COMPARATIVE STUDY
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, N.I.H., EXTRAMURAL
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Evaluation of a deterministic grid-based Boltzmann solver (GBBS) for voxel-level absorbed dose calculations in nuclear medicine.

To evaluate the 3D Grid-based Boltzmann Solver (GBBS) code ATTILA (®) for coupled electron and photon transport in the nuclear medicine energy regime for electron (beta, Auger and internal conversion electrons) and photon (gamma, x-ray) sources. Codes rewritten based on ATTILA are used clinically for both high-energy photon teletherapy and (192)Ir sealed source brachytherapy; little information exists for using the GBBS to calculate voxel-level absorbed doses in nuclear medicine. We compared DOSXYZnrc Monte Carlo (MC) with published voxel-S-values to establish MC as truth. GBBS was investigated for mono-energetic 1.0, 0.1, and 0.01 MeV electron and photon sources as well as (131)I and (90)Y radionuclides. We investigated convergence of GBBS by analyzing different meshes ([Formula: see text]), energy group structures ([Formula: see text]) for each radionuclide component, angular quadrature orders ([Formula: see text], and scattering order expansions ([Formula: see text]-[Formula: see text]); higher indices imply finer discretization. We compared GBBS to MC in (1) voxel-S-value geometry for soft tissue, lung, and bone, and (2) a source at the interface between combinations of lung, soft tissue, and bone. Excluding Auger and conversion electrons, MC agreed within  ≈5% of published source voxel absorbed doses. For the finest discretization, most GBBS absorbed doses in the source voxel changed by less than 1% compared to the next finest discretization along each phase space variable indicating sufficient convergence. For the finest discretization, agreement with MC in the source voxel ranged from  -3% to  -20% with larger differences at lower energies (-3% for 1 MeV electron in lung to  -20% for 0.01 MeV photon in bone); similar agreement was found for the interface geometries. Differences between GBBS and MC in the source voxel for (90)Y and (131)I were  -6%. The GBBS ATTILA was benchmarked against MC in the nuclear medicine regime. GBBS can be a viable alternative to MC for voxel-level absorbed doses in nuclear medicine. However, reconciliation of the differences between GBBS and MC at lower energies requires further investigation of energy deposition cross-sections.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app