# Standardization and Validation of Brachytherapy Seeds’ Modelling Using GATE and GGEMS Monte Carlo Toolkits

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{*}

^{†}

## Abstract

**:**

## Simple Summary

## Abstract

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. AAPM TG-43 Formalism (Anisotropy, Radial Dose, Dose Constant)

_{k}, measured in U, where U stands for cGy cm

^{2}h

^{−1}; the geometry factor, G(r, θ); the dose rate constant, Λ.

**r**is the distance to the point of interest and

**θ**is the angle with respect to the long axis of the source (Figure 1).

**r**denotes the distance (in cm) away from the centre of the active source to the point of interest,

**r**denotes the reference distance which is specified to be 1 cm, and

_{0}**θ**denotes the polar angle specifying the point of interest

**P(r,θ)**, relative to the source longitudinal axis. The reference angle,

**θ**, defines the source transverse plane, and is specified to be 90° or π/2 radians (Figure 1). The Z- and Y-axis are chosen as the longitudinal and transverse axes, respectively. The origin is taken as the centre of the active part, with the positive Z-axis directed through the source tip [11].

_{0}#### 2.2. Brachytherapy Seeds (Oncoseed, Isoseed, VS2000, M-19, mHDR-v1, mPDR-v2)

^{125}I sources, the Amersham Oncoseed 6711 and the Bebig Isoseed I25.S06; three High Dose Rate (HDR)

^{192}Ir sources, Nucletron mHDR-v1 (classic), Varian VS2000 and SPEC HDR-M19; and one Pulsed Dose Rate (PDR)

^{192}Ir source, the Nucletron mPDR-v2 [11].

#### 2.3. MC Simulations (GATE/GGEMS)

#### 2.4. Physics List

#### 2.5. Phase Space Files (Blender–GATE–GGEMS)

^{6}primaries. For this PHSP only gamma particles were recorded, and no secondary particles were taken into account.

^{6}particles.

#### 2.6. Clinical Case (Brachytherapy Plan with 67 Seeds)

^{8}primaries were simulated in both GATE and GGEMS. In both cases, the Track Length Estimator (TLE) [30] was used, to reduce the statistical uncertainty of the recorded energy deposition, as well as to accelerate simulations. The TLE actor involves a local energy deposition by secondary electrons. In addition, TLE recorded the absorbed dose during the whole trajectory of each simulated energy particle, consequently reducing the required number of primaries needed to converge. Organ dose distributions were also investigated in terms of the cumulative Dose Volume Histogram (cDVH), as it is important clinical information that is utilized by any TPS during planning.

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Validation of GATE Simulated Data–TG-43 Protocol

^{12}primaries. The statistical difference between the simulated and the TG-43 provided RDF values was lower than 1%, which is the limit advised for acceptance by the TG-43. Figure 3 displays the RDF comparison for every studied source. It must be mentioned that the same points were calculated for both simulation toolkits and the same points had been used by the TG-43 (even if some data are shown in continuous lines).

^{−1}U

^{−1}; U equals cGy cm

^{2}h

^{−1}.

#### 3.2. Validation of GGEMS with GATE

#### 3.2.1. Amersham Health 6711-Anisotropy, Radial Dose, Dose Constant, Dose Profiles

#### 3.2.2. One (1) Seed–Patient CT

#### 3.2.3. Sixty-Seven (67) Seeds–CT Phantom–Clinical Case

^{8}primaries in a computer cluster of 120 processors (ARIS High Performance Computers). The same simulation was executed in GGEMS in only 162 s on a single NVIDIA 960M GTX GPU, on a single PC. The presented significant time reduction of MC simulation using GGEMS while keeping the same computational accuracy, compared to GATE, may allow the integration of the proposed method in routine clinical practice.

## 4. Discussion

^{8}primaries in a computer cluster of 120 processors (ARIS Hyper computer). To achieve lower statistical uncertainty (<1%) for the whole body 10

^{10}primaries could be used. This would result to an increase in computational time by at least 100 times. Thus, we did not produce such results.

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Morató, S.; Juste, B.; Peris, S.; Miro, R. Brachytherapy organ dose estimation using Monte Carlo simulations of realistic patient models. In Proceedings of the 2018 40th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Honolulu, HI, USA, 17–21 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Salgueiro, M.J.; Collia, N.; Duran, H.; Palmieri, M.; Medina, V.; Ughetti, R.; Nicolini, J.; Zubillaga, M. Biological effects of brachytherapy using a (32)P-patch on the skin of Sencar mice. Appl. Radiat. Isot.
**2009**, 67, 1769–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Baltas, D.; Kolotas, C.; Geramani, K.; Mould, R.F.; Ioannidis, G.; Kekchidi, M.; Zamboglou, N. A conformal index (COIN) to evaluate implant quality and dose specification in brachytherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.
**1998**, 40, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sturdza, A.; Pötter, R.; Fokdal, L.U.; Haie-Meder, C.; Tan, L.T.; Mazeron, R.; Petric, P.; Šegedin, B.; Jurgenliemk-Schulz, I.M.; Nomden, C.; et al. Image guided brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: Improved pelvic control and survival in RetroEMBRACE, a multicenter cohort study. Radiother. Oncol.
**2016**, 120, 428–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fokdal, L.; Sturdza, A.; Mazeron, R.; Haie-Meder, C.; Tan, L.T.; Gillham, C.; Šegedin, B.; Jürgenliemk-Schultz, I.; Kirisits, C.; Hoskin, P.; et al. Image guided adaptive brachytherapy with combined intracavitary and interstitial technique improves the therapeutic ratio in locally advanced cervical cancer: Analysis from the retroEMBRACE study. Radiother. Oncol.
**2016**, 120, 434–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Laan, R.C.; Nout, R.A.; Dankelman, J.; Van De Berg, N.J. MRI-driven design of customised 3D printed gynaecological brachytherapy applicators with curved needle channels. 3D Print. Med.
**2019**, 5, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Zhou, Z.; Jiang, S.; Yang, Z.; Zhou, L. Personalized planning and training system for brachytherapy based on virtual reality. Virtual Real.
**2019**, 23, 347–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nath, R.; Rivard, M.J.; DeWerd, L.A.; Dezarn, W.A.; Ii, H.T.H.; Ibbott, G.; Meigooni, A.S.; Ouhib, Z.; Rusch, T.W.; Siebert, F.-A.; et al. Guidelines by the AAPM and GEC-ESTRO on the use of innovative brachytherapy devices and applications: Report of Task Group 167. Med. Phys.
**2016**, 43, 3178–3205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - ESTRO. A Practical Guide to Quality Control of Brachytherapy Equipment; European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy; Venselaar, J., Perez-Calatayud, J., Eds.; ESTRO: Brussels, Belgium, 2004; Booklet No. 8. [Google Scholar]
- Nath, R.; Anderson, L.L.; Luxton, G.; Weaver, K.A.; Williamson, J.F.; Meigooni, A.S. Dosimetry of Interstitial Brachytherapy Sources: Full Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 43. Med. Phys.
**1995**, 22, 209–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rivard, M.J.; Coursey, B.M.; DeWerd, L.A.; Hanson, W.F.; Huq, M.S.; Ibbott, G.S.; Mitch, M.G.; Nath, R.; Williamson, J.F. Update of AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: A revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations. Med. Phys.
**2004**, 31, 633–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Perez-Calatayud, J.; Ballester, F.; Das, R.K.; DeWerd, L.A.; Ibbott, G.S.; Meigooni, A.S.; Ouhib, Z.; Rivard, M.J.; Sloboda, R.S.; Williamson, J.F. Dose calculation for photon-emitting brachytherapy sources with average energy higher than 50 keV: Report of the AAPM and ESTRO. Med. Phys.
**2012**, 39, 2904–2929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Beaulieu, L.; Tedgren, C.; Carrier, J.-F.; Davis, S.D.; Mourtada, F.; Rivard, M.J.; Thomson, R.M.; Verhaegen, F.; Wareing, T.A.; Williamson, J.F. Report of the Task Group 186 on model-based dose calculation methods in brachytherapy beyond the TG-43 formalism: Current status and recommendations for clinical implementation. Med. Phys.
**2012**, 39, 6208–6236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Rivard, M.J.; Butler, W.M.; DeWerd, L.A.; Huq, M.S.; Ibbott, G.S.; Meigooni, A.S.; Melhus, C.S.; Mitch, M.G.; Nath, R.; Williamson, J.F. Supplement to the 2004 update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report. Med. Phys.
**2007**, 34, 2187–2205. [Google Scholar] - Williamson, J.; Rivard, M. Quantitative dosimetry methods for brachytherapy. In Brachytherapy Physics, Second Edition: Proceedings of AAPM 2005 Summer School; Thomadsen, B., Rivard, M., Butler, W., Eds.; Medical Physics Publishing: Madison, WI, USA, 2005; pp. 233–294. [Google Scholar]
- Seco, J.; Verhaegen, F. Monte Carlo Techniques in Radiation Therapy; Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Papagiannis, P.; Pantelis, E.; Karaiskos, P. Current state of the art brachytherapy treatment planning dosimetry algorithms. Br. J. Radiol.
**2014**, 87, 20140163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Jan, S.; Santin, G.; Strul, D.; Staelens, S.; Assié, K.; Autret, D.; Avner, S.; Barbier, R.; Bardies, M.; Bloomfield, P.M.; et al. GATE: A simulation toolkit for PET and SPECT. Phys. Med. Biol.
**2004**, 49, 4543–4561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Jan, S.; Benoit, D.; Becheva, E.; Carlier, T.; Cassol, F.; Descourt, P.; Frisson, T.; Grevillot, L.; Guigues, L.; Maigne, L.; et al. GATE V6: A major enhancement of the GATE simulation platform enabling modelling of CT and radiotherapy. Phys. Med. Biol.
**2011**, 56, 881–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bert, J.; Benoit, D.; Garcia, M.-P.; Visvikis, D. GGEMS: GPU GEant4-based Monte Carlo Simulation platform. In Proceedings of the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, Strasbourg, France, 29 October–6 November 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Sarrut, D.; Bardiès, M.; Boussion, N.; Freud, N.; Jan, S.; Létang, J.-M.; Loudos, G.; Maigne, L.; Marcatili, S.; Mauxion, T.; et al. A review of the use and potential of the GATE Monte Carlo simulation code for radiation therapy and dosimetry applications. Med. Phys.
**2014**, 41, 064301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Papadimitroulas, P. Dosimetry applications in GATE Monte Carlo toolkit. Phys. Med.
**2017**, 41, 136–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Afsharpour, H.; Landry, G.; D’Amours, M.; Enger, S.; Reniers, B.; Poon, E.; Carrier, J.-F.; Verhaegen, F.; Beaulieu, L. ALGEBRA: ALgorithm for the heterogeneous dosimetry based on GEANT4 for BRAchytherapy. Phys. Med. Biol.
**2012**, 57, 3273–3280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Lemarechal, Y.; Bert, J.; Falconnet, C.; Després, P.; Valeri, A.; Schick, U.; Pradier, O.; Garcia, M.-P.; Boussion, N.; Visvikis, D. GGEMS-Brachy: GPU GEant4-based Monte Carlo simulation for brachytherapy applications. Phys. Med. Biol.
**2015**, 60, 4987–5006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Hissoiny, S.; Ozell, B.; Bouchard, H.; Desprês, P. GPUMCD: A new GPU-oriented Monte Carlo dose calculation platform. Med. Phys.
**2011**, 38, 754–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Jia, X.; Gu, X.; Graves, Y.J.; Folkerts, M.; Jiang, S.B. GPU-based fast Monte Carlo simulation for radiotherapy dose calculation. Phys. Med. Biol.
**2011**, 56, 7017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Mountris, K.A.; Bert, J.; Noailly, J.; Aguilera, A.R.; Valeri, A.; Pradier, O.; Schick, U.; Promayon, E.; Ballester, M.A.G.; Troccaz, J.; et al. Modeling the impact of prostate edema on LDR brachytherapy: A Monte Carlo dosimetry study based on a 3D biphasic finite element biomechanical model. Phys. Med. Biol.
**2017**, 62, 2087–2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mountris, K.; Bert, J.; Visvikis, D. Prostate brachytherapy optimization using GPU accelerated simulated annealing and Monte Carlo dose simulation. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium, Medical Imaging Conference and Room-Temperature Semiconductor Detector Workshop (NSS/MIC/RTSD), Strasbourg, France, 29 October–6 November 2016; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar]
- Mountris, K.; Bert, J.; Boussion, N.; Valeri, A.; Schick, U.; Visvikis, D. ORACLE: A DVH-based inverse planning system for LDR prostate brachytherapy using MC dosimetry. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Monte Carlo Techniques for Medical Applications, Napoli, Italy, 15–18 October 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Williamson, J.F. Monte Carlo evaluation of kerma at a point for photon transport problems. Med. Phys.
**1987**, 14, 567–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mittone, A.; Baldacci, F.; Bravin, A.; Brun, E.; Delaire, F.; Ferrero, C.; Gasilov, S.; Freud, N.; Létang, J.M.; Sarrut, D.; et al. An efficient numerical tool for dose deposition prediction applied to synchrotron medical imaging and radiation therapy. J. Synchrotron. Radiat.
**2013**, 20, 785–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Baldacci, F.; Mittone, A.; Bravin, A.; Coan, P.; Delaire, F.; Ferrero, C.; Gasilov, S.; Letang, J.; Sarrut, D.; Smekens, F.; et al. A track length estimator method for dose calculations in low-energy X-ray irradiations: Implementation, properties and performance. Z. Med. Phys.
**2014**, 25, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Blender Open Source 3D Creation. Available online: https://www.blender.org/ (accessed on 1 October 2021).
- AAPM/ESTRO. The BRAchytherapy PHYsics Quality Assurance System. Available online: https://www.estro.org/About/ESTRO-Organisation-Structure/Committees/GEC-ESTRO-Committee/GEC-ESTRO-BRAPHYQS (accessed on 1 October 2021).

**Figure 1.**Geometric representation for the calculation of radial dose function and anisotropy function, for cylindrical sources.

**Figure 4.**Radial Dose Function for Amersham Health 6711 (LDR). Comparison between GATE and GGEMS simulation results.

**Figure 5.**Profile of absorbed dose in water sphere (15 cm radius) of the Amersham Health 6711 Brachytherapy

^{125}I seed. The voxel size is 0.25 mm, and image dimensions are 89 × 13 × 89 voxels (this does not cover the whole water sphere). The seed is in the middle and oriented towards the inside of the paper.

**Figure 6.**Profile of absorbed dose of the simulation of Amersham Health 6711 inserted in the CT phantom. Transverse orientation is used (as seen in Figure 7). (

**A**) is the profile plot at the centre of the seed, (

**B**) is the profile plot at the edge of the source, and (

**C**) is a profile plot away from the seed. In (

**D**), the profile plot when all slices were summed into one is depicted for the whole developed phantom.

**Figure 7.**Simulation of a clinical case with 67 Amersham Health 6711 seeds in a prostate. Dose maps are shown for both toolkits (

**A**) GATE and (

**B**) GGEMS. White stands for maximum absorbed dose (100%). In (

**C**) a profile comparison is depicted for both simulation tools. The line seen on (

**A**) and (

**B**) images is the region where the dose profile is taken.

**Figure 8.**Slice of prostate irradiation, with the segmentation of organs and the deposited energy. Left: GATE simulation. Right: GGEMS simulation. (

**A**) Transverse, (

**B**) Coronal and (

**C**) Sagittal slice. With colour, areas with similar dose are shown. Blue: Dose > 50%. Green: Dose > 100%. Red: Dose > 150%.

**Table 1.**Average Statistical Difference of Anisotropy Function, for all seeds, when simulation output is compared with TG-43 data.

Source | Distance (cm) | Average Difference (%) |
---|---|---|

Amersham Health 6711 ^{125}I | 0.5 | 2.8 |

1.0 | 3.0 | |

2.0 | 2.8 | |

3.0 | 2.6 | |

5.0 | 3.8 | |

Bebig Theragenics ^{125}I | 0.5 | 6.0 |

1.0 | 3.7 | |

2.0 | 3.8 | |

3.0 | 3.1 | |

5.0 | 5.4 | |

Nucletron mHDR-v1 ^{192}Ir | 0.5 | 3.5 |

1.0 | 4.1 | |

2.0 | 3.5 | |

3.0 | 4.1 | |

5.0 | 4.5 | |

Varian VS2000 ^{192}Ir | 0.5 | 2.6 |

1.0 | 1.4 | |

2.0 | - | |

3.0 | 2.8 | |

5.0 | 2.1 | |

Nucletron mPDR-v2 ^{192}Ir | 0.5 | 3.4 |

1.0 | 2.9 | |

2.0 | 1.6 | |

3.0 | 1.7 | |

5.0 | 2.0 | |

SPEC Μ-19 ^{192}Ir | 0.5 | 3.4 |

1.0 | 2.7 | |

2.0 | 3.7 | |

3.0 | 3.7 | |

5.0 | 3.8 |

**Table 2.**Dose Rate Constant (in cGy h-1 U-1), for all seeds, when simulation output is compared with TG-43 data.

Source | GATE | TG-43 | Difference % |
---|---|---|---|

Amersham Health 6711 ^{125}I | 1.012 | 1.012 | 0.0 |

Bebig Theragenics ^{125}I | 1.012 | 1.012 | 0.0 |

Nucletron mHDR-v1 ^{192}Ir | 1.114 | 1.109 | 0.5 |

Varian VS2000 ^{192}Ir | 1.097 | 1.098 | 0.1 |

Nucletron mPDR-v2 ^{192}Ir | 1.101 | 1.108 | 0.6 |

SPEC Μ-19 ^{192}Ir | 1.1 | 1.13 | 2.7 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Chatzipapas, K.P.; Plachouris, D.; Papadimitroulas, P.; Mountris, K.A.; Bert, J.; Visvikis, D.; Mihailidis, D.; Kagadis, G.C.
Standardization and Validation of Brachytherapy Seeds’ Modelling Using GATE and GGEMS Monte Carlo Toolkits. *Cancers* **2021**, *13*, 5315.
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13215315

**AMA Style**

Chatzipapas KP, Plachouris D, Papadimitroulas P, Mountris KA, Bert J, Visvikis D, Mihailidis D, Kagadis GC.
Standardization and Validation of Brachytherapy Seeds’ Modelling Using GATE and GGEMS Monte Carlo Toolkits. *Cancers*. 2021; 13(21):5315.
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13215315

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Chatzipapas, Konstantinos P., Dimitris Plachouris, Panagiotis Papadimitroulas, Konstantinos A. Mountris, Julien Bert, Dimitris Visvikis, Dimitris Mihailidis, and George C. Kagadis.
2021. "Standardization and Validation of Brachytherapy Seeds’ Modelling Using GATE and GGEMS Monte Carlo Toolkits" *Cancers* 13, no. 21: 5315.
https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13215315