Tegaw E M, Geraily Gh, Etesami S M, Gholami S, Ghanbari H, Farzin M, Tadesse G F, Shojaei M
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.
J Biomed Phys Eng. 2021 Feb 1;11(1):47-54. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2008-1171. eCollection 2021 Feb.
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 system.
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.
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 system.
在线蒙特卡罗（MC）治疗计划对于提高术中放射治疗（IORT）的精度至关重要。然而，MC方法的性能取决于所研究问题所使用的几何形状和能量。
本研究旨在使用INTRABEAM系统的相似几何形状比较MC N粒子输运代码版本4c（MCNP4c）和电子伽马淋浴、国家研究委员会/简易粒子传播（EGSnrc/Epp）MC代码的性能。
本模拟研究通过增加粒子数量进行，并比较了使用直径为1.5厘米和5厘米球形施源器的INTRABEAM系统时MCNP4c和EGSnrc/Epp模拟的性能。使用每个MC代码模拟后获得的模拟时间、统计不确定性和相对深度剂量值对这两种代码进行了比较。
MCNP4c和EGSnrc/Epp MC代码的统计不确定性分别低于2%和0.5%。使用MCNP4c在117.89小时内模拟了1e9个粒子，但使用EGSnrc/Epp MC代码在更短的90.26小时内模拟了更多数量的粒子（5e10个粒子）。在MCNP4c和EGSnrc/Epp MC代码之间，无论有无气隙，计算出的相对深度剂量值均未发现显著偏差。然而，发现EGSnrc/Epp MC代码比MCNP4c更快且更有效地实现准确的统计精度。
因此,在所有使用的比较标准中，对于模拟INTRABEAM系统，EGSnrc/Epp MC代码比MCNP4c MC代码要好得多。
