View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

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

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Evaluation of GATE‐RTion (GATE/Geant4) Monte Carlo simulation settings for proton pencil beam scanning quality assurance.
Authors: Winterhalter, Carla1,2 (AUTHOR) carla.winterhalter@psi.ch, Taylor, Michael1,2 (AUTHOR), Boersma, David3,4 (AUTHOR), Elia, Alessio4 (AUTHOR), Guatelli, Susanna5 (AUTHOR), Mackay, Ranald1,2 (AUTHOR), Kirkby, Karen1,2 (AUTHOR), Maigne, Lydia6 (AUTHOR), Ivanchenko, Vladimir7,8 (AUTHOR), Resch, Andreas F.9 (AUTHOR), Sarrut, David10 (AUTHOR), Sitch, Peter2 (AUTHOR), Vidal, Marie11 (AUTHOR), Grevillot, Loïc4 (AUTHOR), Aitkenhead, Adam1,2 (AUTHOR)
Source: Medical Physics. Nov2020, Vol. 47 Issue 11, p5817-5828. 12p.
Subjects: Monte Carlo method, Proton beams, Quality assurance, Photon beams, Proton therapy, Goal (Psychology), Positrons
Abstract: Purpose: Geant4 is a multi‐purpose 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 measured beam sizes in air, but yields up to 20% longer execution times compared to the EMY electromagnetic constructor (maximum beam size difference 0.79 mm). The impact of this on patient‐specific quality assurance simulations is clinically negligible, with a 97% average 2%/2 mm gamma pass rate for both physics lists. However, when considering the CT‐based patient model, dose deviations up to 2.4% are observed. Production cuts do not substantially influence dosimetric results in solid water, but lead to dose differences of up to 4.1% in the patient CT. Small (compared to voxel size) production cuts increase execution times by factors of 5 (solid water) and 2 (patient CT). Conclusions: Taking both efficiency and dose accuracy into account and considering voxel sizes with 2 mm linear size, the authors recommend the following Geant4 settings to simulate patient specific quality assurance measurements: No step limiter on proton tracks; production cuts of 1 mm for electrons, photons and positrons (in the phantom and range‐shifter) and 10 mm (world); best agreement to measurement data was found for QGSP_BIC_EMZ reference physics list at the cost of 20% increased execution times compared to QGSP_BIC_EMY. For simulations considering the patient CT model, the following settings are recommended: No step limiter on proton tracks; production cuts of 1 mm for electrons, photons and positrons (phantom/range‐shifter) and 10 mm (world) if the goal is to achieve sufficient dosimetric accuracy to ensure that a plan is clinically safe; or 0.1 mm (phantom/range‐shifter) and 1 mm (world) if higher dosimetric accuracy is needed (increasing execution times by a factor of 2); most accurate results expected for QGSP_BIC_EMZ reference physics list, at the cost of 10–20% increased execution times compared to QGSP_BIC_EMY. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Medical Physics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 147290701
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Evaluation of GATE‐RTion (GATE/Geant4) Monte Carlo simulation settings for proton pencil beam scanning quality assurance.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Winterhalter%2C+Carla%22">Winterhalter, Carla</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> carla.winterhalter@psi.ch</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Taylor%2C+Michael%22">Taylor, Michael</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Boersma%2C+David%22">Boersma, David</searchLink><relatesTo>3,4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elia%2C+Alessio%22">Elia, Alessio</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Guatelli%2C+Susanna%22">Guatelli, Susanna</searchLink><relatesTo>5</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mackay%2C+Ranald%22">Mackay, Ranald</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kirkby%2C+Karen%22">Kirkby, Karen</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Maigne%2C+Lydia%22">Maigne, Lydia</searchLink><relatesTo>6</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ivanchenko%2C+Vladimir%22">Ivanchenko, Vladimir</searchLink><relatesTo>7,8</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Resch%2C+Andreas+F%2E%22">Resch, Andreas F.</searchLink><relatesTo>9</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sarrut%2C+David%22">Sarrut, David</searchLink><relatesTo>10</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sitch%2C+Peter%22">Sitch, Peter</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vidal%2C+Marie%22">Vidal, Marie</searchLink><relatesTo>11</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Grevillot%2C+Loïc%22">Grevillot, Loïc</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Aitkenhead%2C+Adam%22">Aitkenhead, Adam</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Medical+Physics%22">Medical Physics</searchLink>. Nov2020, Vol. 47 Issue 11, p5817-5828. 12p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Monte+Carlo+method%22">Monte Carlo method</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Proton+beams%22">Proton beams</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Quality+assurance%22">Quality assurance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Photon+beams%22">Photon beams</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Proton+therapy%22">Proton therapy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Goal+%28Psychology%29%22">Goal (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positrons%22">Positrons</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Purpose: Geant4 is a multi‐purpose 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 measured beam sizes in air, but yields up to 20% longer execution times compared to the EMY electromagnetic constructor (maximum beam size difference 0.79 mm). The impact of this on patient‐specific quality assurance simulations is clinically negligible, with a 97% average 2%/2 mm gamma pass rate for both physics lists. However, when considering the CT‐based patient model, dose deviations up to 2.4% are observed. Production cuts do not substantially influence dosimetric results in solid water, but lead to dose differences of up to 4.1% in the patient CT. Small (compared to voxel size) production cuts increase execution times by factors of 5 (solid water) and 2 (patient CT). Conclusions: Taking both efficiency and dose accuracy into account and considering voxel sizes with 2 mm linear size, the authors recommend the following Geant4 settings to simulate patient specific quality assurance measurements: No step limiter on proton tracks; production cuts of 1 mm for electrons, photons and positrons (in the phantom and range‐shifter) and 10 mm (world); best agreement to measurement data was found for QGSP_BIC_EMZ reference physics list at the cost of 20% increased execution times compared to QGSP_BIC_EMY. For simulations considering the patient CT model, the following settings are recommended: No step limiter on proton tracks; production cuts of 1 mm for electrons, photons and positrons (phantom/range‐shifter) and 10 mm (world) if the goal is to achieve sufficient dosimetric accuracy to ensure that a plan is clinically safe; or 0.1 mm (phantom/range‐shifter) and 1 mm (world) if higher dosimetric accuracy is needed (increasing execution times by a factor of 2); most accurate results expected for QGSP_BIC_EMZ reference physics list, at the cost of 10–20% increased execution times compared to QGSP_BIC_EMY. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Medical Physics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=147290701
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/mp.14481
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 5817
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Monte Carlo method
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Proton beams
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Quality assurance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Photon beams
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Proton therapy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Goal (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positrons
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Evaluation of GATE‐RTion (GATE/Geant4) Monte Carlo simulation settings for proton pencil beam scanning quality assurance.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Winterhalter, Carla
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Taylor, Michael
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Boersma, David
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Elia, Alessio
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Guatelli, Susanna
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mackay, Ranald
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kirkby, Karen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Maigne, Lydia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ivanchenko, Vladimir
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Resch, Andreas F.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sarrut, David
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sitch, Peter
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vidal, Marie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Grevillot, Loïc
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Aitkenhead, Adam
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Text: Nov2020
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 00942405
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 47
            – Type: issue
              Value: 11
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Medical Physics
              Type: main
ResultId 1