Evidence Hub

Validation of a Monte Carlo simulation for Microbeam Radiation Therapy on the Imaging and Medical Beamline at the Australian Synchrotron

Andrew Dipuglia, Matthew Cameron, Jeremy A. Davis, I. Cornelius, A. Stevenson, A. Rosenfeld, M. Petasecca, S. Corde et al.

Scientific Reports, 2019

38 citations

Abstract

Microbeam Radiation Therapy (MRT) is an emerging cancer treatment modality characterised by the use of high-intensity synchrotron-generated x-rays, spatially fractionated by a multi-slit collimator (MSC), to ablate target tumours. The implementation of an accurate treatment planning system, coupled with simulation tools that allow for independent verification of calculated dose distributions are required to ensure optimal treatment outcomes via reliable dose delivery. In this article we present data from the first Geant4 Monte Carlo radiation transport model of the Imaging and Medical Beamline at the Australian Synchrotron. We have developed the model for use as an independent verification tool for experiments in one of three MRT delivery rooms and therefore compare simulation results with equivalent experimental data. The normalised x-ray spectra produced by the Geant4 model and a previously validated analytical model, SPEC, showed very good agreement using wiggler magnetic field strengths of 2 and 3 T. However, the validity of absolute photon flux at the plane of the Phase Space File (PSF) for a fixed number of simulated electrons was unable to be established. This work shows a possible limitation of the G4SynchrotronRadiation process to model synchrotron radiation when using a variable magnetic field. To account for this limitation, experimentally derived normalisation factors for each wiggler field strength determined under reference conditions were implemented.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a simulation / modelling, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free