Volume 26, Issue 4 (Iranian South Medical Journal 2024)
Iran South Med J 2024, 26(4): 236-247 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Taghipour H, Motevalli S M, Taherparvar P. Microdosimetric Evaluation of Physical and Biological Quantities due to Linear Energy Transfer in Proton Therapy Using Monte Carlo Simulation. Iran South Med J 2024; 26 (4) :236-247
URL: http://ismj.bpums.ac.ir/article-1-1859-en.html
URL: http://ismj.bpums.ac.ir/article-1-1859-en.html
1- Department of Nuclear Physics, School of Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
2- Department of Nuclear Physics, School of Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran ,motavali@umz.ac.ir
3- Department of Physics, School of Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
2- Department of Nuclear Physics, School of Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran ,
3- Department of Physics, School of Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
Abstract: (686 Views)
Background: In proton therapy, it is imperative to take the distribution of both the physical absorbed dose and the biological dose into account. Therefore, phenomenological models and a biophysical model such as microdosimetric kinetic model (MKM) have been developed for the biological dose calculation.
Materials and Methods: In order to determine the most accurate model for Chinese hamster V79 cell line, this study carried out comparisons between the linear term of the cell survival curve (α) and the dose parameter per 10% of the cell survival fraction (D10), calculated using phenomenological models and a biophysical model as a function of linear energy transfer (LET) and kinetic energy of proton beams as well as published experimental data. This research also calculates the biological dose with several phe-nomenological models and MKM as a function of depth in the water phantom.
Results: The results show that the α and D10 values of proton beams calculated with MKM are more con-sistent with the biological radiation data than those calculated with the phenomenological models. Of the phenomenological models, the calculation data from McNamara model are in better consistency with the experimental data than the other phenomenological models.
Conclusion: The ability of MKM to properly predict the biological dose distribution of proton beams with continual innovations and modifications showcases the importance of applying the correct model in treatment planning systems.
Materials and Methods: In order to determine the most accurate model for Chinese hamster V79 cell line, this study carried out comparisons between the linear term of the cell survival curve (α) and the dose parameter per 10% of the cell survival fraction (D10), calculated using phenomenological models and a biophysical model as a function of linear energy transfer (LET) and kinetic energy of proton beams as well as published experimental data. This research also calculates the biological dose with several phe-nomenological models and MKM as a function of depth in the water phantom.
Results: The results show that the α and D10 values of proton beams calculated with MKM are more con-sistent with the biological radiation data than those calculated with the phenomenological models. Of the phenomenological models, the calculation data from McNamara model are in better consistency with the experimental data than the other phenomenological models.
Conclusion: The ability of MKM to properly predict the biological dose distribution of proton beams with continual innovations and modifications showcases the importance of applying the correct model in treatment planning systems.
Keywords: Proton therapy, phenomenological models, biophysical models, treatment planning systems, biological dose
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
nuclear medicine
Received: 2023/11/11 | Accepted: 2024/01/27 | Published: 2024/03/3
Received: 2023/11/11 | Accepted: 2024/01/27 | Published: 2024/03/3
References
1. Motevalli SM, Mowlavi AA, Rahmani MA. Monte Carlo Simulation of proton therapy for breast cancer in compressed breast phantom. Iran South Med J 2015; 18(2): 288-295. (Persian) [Article]
2. Pourfallah T, Ahmadi A, Seifi Makrani D, et al. Analysis of hip joint dose in prostate cancer radiation therapy: A dosimetric comparison of treatment plans. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci 2021; 31(197): 123-131. (Persian) [DOI]
3. Mirzaie M, Mowlavi AA, Mohammadi S, et al. Absorbed dose calculation from beta and gamma rays of 131I in ellipsoidal thyroid and other organs of neck with MCNPX code. Iran South Med J 2012; 15(3): 201-208. (Persian) [Article]
4. Kase Y, Yamashita W, Matsufuji N, et al. Microdosimetric calculation of relative biological effectiveness for design of therapeutic proton beams. J Radiat Res 2013; 54(3): 485-493. [DOI]
5. Salim R, Taherparvar P. A Monte Carlo study on the effects of a static uniform magnetic field on micro-scale dosimetry of Auger-emitters using Geant4-DNA. Radiat Phys Chem 2022; 195: 110063. [DOI]
6. Ahmadi M, Motevalli SM, Taherparvar P. Carbon therapy of brain tumors and the effect of phantom compositions on dose calculations using Monte Carlo simulations. J Nucl Sci Technol 2022; 42(4): 64-71. (Persian) [DOI]
7. Taghipour H, Taherparvar P. Comparison of different model predictions on RBE in the proton therapy technique using the GATE code. Iran J Radiat Saf Meas 2020; 9(4): 15-24. (Persian) [Article]
8. Inaniwa T, Kanematsu N, Matsufuji N, et al. Reformulation of a clinical-dose system for carbon-ion radiotherapy treatment planning at the National Institute of Radiological Sciences, Japan. Phys Med Biol 2015; 60(8): 3271-3286. [DOI]
9. Bertolet A, Cortes-Giraldo MA, Carabe-Fernandez A. Implementation of the microdosimetric kinetic model using analytical microdosimetry in a treatment planning system for proton therapy. Phys Med 2021; 81: 69-76. [DOI]
10. Wilkens JJ, Oelfke U. A phenomenological model for the relative biological effectiveness in therapeutic proton beams. Phys Med Biol 2004; 49(13): 2811-2825. [DOI]
11. Wedenberg M, Lind BK, Hardemark B. A model for the relative biological effectiveness of protons: the tissue specific parameter α/β of photons is a predictor for the sensitivity to LET changes. Acta Oncol 2013; 52(3): 580-588. [DOI]
12. Carabe-Fernandez A, Dale RG, Jones B. The incorporation of the concept of minimum RBE (RBE min) into the linear-quadratic model and the potential for improved radiobiological analysis of high-LET treatments. Int J Radiat Biol 2007; 83(1): 27-39. [DOI]
13. McNamara AL, Schuemann J, Paganetti H. A phenomenological relative biological effectiveness (RBE) model for proton therapy based on all published in vitro cell survival data. Phys Med Biol 2015; 60(21): 8399-8416. [DOI]
14. Inaniwa T, Furukawa T, Kase Y, et al. Treatment planning for a scanned carbon beam with a modified microdosimetric kinetic model. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55(22): 6721-6737. [DOI]
15. Hawkins RB. A microdosimetric-kinetic model for the effect of non-Poisson distribution of lethal lesions on the variation of RBE with LET. Radiat Res 2003; 160(1): 61-69. [DOI]
16. Hawkins RB. A statistical theory of cell killing by radiation of varying linear energy transfer. Radiat Res 1994; 140(3): 366-374. [PubMed]
17. Kase Y, Kanai T, Matsumoto Y, et al. Microdosimetric measurements and estimation of human cell survival for heavy-ion beams. Radiat Res 2006; 166(4): 629-638. [DOI]
18. Chen Y, Li J, Li C, et al. A modified microdosimetric kinetic model for relative biological effectiveness calculation. Phys Med Biol 2017; 63(1): 015008. [DOI]
19. Dahle TJ, Magro G, Ytre-Hauge KS, et al. Sensitivity study of the microdosimetric kinetic model parameters for carbon ion radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 2018; 63(22): 225016. [DOI]
20. Magro G, Dahle TJ, Molinelli S, et al. The FLUKA Monte Carlo code coupled with the NIRS approach for clinical dose calculations in carbon ion therapy. Phys Med Biol 2017; 62(9): 3814-3827. [DOI]
21. Folkard M, Prise KM, Vojnovic B, et al. Inactivation of V79 cells by low-energy protons, deuterons and helium-3 ions. Int J Radiat Biol 1996; 69(6): 729-738. [DOI]
22. Belli M, Cera F, Cherubini R, et al. Inactivation and mutation induction in V79 cells by low energy protons: re-evaluation of the results at the LNL facility. Int J Radiat Biol 1993; 63(3): 331-337. [DOI]
23. Bortfeld T. An analytical approximation of the Bragg curve for therapeutic proton beams. Med Phys 1997; 24(12): 2024-2033. [DOI]
24. Kase Y, Kanai T, Matsufuji N, et al. Biophysical calculation of cell survival probabilities using amorphous track structure models for heavy-ion irradiation. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53(1): 37-59. [DOI]
25. Inaniwa T, Kanematsu N. Adaptation of stochastic microdosimetric kinetic model for charged-particle therapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol 2018; 63(9): 095011. [DOI]
26. Paganetti H. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and linear energy transfer. Phys Med Biol 2014; 59(22): R419-472. [DOI]
27. Abolfath R, Helo Y, Bronk L, et al. Renormalization of radiobiological response functions by energy loss fluctuations and complexities in chromosome aberration induction: deactivation theory for proton therapy from cells to tumor control. Eur Phys J D 2019; 73(64): 1-22. [DOI]
28. Taghipour H, Taherparvar P. Development of modified microdosimetric kinetic model for relative biological effectiveness in proton therapy. Radiat Environ Biophys 2022; 61(3): 375-390. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and Permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
