Multiscale Monte Carlo simulations of gold nanoparticle dose‐enhanced radiotherapy I: Cellular dose enhancement in microscopic models
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background The introduction of Gold NanoParticles (GNPs) in radiotherapy treatments necessitates considerations such as GNP size, location, and quantity, as well as patient geometry and beam quality. Physics considerations span length scales across many orders of magnitude (nanometer‐to‐centimeter), presenting challenges that often limit the scope of dosimetric studies to either micro‐ or macroscopic scales. Purpose To investigate GNP dose‐enhanced radiation Therapy (GNPT) through Monte Carlo (MC) simulations that bridge micro‐to‐macroscopic scales. The work is presented in two parts, with Part I (this work) investigating accurate and efficient MC modeling at the single cell level to calculate nucleus and cytoplasm Dose Enhancement Factors (n,cDEFs), considering a broad parameter space including GNP concentration, GNP intracellular distribution, cell size, and incident photon energy. Part II then evaluates cell dose enhancement factors across macroscopic (tumor) length scales. Methods Different methods of modeling gold within cells are compared, from a contiguous volume of either pure gold or gold‐tissue mixture to discrete GNPs in a hexagonal close‐packed lattice. MC simulations with EGSnrc are performed to calculate n,cDEF for a cell with radius µm and nucleus µm considering 10 to 370 keV incident photons, gold concentrations from 4 to 24 mg Au /g tissue , and three different GNP configurations within the cell: GNPs distributed around the surface of the nucleus (perinuclear) or GNPs packed into one (or four) endosome(s). Select simulations are extended to cells with different cell (and nucleus) sizes: 5 µm (2, 3, and 4 µm), 7.35 µm (4 and 6 µm), and 10 µm (7, 8, and 9 µm). Results n,cDEFs are sensitive to the method of modeling gold in the cell, with differences of up to 17% observed; the hexagonal lattice of GNPs is chosen (as the most realistic model) for all subsequent simulations. Across cell/nucleus radii, source energies, and gold concentrations, both nDEF and cDEF are highest for GNPs in the perinuclear configuration, compared with GNPs in one (or four) endosome(s). Across all simulations of the ( r cell , r nuc ) = (7.35, 5) µm cell, nDEFs and cDEFs range from unity to 6.83 and 3.87, respectively. Including different cell sizes, nDEFs and cDEFs as high as 21.5 and 5.5, respectively, are observed. Both nDEF and cDEF are maximized at photon energies above the K‐ or L‐edges of gold by 10 to 20 keV. Conclusions Considering 5000 unique simulation scenarios, this work comprehensively investigates many physics trends on DEFs at the cellular level, including demonstrating that cellular DEFs are sensitive to gold modeling approach, intracellular GNP configuration, cell/nucleus size, gold concentration, and incident source energy. These data should prove especially useful in research as well as treatment planning, allowing one to optimize or estimate DEF using not only GNP uptake, but also account for average tumor cell size, incident photon energy, and intracellular configuration of GNPs. Part II will expand the investigation, taking the Part I cell model and applying it in cm‐scale phantoms.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».