and comparison to plan-specific quality assurance measurements

Cited by 21 publications

References 31 publications

Evaluation of GATE‐RTion (GATE/Geant4) Monte Carlo simulation settings for proton pencil beam scanning quality assurance

Evaluation of GATE‐RTion (GATE/Geant4) Monte Carlo simulation settings for proton pencil beam scanning quality assurance

Monte Carlo computation of 3D distributions of stopping power ratios in light ion beam therapy using GATE‐RTion

Commissioning and clinical implementation of an independent dose calculation system for scanned proton beams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About