Technical note: Impact of beamline-specific particle energy spectra on clinical plans in carbon ion beam therapy.

PURPOSE: The Local Effect Model version one (LEM I) is applied clinically across Europe to quantify the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of carbon ion beams. It requires the full particle fluence spectrum differential in energy in each voxel as input parameter. Treatment planning systems (TPSs) use beamline-specific look-up tables generated with Monte Carlo (MC) codes. In this study, the changes in RBE weighted dose were quantified using different levels of details in the simulation or different MC codes. METHODS: The particle fluence differential in energy was simulated with FLUKA and Geant4 at 500 depths in water in 1-mm steps for 58 initial carbon ion energies (between 120.0 and 402.8 MeV/u). A dedicated beam model was applied, including the full description of the Nozzle using GATE-RTionV1.0 (Geant4.10.03p03). In addition, two tables generated with FLUKA were compared. The starting points of the FLUKA simulations were phase space (PhS) files from, firstly, the Geant4 nozzle simulations, and secondly, a clinical beam model where an analytic approach was used to mimic the beamline. Treatment plans (TPs) were generated with RayStation 8B (RaySearch Laboratories AB, Sweden) for cubic targets in water and 10 clinical patient cases using the clinical beam model. Subsequently, the RBE weighted dose was re-computed using the two other fluence tables (FLUKA PhS or Geant4). RESULTS: The fluence spectra of the primary and secondary particles simulated with Geant4 and FLUKA generally agreed well for the primary particles. Differences were mainly observed for the secondary particles. Interchanging the two energy spectra (FLUKA vs. GEANT4) to calculate the RBE weighted dose distributions resulted in average deviations of less than 1% in the entrance up to the end of the target region, with a maximum local deviation at the distal edge of the target. In the fragment tail, larger discrepancies of up to 5% on average were found for deep-seated targets. The patient and water phantom cases demonstrated similar results. CONCLUSION: RBE weighted doses agreed well within all tested setups, confirming the clinical beam model provided by the TPS vendor. Furthermore, the results showed that the open source and generally available MC code Geant4 (in particular using GATE or GATE-RTion) can also be used to generate basic beam data required for RBE calculation in carbon ion therapy.

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

PURPOSE: This paper presents a novel method for the calculation of three-dimensional (3D) Bragg-Gray water-to-detector stopping power ratio (sw,det ) distributions for proton and carbon ion beams. METHODS: Contrary to previously published fluence-based calculations of the stopping power ratio, the sw,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 sw,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 (sw,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 sw,air differences between the use of the default and the ICRU90 configuration were 0.6% and 5.4% at the physical range (R80 - 80% dose level in the distal dose fall-off) for a 70 MeV proton beam and a 120 MeV/u carbon ion beam, respectively. For protons, the sw,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 sw,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 sw,det calculation at any point of a 3D dose distribution for simple and complex proton and carbon ion plans was presented.

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

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.