Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 27, 2026
Irradiator Commissioning and Dosimetry for Assessment of LQ α and β Parameters, Radiation Dosing Schema, and in vivo Dose Deposition
Published on: March 11, 2021
Systematic investigation on the validity of partition model dosimetry for 90Y radioembolization using Monte Carlo
Nurul Ab Aziz Hashikin1,2, Chai-Hong Yeong1,2, Susanna Guatelli3
1Department of Biomedical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Abstract:
We aimed to investigate the validity of the partition model (PM) in estimating the absorbed doses to liver tumour ([Formula: see text]), normal liver tissue ([Formula: see text]) and lungs ([Formula: see text]), when cross-fire irradiations between these compartments are being considered. MIRD-5 phantom incorporated with various treatment parameters, i.e. tumour involvement (TI), tumour-to-normal liver uptake ratio (T/N) and lung shunting (LS), were simulated using the Geant4 Monte Carlo (MC) toolkit. 108 track histories were generated for each combination of the three parameters to obtain the absorbed dose per activity uptake in each compartment ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text]). The administered activities, A were estimated using PM, so as to achieve either limiting doses to normal liver, [Formula: see text] or lungs, [Formula: see text] (70 or 30 Gy, respectively). Using these administered activities, the activity uptake in each compartment ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text]) was estimated and multiplied with the absorbed dose per activity uptake attained using the MC simulations, to obtain the actual dose received by each compartment. PM overestimated [Formula: see text] by 11.7% in all cases, due to the escaped particles from the lungs. [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] by MC were largely affected by T/N, which were not considered by PM due to cross-fire exclusion at the tumour-normal liver boundary. These have resulted in the overestimation of [Formula: see text] by up to 8% and underestimation of [Formula: see text] by as high as -78%, by PM. When [Formula: see text] was estimated via PM, the MC simulations showed significantly higher [Formula: see text] for cases with higher T/N, and LS ⩽ 10%. All [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] by MC were overestimated by PM, thus [Formula: see text] were never exceeded. PM leads to inaccurate dose estimations due to the exclusion of cross-fire irradiation, i.e. between the tumour and normal liver tissue. Caution should be taken for cases with higher TI and T/N, and lower LS, as they contribute to major underestimation of [Formula: see text]. For [Formula: see text], a different correction factor for dose calculation may be used for improved accuracy.
