Calculation of electron and isotopes dose point kernels with FLUKA Monte Carlo code for dosimetry in nuclear medicine therapy
Calculation of electron and isotopes dose point kernels with FLUKA Monte Carlo code for dosimetry in nuclear medicine therapy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1118/1.3586038
复制
发表时间：
2011-07-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Valente, M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Botta, F.;Mairani, A.;Valente, M.
目的：患者特定剂量分布的计算可以通过蒙特卡罗模拟或分析方法实现。在这项研究中，FLUKA蒙特卡罗程序已被认为是用于核医学剂量学。到目前为止，FLUKA主要致力于其他领域，即高能物理，辐射防护和强子治疗。当第一次采用蒙特卡罗代码的核医学剂量学，其结果有关的电子传输的能量典型的核医学应用需要进行验证。这通常通过计算代表性参数并与参考数据进行比较来实现。剂量点核（DPK），量化的能量沉积周围的点各向同性source.Methods：FLUKA DPKS已计算在水和致密骨的单能电子（10 - 3 MeV）和β发射同位素通常用于治疗（Sr-89，Y-90，I-131，Sm-153，Lu-177，Re-186，Re-188）。在水（骨）球的中心模拟了点各向同性源，并在同心壳中记录了沉积能量。将FLUKA结局与PENDIX PE v.2008结果进行了比较，也在本研究中进行了计算。此外，在单能电子在水中的情况下，与文献（ETRAN，GEANT 4，MCNPX）的数据进行了比较。单能电子在0. 8. R-CSDA和0. 9. R-CSDA范围内的最大百分比差异（R-CSDA为连续减速近似范围），同位素在0.8.X-90和0.9.X-90范围内（X-90是其中90%的发射能量被吸收的球体的半径），电子和同位素的平均百分差值分别在0.9.R-CSDA和0.9.X-90以内。对于单能电子，在0. 8. R-CSDA范围内，（其中90%-97%的粒子能量被沉积），FLUKA和PENDENPEPE的一致性大多在7%以内，除了10和20 keV的电子（水中12%，骨中8.3%）。FLUKA与其他码之间的差异与比较其他码时观察到的差异具有相同的数量级，这可以参考不同的仿真算法。当考虑β光谱时，差异显著减小：在0.9.X-90范围内，FLUKA和PENDERNE PE在水中的差异小于1%，在骨中的差异小于2%。FLUKA DPKs的完整数据作为补充材料，作为一种工具来执行剂量学分析点核convolution.Conclusions：FLUKA提供了可靠的结果时，在低能量范围内传输电子，证明是一个足够的工具，用于核医学剂量学。(C)2011年美国医学物理学家协会。[DOI 10.1118/1.3586038]
Purpose: The calculation of patient-specific dose distribution can be achieved by Monte Carlo simulations or by analytical methods. In this study, FLUKA Monte Carlo code has been considered for use in nuclear medicine dosimetry. Up to now, FLUKA has mainly been dedicated to other fields, namely high energy physics, radiation protection, and hadrontherapy. When first employing a Monte Carlo code for nuclear medicine dosimetry, its results concerning electron transport at energies typical of nuclear medicine applications need to be verified. This is commonly achieved by means of calculation of a representative parameter and comparison with reference data. Dose point kernel (DPK), quantifying the energy deposition all around a point isotropic source, is often the one.Methods: FLUKA DPKS have been calculated in both water and compact bone for monoenergetic electrons (10-3 MeV) and for beta emitting isotopes commonly used for therapy (Sr-89, Y-90, I-131, Sm-153, Lu-177, Re-186, and Re-188). Point isotropic sources have been simulated at the center of a water (bone) sphere, and deposed energy has been tallied in concentric shells. FLUKA outcomes have been compared to PENELOPE v.2008 results, calculated in this study as well. Moreover, in case of monoenergetic electrons in water, comparison with the data from the literature (ETRAN, GEANT4, MCNPX) has been done. Maximum percentage differences within 0.8.R-CSDA and 0.9.R-CSDA for monoenergetic electrons (R-CSDA being the continuous slowing down approximation range) and within 0.8.X-90 and 0.9.X-90 for isotopes (X-90 being the radius of the sphere in which 90% of the emitted energy is absorbed) have been computed, together with the average percentage difference within 0.9.R-CSDA and 0.9.X-90 for electrons and isotopes, respectively.Results: Concerning monoenergetic electrons, within 0.8.R-CSDA (where 90%-97% of the particle energy is deposed), FLUKA and PENELOPE agree mostly within 7%, except for 10 and 20 keV electrons (12% in water, 8.3% in bone). The discrepancies between FLUKA and the other codes are of the same order of magnitude than those observed when comparing the other codes among them, which can be referred to the different simulation algorithms. When considering the beta spectra, discrepancies notably reduce: within 0.9.X-90, FLUKA and PENELOPE differ for less than 1% in water and less than 2% in bone with any of the isotopes here considered. Complete data of FLUKA DPKs are given as Supplementary Material as a tool to perform dosimetry by analytical point kernel convolution.Conclusions: FLUKA provides reliable results when transporting electrons in the low energy range, proving to be an adequate tool for nuclear medicine dosimetry. (C) 2011 American Association of Physicists in Medicine. [DOI:10.1118/1.3586038]