1 / 18

GEANT4 simulation of an ocular proton beam & benchmark against MC codes

GEANT4 simulation of an ocular proton beam & benchmark against MC codes. D. R. Shipley, H. Palmans, C. Baker, A. Kacperek Monte Carlo 2005 Topical Meeting Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA 17 - 21 April 2005. Overview of talk. Introduction and advantages of proton therapy

lorna
Download Presentation

GEANT4 simulation of an ocular proton beam & benchmark against MC codes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. GEANT4 simulation of an ocular proton beam & benchmark against MC codes D. R. Shipley, H. Palmans, C. Baker, A. Kacperek Monte Carlo 2005 Topical Meeting Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA 17 - 21 April 2005

  2. Overview of talk • Introduction and advantages of proton therapy • Typical low-energy clinical proton therapy facility • 62 MeV ocular proton beam at the Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology (CCO), UK • GEANT4 simulations • Dose distributions for full-energy and modulated CCO beam line and comparison with measurement • Key physical processes and dose distributions for 50, 150, 250 MeV monoenergetic beams • Conclusions and future work

  3. Introduction • Proton therapy is on the increase due to commercial availability of turnkey facilities and reduced cost • Main treatment site is eye (melanoma) but more and more deep seated tumours • Dosimetry is not as well established as for x-ray therapy; NPL has research projects for improved proton dosimetry • Monte Carlo is essential for studying dosimetry, detector perturbation factors, stopping powers, etc.

  4. modulated 100 X - 10 MV 80 60 pdd 40 p - 100 MeV non-modulated 20 Tumour 0 0 2 4 6 8 z (cm) Background: Improved therapy using protons versus x-rays

  5. Principle of range modulation Dw z

  6. CCO proton beam line – treatment room

  7. CCO proton beam line – GEANT4 (VRML)

  8. GEANT4 simulations: general • GEANT4 6.2.p02 with Low Energy EM Physics package (G4EMLOW 2.3). • Physics processes: • ICRU 49 parameterisation: proton energy loss (EM interactions) • LHEP and HEP models: hadronic processes (non-elastic nuclear interactions) • recommended for use in medical applications (?) • Cuts • 0.02 mm in phantom (<< dose scoring region), 10 mm elsewhere • minimize any dependencies of particle transport on geometry

  9. GEANT4: CCO beam line • HadronTherapy (GEANT4): • calculates dose distributions in a PMMA phantom for the CCO beam line • derived from the HadronTherapy advanced example distributed with GEANT4 • depth dose and lateral dose distributions • modulated and full-energy (no mod wheel) beams • Comparison with: • McPTRAN.RZ: Palmans, NPL (2005) • and MCNPX • Film and diode measurements

  10. Depth and lateral dose distributions in PMMA: CCO full-energy beam Lateral dose: front face Depth dose Lateral dose: 0.5 x r0

  11. Depth and lateral dose distributions in PMMA: CCO modulated beam Lateral dose: front face Depth dose Lateral dose: 0.5 x r0

  12. GEANT4: monoenergetic beams • WaterPhantom (GEANT4) • calculates dose distributions in a water phantom for monoenergetic pencil beams • depth dose : 200 cylindrical slabs on beam axis • radial dose : 100 annular rings (0.1 mm thick) at 0.5, 0.9 x r0 • energy : scoring phase space data • at a plane – analysed with MATLAB • 50, 150, 250 MeV pencil proton beams • Comparison with: • PTRAN: Berger, NIST (1993) • MCNPX v2.5d (beta): LANL (2004) • SRIM v2003.12: Ziegler (2003)

  13. 180 180 40 CSDA 160 40 CSDA 160 CSDA 40 35 + energy straggling 140 CSDA 40 ) + energy straggling 35 CSDA 140 2 ) + energy straggling 35 CSDA cm 2 120 + energy straggling ) 30 35 cm 2 + multiple scattering 120 + energy straggling ) 30 -1 + multiple scattering cm 2 ) 30 -1 100 + multiple scattering cm 2 25 + nuclear interactions ) 30 -1 100 cm 2 25 + nuclear interactions -1 cm 80 25 dE/dx (MeV g -1 20 80 25 dE/dx (MeV g -1 20 dE/dx (MeV g 60 20 dE/dx (MeV g 60 15 20 dE/dx (MeV g 15 40 dE/dx (MeV g 15 40 10 15 10 20 10 20 5 10 0 5 0 5 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1.02 0 5 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1.02 0 z/r 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1.02 0 0 z/r 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1.02 0 0 z/r 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 1.02 0 z/r 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 z/r 0 z/r 0 Influence of key processes on depth dose distributions

  14. 1E+04 1E+04 CSDA 1E+04 CSDA 1E+04 1E+03 CSDA 1E+03 + multiple scattering CSDA 1E+03 + multiple scattering 1E+03 1E+02 + multiple scattering + energy straggling 1E+02 + energy straggling 1E+02 1E+02 1E+01 + nuclear interactions 1E+01 Dose (a.u.) 1E+01 Dose (a.u.) 1E+01 1E+00 Dose (a.u.) 1E+00 Dose (arb. units) 1E+00 1E+00 1E-01 1E-01 1E-01 1E-01 1E-02 1E-02 1E-02 1E-02 1E-03 1E-03 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 1E-03 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 1E-03 r (cm) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 r (cm) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 r (cm) r (cm) Influence of key processes on lateral dose distributions

  15. Depth dose distributions in water:monoenergetic beams 250 MeV 150 MeV 50 MeV

  16. Lateral dose distributions in water:monoenergetic beams 0.9 x r0 0.5 x r0

  17. Summary and conclusions • GEANT4: low-energy clinical proton beam (CCO): • full-energy beam: • overestimates Bragg peak by ~20% • modulated beam: • increasing depth dose profile with distinctive peak • sharper penumbra and ‘horns’ at edge of lateral dose profile • some dependence on GEANT4 models, daily beam variations and type of detector • GEANT4: monoenergetic proton beams (clinical energies) • different physical models (or their implementation) in the MC codes give distinct differences in dose distributions at these energies • improvements in GEANT4 model used is still needed (or a better physical model chosen)

  18. Future work • Proton stopping powers for clinical beams: • directly using Monte Carlo • from fluence spectra at depth • Perturbation factors for detectors • Graphite-to-water conversion factors • proton calorimetry (NPL)

More Related