A Comparison between Electron Gamma Shower, National Research Council/Easy Particle Propagation (EGSnrc/Epp) and Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code (MCNP) in Simulation of the INTRABEAM ® System with Spherical Applicators.

Computer Simulation EGSnrc/Epp, Radiotherapy INTRABEAM® System MCNP4c Monte Carlo Method Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Simulation Spherical Applicators Statistical Uncertainty

Journal

Journal of biomedical physics & engineering
ISSN: 2251-7200
Titre abrégé: J Biomed Phys Eng
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101589641

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Historique:
received: 31 08 2020
accepted: 05 10 2020
entrez: 10 2 2021
pubmed: 11 2 2021
medline: 11 2 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Online Monte Carlo (MC) treatment planning is very crucial to increase the precision of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT). However, the performance of MC methods depends on the geometries and energies used for the problem under study. This study aimed to compare the performance of MC N-Particle Transport Code version 4c (MCNP4c) and Electron Gamma Shower, National Research Council/easy particle propagation (EGSnrc/Epp) MC codes using similar geometry of an INTRABEAM This simulation study was done by increasing the number of particles and compared the performance of MCNP4c and EGSnrc/Epp simulations using an INTRABEAM The statistical uncertainties for the MCNP4c and EGSnrc/Epp MC codes were below 2% and 0.5%, respectively. 1e9 particles were simulated in 117.89 hours using MCNP4c but a much greater number of particles (5e10 particles) were simulated in a shorter time of 90.26 hours using EGSnrc/Epp MC code. No significant deviations were found in the calculated relative depth-dose values for both in the presence and absence of an air gap between MCNP4c and EGSnrc/Epp MC codes. Nevertheless, the EGSnrc/Epp MC code was found to be speedier and more efficient to achieve accurate statistical precision than MCNP4c. Therefore, in all comparisons criteria used, EGSnrc/Epp MC code is much better than MCNP4c MC code for simulating an INTRABEAM

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Online Monte Carlo (MC) treatment planning is very crucial to increase the precision of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT). However, the performance of MC methods depends on the geometries and energies used for the problem under study.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare the performance of MC N-Particle Transport Code version 4c (MCNP4c) and Electron Gamma Shower, National Research Council/easy particle propagation (EGSnrc/Epp) MC codes using similar geometry of an INTRABEAM
MATERIAL AND METHODS METHODS
This simulation study was done by increasing the number of particles and compared the performance of MCNP4c and EGSnrc/Epp simulations using an INTRABEAM
RESULTS RESULTS
The statistical uncertainties for the MCNP4c and EGSnrc/Epp MC codes were below 2% and 0.5%, respectively. 1e9 particles were simulated in 117.89 hours using MCNP4c but a much greater number of particles (5e10 particles) were simulated in a shorter time of 90.26 hours using EGSnrc/Epp MC code. No significant deviations were found in the calculated relative depth-dose values for both in the presence and absence of an air gap between MCNP4c and EGSnrc/Epp MC codes. Nevertheless, the EGSnrc/Epp MC code was found to be speedier and more efficient to achieve accurate statistical precision than MCNP4c.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Therefore, in all comparisons criteria used, EGSnrc/Epp MC code is much better than MCNP4c MC code for simulating an INTRABEAM

Identifiants

DOI: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2008-1171 PMID: 33564639 PMC: PMC7859382
pubmed: 33564639
doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2008-1171
pii: JBPE-11-1
pmc: PMC7859382
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

47-54

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering.

Références

Med Phys. 2012 May;39(5):2829-38
pubmed: 22559655
Radiat Oncol. 2018 Jun 27;13(1):121
pubmed: 29945636
Phys Med Biol. 2011 Nov 21;56(22):N287-94
pubmed: 22036894
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Jul 15;65(4):1249-59
pubmed: 16798417
Phys Med. 2017 May;37:82-87
pubmed: 28535919
J Med Signals Sens. 2014 Jan;4(1):10-7
pubmed: 24696804
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Jul 28;62(16):6550-6566
pubmed: 28708603
Acta Oncol. 2015 Nov;54(10):1788-95
pubmed: 25800856
Phys Med Biol. 1991 Jul;36(7):861-920
pubmed: 1886926
Phys Med Biol. 1998 May;43(5):1351-7
pubmed: 9623663
Phys Med Biol. 2003 Nov 7;48(21):R107-64
pubmed: 14653555
Radiat Environ Biophys. 2020 May;59(2):295-306
pubmed: 32236740
Sci Rep. 2020 Jun 17;10(1):9808
pubmed: 32555530
J Med Signals Sens. 2013 Jul;3(3):172-9
pubmed: 24672765

Auteurs

E M Tegaw (EM)

PhD, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus (TUMS-IC), Tehran, Iran.
PhD, Department of Physics, Faculty of Natural and Computational Sciences, Debre Tabor University, Debre Tabor, Ethiopia.

Gh Geraily (G)

PhD, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus (TUMS-IC), Tehran, Iran.
PhD, Radiation Oncology Research Center, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

S M Etesami (SM)

PhD, School of Particles and Accelerators, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran.

S Gholami (S)

PhD, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus (TUMS-IC), Tehran, Iran.
PhD, Radiation Oncology Research Center, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

H Ghanbari (H)

PhD, Department of Medical Nanotechnology, School of Advanced Technologies in Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

M Farzin (M)

PhD, Radiation Oncology Research Center, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
PhD, Brain and Spinal Cord Injury Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

G F Tadesse (GF)

PhD, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus (TUMS-IC), Tehran, Iran.
PhD, Department of Physics, College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Aksum University, Ethiopia.

M Shojaei (M)

PhD, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus (TUMS-IC), Tehran, Iran.

Classifications MeSH