Validation of the Dose Distributions with Monte Carlo Simulation for Carbon Ion Cancer Therapy
Keywords:
Charged particle, Carbon ion, Bragg peak, Monte Carlo simulation, Geant4Abstract
Charged particle therapy with carbon ions has advantages over conventional radiotherapy using x-ray beams. The application of charged particle therapy has rapidly increased over the last decades. This is due to its characteristic Bragg peak which has relatively low entrance doses and favourable doses distribution. In this research work, Geant4 based Monte Carlo simulation (MC) method has been used to calculate the radiation transportation and dose distributions in tissue-like media. The main objective of the work was to compare the Geant4 simulated depth dose distributions with experimental measurements and verify the capability of the geant4 simulation toolkit. The carbon ion beams for the therapeutic energy of 350 MeV/u and 400 MeV/u respectively were simulated, with the same settings as the experimental work carried out at the treatment room at Heavy Ion Medical Accelerator (HIMAC), National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS), Chiba, Japan. The simulation results were verified with measurements data. The work was to measure the accuracy and quality of the dose distributions by Geant4 MC methods. The results show that the Bragg peak and spread out Bragg peak (SOBP) distributions in simulation has fairly good agreement with measurements.References
PTCOG. 2017. Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group. [Accessed March 2017].
Schulz-Ertner D. and Tsujii H. Particle radiation therapy using proton and heavier ion beams. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: pp 953-964.
Amaldi U. and Kraft G. Radiotherapy with beams of carbon ions. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2005; 68: pp. 1861–1882.
Okada T, Kamada T, Tsuji H, Mizoe J.E, Baba M, Kato S, Yamada S, Sugahara S, Yasuda S, Yamamoto N, Imai R, Hasegawa A, Imada H, Kiyohara H, Jingu K, Shinoto M, Tsujii H. Carbon Ion Radiotherapy: Clinical Experiences at National Institute of Radiological Science (NIRS). J. Radiat. Res 2010;51: pp.355–364.
Kamada T, Tsujii H, Tsuji H. Efficacy and safety of carbon ion radiotherapy in bone and soft tissue sarcomas. J Clin Oncol 2002;20: pp.4466– 4471.
Schulz-Ertner D, Nikoghosyan A, Thilmann C, Haberer T, Jakel O, Karger C, Kraft G, Wannenmacher M, Debus J. Results of carbon ion radiotherapy in 152 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 58: pp.631–640.
Halperin E.C. Particle therapy and treatment of cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2006; 7: pp.676-85.
Terasawa T, Dvorak T, Ip S, Raman G, Lau J, Trikalinos T.A. Systematic Review: Charged-Particle Radiation Therapy for Cancer. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: pp.556-565.
Allison J. and Apostolakis J. et al. Geant4 Collaboration. Geant4 Developments and Application IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science. 2006; 53 (1): pp. 270-278.
Agostinelli S, Allison J, Amako K. et al. Geant4 - a simulation toolkit. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. A. 2003; 506: pp.250-303.
Apostolakis J, Asai M, Bogdanov A.G. et al. Geometry and physics of the Geant4 toolkit for high and medium energy applications. Workshop on use of Monte Carlo techniques for design and analysis of radiation detectors. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 2009; 78: pp.859–873
Lechner A, Ivanchenko V.N, Knobloch J. Validation of recent Geant4 physics models for application in carbon ion therapy. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B. 2010; 268: pp. 2343–2354
Toshito T, Bagulya A, Lechner A. et al. Validation of New Geant4 Electromagnetic Physics Models for Ion Therapy Applications. Progress in Nuclear Science and Technology. 2011; 2: pp.918-922
Kameoka S, Amako K, Iwai G. et al. Dosimetric evaluation of nuclear interactionmodels in the Geant4 Monte Carlo simulation toolkit for carbon-ion radiotherapy. Radiol Phys Technol. 2008; 1: pp.183–187
Cirrone G.A.P. Hadrontherapy: a Geant4-Based Tool for Proton/Ion-Therapy Studies. Progress in NUCLEAR SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY. 2011; 2: pp.207-212.
Kameoka S, Amako K, Iwai G, Murakami K, Sasaki T, Toshito T, Yamashita T, Aso T, Kimura A, Kanai T, Kanematsu N, Komori M, Takei Y, Yonai S, Tashiro M, Koikegami H, Tomita H, Koi T. Dosimetric evaluation of nuclear interaction models in the Geant4 Monte Carlo simulation toolkit for carbon-ion radiotherapy. Radiol Phys Technol. 2008; 1(2): pp.183-7
Torikoshi M, Minohara S, Kanematsu N, Komori M, Kanazawa M, Noda K, Miyahara N, Itoh H, Endo M, Kanai T. Irradiation system for HIMAC. J Radiat Res 2007; 48: pp.A15–A25.
Kumar A, Jalota S and Gupta R. Simulation of depth-dose distributions for various ions in polyethylene medium, Adv .Space Res. 2012; 49: pp.1691-1697
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
JBCS Publication Ethics
JBCS is committed to ensure the publication process follows specific academic ethics. Hence, Authors, Reviewers and Editors are required to conform to standards of ethical guidelines.
Authors
Authors should discuss objectively the significance of research work, technical detail and relevant references to enable others to replicate the experiments. JBCS do not accept fraudulent or inaccurate statements that may constitute towards unethical conduct.
Authors should ensure the originality of their works. In cases where the work and/or words of others have been used, appropriate acknowledgements should be made. JBCS do not accept plagiarism in all forms that constitute towards unethical publishing of an article.
This includes simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal. Corresponding author is responsible for the full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Reviewers
Reviewers of JBCS treat manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Therefore, Reviewers must ensure the confidentiality and should not use privileged information and/or ideas obtained through peer review for personal advantage.
Reviews should be conducted based on academic merit and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments. In cases where selected Reviewer feels unqualified to review a manuscript, Reviewer should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process in TWO (2) weeks time from the review offer is made.
In any reasonable circumstances, Reviewers should not consider to evaluate manuscripts if they have conflicts of interest (i.e: competitive, collaborative and/or other connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions affiliated to the papers).
Editors
Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit. JBCS strictly do not allow editors to use unpublished information of authors without the written consent of the author. Editors are required to take appropriate responsive actions if ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences requires authors to declare all competing interests in relation to their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘competing interests section at the end of the manuscript listing all competing interests (financial and non-financial). Where authors have no competing interests, the statement should read ,The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Editors may ask for further information relating to competing interests.
Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests and will be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists. Competing interests may be financial or non-financial. A competing interest exists when the authors interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Authors should disclose any financial competing interests but also any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment if they were to become public after the publication of the article.
HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If there is suspicion that work has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors will follow the Misconduct policy and may reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s) institution or ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.
Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate, must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. Further information and documentation to support this should be made available to Editors on request.
Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The Basel Declaration outlines fundamental principles to adhere to when conducting research in animals and the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) has also published ethical guidelines.
A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines (e.g. the revised Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe) and/or ethical approval (including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate) must be included in the manuscript. The Editor will take account of animal welfare issues and reserves the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols that are inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.
INFORMED CONSENT
For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript, this includes to all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos relating to individual participants.
DATA SHARING POLICY
JBCS strongly encourages that all datasets on which the conclusions of the paper rely should be available to readers. We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files, in machine-readable format (such as spreadsheets rather than PDFs) whenever possible
Authors who do not wish to share their data must state that data will not be shared, and give the reason.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The JBCS retains the copyright of published manuscripts under the terms of the Copyright Transfer Agreement. However, the journal permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided permission to reuse, distribute and reproduce is obtained from the Journal's Editor and the original work is properly cited.
While the advice and information in this journal are believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the authors, the editors, nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (JBCS)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
