Comparative study of alternative Geant4 hadronic ion inelastic physics models for prediction of positron-emitting radionuclide production in carbon and oxygen ion therapy

© 2019 Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO.. The distribution of fragmentation products predicted by Monte Carlo simulations of heavy ion therapy depend on the hadronic physics model chosen in the simulation. This work aims to evaluate three alternative hadronic inelastic fragmentation physics options available in the Geant4 Monte Carlo radiation physics simulation framework to determine which model most accurately predicts the production of positron-emitting fragmentation products observable using in-beam PET imaging. Fragment distributions obtained with the BIC, QMD, and INCL + + physics models in Geant4 version 10.2.p03 are compared to experimental data obtained at the HIMAC heavy-ion treatment facility at NIRS in Chiba, Japan. For both simulations and experiments, monoenergetic beams are applied to three different block phantoms composed of gelatin, poly(methyl methacrylate) and polyethylene. The yields of the positron-emitting nuclei 11C, 10C and 15O obtained from simulations conducted with each model are compared to the experimental yields estimated by fitting a multi-exponential radioactive decay model to dynamic PET images using the normalised mean square error metric in the entrance, build up/Bragg peak and tail regions. Significant differences in positron-emitting fragment yield are observed among the three physics models with the best overall fit to experimental 12C and 16O beam measurements obtained with the BIC physics model

Experimental investigation of the characteristics of radioactive beams for heavy ion therapy.

PURPOSE: This work has two related objectives. The first is to estimate the relative biological effectiveness of two radioactive heavy ion beams based on experimental measurements, and compare these to the relative biological effectiveness of corresponding stable isotopes to determine whether or not they are therapeutically equivalent. The second aim is to quantitatively compare the quality of images acquired post-irradiation using an in-beam whole-body positron emission tomography scanner for range verification quality assurance. METHODS: The energy deposited by monoenergetic beams of 11 C at 350 MeV/u, 15 O at 250 MeV/u, 12 C at 350 MeV/u and 16 O at 430 MeV/u were measured using a cruciform transmission ionisation chamber in a water phantom at the Heavy Ion Medical Accelerator in Chiba (HIMAC), Japan. Dose-mean lineal energy was measured at various depths along the path of each beam in a water phantom using a silicon-on-insulator mushroom microdosimeter. Using the modi_ed microdosimetric kinetic model, the relative biological effectiveness at 10% survival fraction of the radioactive ion beams was evaluated and compared to that of the corresponding stable ions along the path of the beam. Finally, the post-irradiation distributions of positron annihilations resulting from the decay of positron-emitting nuclei were measured for each beam in a gelatin phantom using the in-beam whole-body positron emission tomography scanner at HIMAC. The depth of maximum positron-annihilation density was compared with the depth of maximum dose deposition and the signal-to-background ratios were calculated and compared for images acquired over 5 minutes and 20 minutes post irradiation of the phantom. RESULTS: In the entrance region, the RBE10 was 1.2 ± 0.1 for both 11 C and 12 C beams, while for 15 O and 16 O it was 1.4 ± 0.1 and 1.3 ± 0.1, respectively. At the Bragg peak, the RBE10 was 2.7 ± 0.4 for 11 C and 2.9 ± 0.4 for 12 C, while for 15 O and 16 O it was 2.7 ± 0.4 and 2.8 ± 0.4, respectively. In the tail region, RBE10 could only be evaluated for carbon; the RBE10 was 1.6 ± 0.2 and 1.5 ± 0.1 for 11 C and 12 C, respectively. Positron emission tomography images obtained from gelatin targets irradiated by radioactive ion beams exhibit markedly improved signal-to-background ratios compared to those obtained from targets irradiated by non-radioactive ion beams, with 5-fold and 11-fold increases in the ratios calculated for the 15 O and 11 C images compared with the values obtained for 16 O and 12 C, respectively. The difference between the depth of maximum dose and the depth of maximum positron annihilation density is 2.4 ± 0.8 mm for 11 C, compared to -5.6 ± 0.8 mm for 12 C and 0.9 ± 0.8 mm for 15 O versus -6.6 ± 0.8 mm for 16 O. CONCLUSIONS: The RBE10 values for 11 C and 15 O were found to be within the 95% confidence interval of the RBEs estimated for their corresponding stable isotopes across each of the regions in which it was evaluated. Furthermore, for a given dose, 11 C and 15 O beams produce much better quality images for range verification compared with 12 C and 16 O, in particular with regards to estimating the location of the Bragg peak