Document Type : Original Research
Authors
- E M Tegaw 1, 2
- Gh Geraily 1, 3
- S M Etesami 4
- S Gholami 1, 3
- H Ghanbari 5
- M Farzin 5, 6
- G F Tadesse 1, 7
- M Shojaei 1
1 PhD, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus (TUMS-IC), Tehran, Iran
2 PhD, Department of Physics, Faculty of Natural and Computational Sciences, Debre Tabor University, Debre Tabor, Ethiopia
3 PhD, Radiation Oncology Research Center, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 PhD, School of Particles and Accelerators, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
5 PhD, Department of Medical Nanotechnology, School of Advanced Technologies in Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
6 PhD, Brain and Spinal Cord Injury Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
7 PhD, Department of Physics, College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Aksum University, Ethiopia
Abstract
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: 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® system.
Material and 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® system with 1.5 and 5 cm diameter spherical applicators. A comparison of these two codes was done using simulation time, statistical uncertainty, and relative depth-dose values obtained after doing the simulation by each MC code.
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: Therefore, in all comparisons criteria used, EGSnrc/Epp MC code is much better than MCNP4c MC code for simulating an INTRABEAM® system.
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: 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® system.
Material and 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® system with 1.5 and 5 cm diameter spherical applicators. A comparison of these two codes was done using simulation time, statistical uncertainty, and relative depth-dose values obtained after doing the simulation by each MC code.
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: Therefore, in all comparisons criteria used, EGSnrc/Epp MC code is much better than MCNP4c MC code for simulating an INTRABEAM® system.
Keywords
- Verhaegen F, Seuntjens J. Monte Carlo modelling of external radiotherapy photon beams. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2003;48(21):R107-64. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/48/21/R01. PubMed PMID: 14653555.
- Liang Y, Muhammad W, Hart GR, Nartowt BJ, Chen ZJ, Yu JB, et al. A general-purpose Monte Carlo particle transport code based on inverse transform sampling for radiotherapy dose calculation. Scientific Reports. 2020;10(1):9808. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-66844-7. PubMed PMID: 32555530. PubMed PMCID: PMC7300009.
- Andreo P. Monte Carlo simulations in radiotherapy dosimetry. Radiation Oncology. 2018;13(1):121. doi: 10.1186/s13014-018-1065-3. PubMed PMID: 29945636. PubMed PMCID: PMC6020327.
- Andreo P. Monte Carlo techniques in medical radiation physics. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 1991;36:861-920. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/36/7/001. PubMed PMID: 1886926.
- Jabbari K, Anvar HS, Tavakoli MB, Amouheidari A. Monte Carlo Simulation of Siemens ONCOR Linear Accelerator with BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc Code. Journal of Medical Signals and Sensors. 2013;3(3):172-9. PubMed PMID: 24672765. PubMed PMCID: PMC3959007.
- Love P, Lewis D, Al-Affana I, Smith C. Comparison of EGS4 and MCNP Monte Carlo codes when calculating radiotherapy depth doses. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 1998;43:1351-7. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/43/5/024. PubMed PMID: 9623663.
- Sadoughi HR, Nasseri S, Momennezhad M, Sadeghi HR, Bahreyni-Toosi MH. A Comparison Between GATE and MCNPX Monte Carlo Codes in Simulation of Medical Linear Accelerator. Journal of Medical Signals and Sensors. 2014;4(1):10-7. PubMed PMID: 24696804. PubMed PMCID:PMC3967451.
- Kohno R, Hotta K, Nishioka S, Matsubara K, Tansho R, Suzuki T. Clinical implementation of a GPU-based simplified Monte Carlo method for a treatment planning system of proton beam therapy. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2011;56(22):N287-94. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/22/n03. PubMed PMID: 22036894.
- Martinez-Rovira I, Sempau J, Prezado Y. Monte Carlo-based treatment planning system calculation engine for microbeam radiation therapy. Medical Physics. 2012;39(5):2829-38. doi: 10.1118/1.4705351. PubMed PMID: 22559655.
- Mahmoudi A, Geraily G. EGSnrc/BEAMnrc-Based Monte Carlo Simulation of the Gamma Knife 4C versus MCNP Code in Homogeneous Media. Frontiers in Biomedical Technologies. 2020;7(1):33-40. doi: 10.18502/fbt.v7i1.2723.
- Yani S, Tursinah R, Rhani M, Haryanto F, Arif I. Comparison between EGSnrc and MCNPX for X-ray target in 6 MV photon beam. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2019;1127:12014. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1127/1/012014.
- Cui C, Lippuner J, Ingleby H, Valentino D, Elbakri I. Epp-A C++ EGSnrc user code for Monte Carlo simulation of radiation transport. Proc. SPIE 7622, Medical Imaging 2010: Physics of Medical Imaging; San Diego, California, United States: SPIE Proceedings; 2010. doi: 10.1117/12.844419.
- Schneider F, Bludau F, Clausen S, Fleckenstein J, Obertacke U, Wenz F. Precision IORT–Image guided intraoperative radiation therapy (igIORT) using online treatment planning including tissue heterogeneity correction. Physica Medica. 2017;37:82-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.04.017. PubMed PMID: 28535919.
- Neto A, Haddad C, Pelosi EL, Zevallos-Chávez J, Yoriyaz H, Siqueira P. Monte Carlo Simulation as an Auxiliary Tool for Electron Beam Quality Specification for Intra-Operative Radiotherapy. Brazilian Journal of Physics. 2005;35:801-4. doi: 10.1590/S0103-97332005000500021.
- Mostaar A, Allahverdi M, Shahriari M. Application of MCNP4C Monte Carlo code in radiation dosimetry in heterogeneous phantom. Int J Radiat Res. 2003;1(3):143-9.
- Hernandez G, Paredes Hany R, Cosson A, Gonzalez C, Hernández Rasquií J, Rodriguez I, et al. Intraoperative Radiation Therapy (INTRABEAM) Experience at the Mastology Unit Leopoldo Aguerrevere Clinic. Journal of Cancer Therapy. 2015;6(10):932-42.
- Tegaw EM, Gholami S, Omyan G, Geraily G. Dosimetric characteristics of the INTRABEAM ® system with spherical applicators in the presence of air gaps and tissue heterogeneities. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2020;59(2):295-306. doi: 10.1007/s00411-020-00835-0. PubMed PMID: 32236740.
- Moradi F, Ung NM, Khandaker MU, Mahdiraji GA, Saad M, Abdul Malik R, et al. Monte Carlo skin dose simulation in intraoperative radiotherapy of breast cancer using spherical applicators. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(16):6550-6. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa7fe6. PubMed PMID: 28708603.
- Bouzid D, Bert J, Dupre PF, Benhalouche S, Pradier O, Boussion N, et al. Monte-Carlo dosimetry for intraoperative radiotherapy using a low energy x-ray source. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(10):1788-95. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2015.1016623. PubMed PMID: 25800856.
- Chetty IJ, Rosu M, Kessler ML, Fraass BA, Ten Haken RK, Kong FM, et al. Reporting and analyzing statistical uncertainties in Monte Carlo-based treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65(4):1249-59. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.03.039. PubMed PMID: 16798417.
)