| 1. |
- Arce, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Report on G4-Med, a Geant4 benchmarking system for medical physics applications developed by the Geant4 Medical Simulation Benchmarking Group
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Medical Physics. - : Wiley. - 0094-2405 .- 2473-4209. ; 48:1, s. 19-56
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Geant4 is a Monte Carlo code extensively used in medical physics for a wide range of applications, such as dosimetry, micro- and nanodosimetry, imaging, radiation protection, and nuclear medicine. Geant4 is continuously evolving, so it is crucial to have a system that benchmarks this Monte Carlo code for medical physics against reference data and to perform regression testing. Aims: To respond to these needs, we developed G4-Med, a benchmarking and regression testing system of Geant4 for medical physics. Materials and Methods: G4-Med currently includes 18 tests. They range from the benchmarking of fundamental physics quantities to the testing of Monte Carlo simulation setups typical of medical physics applications. Both electromagnetic and hadronic physics processes and models within the prebuilt Geant4 physics lists are tested. The tests included in G4-Med are executed on the CERN computing infrastructure via the use of the geant-val web application, developed at CERN for Geant4 testing. The physical observables can be compared to reference data for benchmarking and to results of previous Geant4 versions for regression testing purposes. Results: This paper describes the tests included in G4-Med and shows the results derived from the benchmarking of Geant4 10.5 against reference data. Discussion: Our results indicate that the Geant4 electromagnetic physics constructor G4EmStandardPhysics_option4 gives a good agreement with the reference data for all the tests. The QGSP_BIC_HP physics list provided an overall adequate description of the physics involved in hadron therapy, including proton and carbon ion therapy. New tests should be included in the next stage of the project to extend the benchmarking to other physical quantities and application scenarios of interest for medical physics. Conclusion: The results presented and discussed in this paper will aid users in tailoring physics lists to their particular application.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Svahn, T M, et al.
(författare)
-
Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Breast. - : Elsevier BV. - 1532-3080. ; 24:2, s. 93-99
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- We examined how radiation dose levels in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) differ from those used in 2-view full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Acquisition parameter settings and information on the average absorbed dose to the glandular tissues within the breasts were reviewed based on clinical studies that evaluated DBT and FFDM. Dose ratios (DDBT/DFFDM) were derived from imaging protocols, which included tomosynthesis in 1- or 2-views alone, and as an adjunct technique to FFDM. Stand-alone DBT was associated with a much lower to a slightly higher radiation dose compared to that of comparable FFDM units, as summarized in dose ratio ranges of 0.34-1.0 for 1-view DBT, and 0.68-1.17 for 2-view DBT. One of the lowest reported dose estimates was obtained using a photon-counting DBT unit (avg. 0.70 mGy/scan; range: 0.28-1.26 mGy). Breast doses for DBT combined with FFDM are summarized in dose ratio ranges of 1.03-1.5 for 1-view DBT plus FFDM, and 2.0-2.23 for 2-view DBT plus FFDM. In the latter of these settings, the dose was reduced by ∼45% when 2D-views, reconstructed from the DBT images ("synthetic 2D images"), were used as a substitute for FFDM. Stand-alone DBT operated at lower to slightly higher radiation doses in comparison to FFDM. For DBT combined with FFDM, radiation doses were elevated, at maximum by a factor ∼2 1/4 of that of FFDM alone. In this setting, a replacement of FFDM with synthetic 2D-views reduced the breast dose approximately by half, which has substantial implications for population screening programs.
|
|
