Calculation of electron and isotopes dose point kernels with fluka Monte Carlo code for dosimetry in nuclear medicine therapy

Journal Article · Fri Jul 15 04:00:00 EDT 2011 · Medical Physics

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3586038· OSTI ID:22098546

Botta, F.; Mairani, A.; Battistoni, G.; Cremonesi, M.; Di Dia, A.; Fasso, A.; Ferrari, A.; Ferrari, M.; Paganelli, G.; Pedroli, G.; Valente, M. ^[1]; CERN, 1211 Geneva 23 ^[2]

---

1. Medical Physics Department, European Institute of Oncology, Via Ripamonti 435, 20141 Milan (Italy)
2. Switzerland

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{sup -3} MeV) and for beta emitting isotopes commonly used for therapy ({sup 89}Sr, {sup 90}Y, {sup 131}I, {sup 153}Sm, {sup 177}Lu, {sup 186}Re, and {sup 188}Re). 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{center_dot}R{sub CSDA} and 0.9{center_dot}R{sub CSDA} for monoenergetic electrons (R{sub CSDA} being the continuous slowing down approximation range) and within 0.8{center_dot}X{sub 90} and 0.9{center_dot}X{sub 90} for isotopes (X{sub 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{center_dot}R{sub CSDA} and 0.9{center_dot}X{sub 90} for electrons and isotopes, respectively. Results: Concerning monoenergetic electrons, within 0.8{center_dot}R{sub 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{center_dot}X{sub 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.

• OSTI ID: 22098546
• Journal Information: Medical Physics, Journal Name: Medical Physics Journal Issue: 7 Vol. 38; ISSN 0094-2405; ISSN MPHYA6
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE
BETA SPECTRA
COMPUTERIZED SIMULATION
ELECTRONS
IODINE 131
LUTETIUM 177
MONTE CARLO METHOD
PATIENTS
POINT KERNELS
RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS
RADIATION DOSES
RADIATION PROTECTION
RADIOTHERAPY
RHENIUM 186
RHENIUM 188
SAMARIUM 153
SKELETON
SLOWING-DOWN
STRONTIUM 89
YTTRIUM 90