Michael Douglass1, Eva Bezak, Scott Penfold. 1. School of Chemistry and Physics, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia. Michael.Douglass@adelaide.edu.au
Abstract
PURPOSE: Investigation of increased radiation dose deposition due to gold nanoparticles (GNPs) using a 3D computational cell model during x-ray radiotherapy. METHODS: Two GNP simulation scenarios were set up in Geant4; a single 400 nm diameter gold cluster randomly positioned in the cytoplasm and a 300 nm gold layer around the nucleus of the cell. Using an 80 kVp photon beam, the effect of GNP on the dose deposition in five modeled regions of the cell including cytoplasm, membrane, and nucleus was simulated. Two Geant4 physics lists were tested: the default Livermore and custom built Livermore/DNA hybrid physics list. 10(6) particles were simulated at 840 cells in the simulation. Each cell was randomly placed with random orientation and a diameter varying between 9 and 13 μm. A mathematical algorithm was used to ensure that none of the 840 cells overlapped. The energy dependence of the GNP physical dose enhancement effect was calculated by simulating the dose deposition in the cells with two energy spectra of 80 kVp and 6 MV. The contribution from Auger electrons was investigated by comparing the two GNP simulation scenarios while activating and deactivating atomic de-excitation processes in Geant4. RESULTS: The physical dose enhancement ratio (DER) of GNP was calculated using the Monte Carlo model. The model has demonstrated that the DER depends on the amount of gold and the position of the gold cluster within the cell. Individual cell regions experienced statistically significant (p < 0.05) change in absorbed dose (DER between 1 and 10) depending on the type of gold geometry used. The DER resulting from gold clusters attached to the cell nucleus had the more significant effect of the two cases (DER ≈ 55). The DER value calculated at 6 MV was shown to be at least an order of magnitude smaller than the DER values calculated for the 80 kVp spectrum. Based on simulations, when 80 kVp photons are used, Auger electrons have a statistically insignificant (p < 0.05) effect on the overall dose increase in the cell. The low energy of the Auger electrons produced prevents them from propagating more than 250-500 nm from the gold cluster and, therefore, has a negligible effect on the overall dose increase due to GNP. CONCLUSIONS: The results presented in the current work show that the primary dose enhancement is due to the production of additional photoelectrons.
PURPOSE: Investigation of increased radiation dose deposition due to gold nanoparticles (GNPs) using a 3D computational cell model during x-ray radiotherapy. METHODS: Two GNP simulation scenarios were set up in Geant4; a single 400 nm diameter gold cluster randomly positioned in the cytoplasm and a 300 nm gold layer around the nucleus of the cell. Using an 80 kVp photon beam, the effect of GNP on the dose deposition in five modeled regions of the cell including cytoplasm, membrane, and nucleus was simulated. Two Geant4 physics lists were tested: the default Livermore and custom built Livermore/DNA hybrid physics list. 10(6) particles were simulated at 840 cells in the simulation. Each cell was randomly placed with random orientation and a diameter varying between 9 and 13 μm. A mathematical algorithm was used to ensure that none of the 840 cells overlapped. The energy dependence of the GNP physical dose enhancement effect was calculated by simulating the dose deposition in the cells with two energy spectra of 80 kVp and 6 MV. The contribution from Auger electrons was investigated by comparing the two GNP simulation scenarios while activating and deactivating atomic de-excitation processes in Geant4. RESULTS: The physical dose enhancement ratio (DER) of GNP was calculated using the Monte Carlo model. The model has demonstrated that the DER depends on the amount of gold and the position of the gold cluster within the cell. Individual cell regions experienced statistically significant (p < 0.05) change in absorbed dose (DER between 1 and 10) depending on the type of gold geometry used. The DER resulting from gold clusters attached to the cell nucleus had the more significant effect of the two cases (DER ≈ 55). The DER value calculated at 6 MV was shown to be at least an order of magnitude smaller than the DER values calculated for the 80 kVp spectrum. Based on simulations, when 80 kVp photons are used, Auger electrons have a statistically insignificant (p < 0.05) effect on the overall dose increase in the cell. The low energy of the Auger electrons produced prevents them from propagating more than 250-500 nm from the gold cluster and, therefore, has a negligible effect on the overall dose increase due to GNP. CONCLUSIONS: The results presented in the current work show that the primary dose enhancement is due to the production of additional photoelectrons.
Authors: Ross I Berbeco; Alexandre Detappe; Panogiotis Tsiamas; David Parsons; Mammo Yewondwossen; James Robar Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: W B Li; A Belchior; M Beuve; Y Z Chen; S Di Maria; W Friedland; B Gervais; B Heide; N Hocine; A Ipatov; A P Klapproth; C Y Li; J L Li; G Multhoff; F Poignant; R Qiu; H Rabus; B Rudek; J Schuemann; S Stangl; E Testa; C Villagrasa; W Z Xie; Y B Zhang Journal: Phys Med Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Kate Ricketts; Reem Ahmad; Laura Beaton; Brian Cousins; Kevin Critchley; Mark Davies; Stephen Evans; Ifeyemi Fenuyi; Asterios Gavriilidis; Quentin J Harmer; David Jayne; Monica Jefford; Marilena Loizidou; Alexander Macrobert; Sam Moorcroft; Imad Naasani; Zhan Yuin Ong; Kevin M Prise; Steve Rannard; Thomas Richards; Giuseppe Schettino; Ricky A Sharma; Olivier Tillement; Gareth Wakefield; Norman R Williams; Elnaz Yaghini; Gary Royle Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Yucel Altundal; Gizem Cifter; Alexandre Detappe; Erno Sajo; Panagiotis Tsiamas; Piotr Zygmanski; Ross Berbeco; Robert A Cormack; Mike Makrigiorgos; Wilfred Ngwa Journal: Phys Med Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: H Rabus; W B Li; C Villagrasa; J Schuemann; P A Hepperle; L de la Fuente Rosales; M Beuve; S Di Maria; A P Klapproth; C Y Li; F Poignant; B Rudek; H Nettelbeck Journal: Phys Med Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 2.685
Authors: Ajlan Al Zaki; Daniel Joh; Zhiliang Cheng; André Luís Branco De Barros; Gary Kao; Jay Dorsey; Andrew Tsourkas Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2014-01-07 Impact factor: 15.881