Dose evaluation with two Monte Carlo codes using patient specific voxel phantom is presented in this paper. We employ both MCNPX and DOSXYZnrc to perform dosimetry for mathematical voxel phantoms generated by our in-house developed voxel phantom generator and EGSnrc/CTCreate respectively.
MATERIAL AND METHOD:
Our case study was a 2.5 × 2.4 × 2.4 cm3 tumor in the middle lobe of right lung of a male patient exposed to 6MV parallel beam. In order to compare these Monte Carlo codes with together gross tumor volume (GTV) and organ at risks (OAR) doses and dose volume histograms (DVH) were calculated.
RESULTS:
Comparing the mean absorbed dose results (in Gy) from both codes indicates that gross tumor volume, heart and spinal cord have 2% to 10% difference. The 10% difference between the codes were from the spinal cord region where was not in the therapy beam and it just received the scatter radiation. The dose volume DVH obtained from DOSXYZnrc results demonstrate a milder slope compared with MCNPX DVHs.
CONCLUSION:
It was revealed that MCNPX has some advantages in comparison to DOSXYZnrc, but it is important to consider that for equal precision in voxel dosimetry calculation, DOSXYZnrc runs faster than MCNPX and it is a great advantage.
SiebersJ, KeallP, LibbyB, MohanR. Comparison of EGS4 and MCNP4b Monte Carlo codes for generation of photon phase space distributions for a Varian 2100C. Physics in Medicine and Biology1999; 44(12): 3009.
2.
CaonM. Voxel-based computational models of real human anatomy: A review. Radiat Environ Biophys2004; 42: 229-35.
3.
ZaidiH, XuG. Computational anthropomorphic models of the human anatomy: The path to realistic Monte Carlo modeling in radiological sciences. Annu Rev Biomed Eng2007; 9: 471-500.
4.
LiX, SameiE, SegarsWP, SturgeonGM, ColsherJG, TonchevaG, et al. Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: Part I. Development and validation of a Monte Carlo program. Med Phys2011; 38: 397-407.
5.
LiX, SameiE, SegarsWP, SturgeonGM, ColsherJG, TonchevaG, et al. Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: Part II. Application to patients. Med Phys2011; 38: 408-19.
6.
LeeC, LodwickD, HasenauerD, WilliamsJL, LeeC, BolchWE. Hybrid computational phantoms of the male and female newborn patient: NURBS-based whole-body models. Phys Med Biol2007; 52: 3309-33.
7.
LeeC, LodwickD, WilliamsJL, BolchWE. Hybrid computational phantoms of the 15-year male and female adolescent: Applications to CT organ dosimetry for patients of variable morphometry. Med Phys2008; 35: 2366-82.
8.
LeeC, LodwickD, HurtadoJ, PafundiD, WilliamsJL, BolchWE. The UF family of reference hybrid phantoms for computational radiation dosimetry. Phys Med Biol2010; 55: 339-63.
9.
DeakP, Van StratenM, ShrimptonPC, ZanklM, KalenderWA. Validation of a Monte Carlo tool for patient-specific dose simulations in multi-slice computed tomography. Eur Radiol2008; 18: 759-72.
10.
MyronakisM, PerisinakisK, TzedakisA, GourtsoyianniS, DamilakisJ. Evaluation of a patient-specific Monte Carlo software for CT dosimetry. Rad Prot Dosim2009; 133: 248-55.
11.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). RBE for Deterministic Effects, ICRP Publication 58. Ann. ICRP 20 (4): 1990.
12.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, 2007.
13.
KargJ, SpeerS, SchmidtS, MuellervR. The Monte Carlo code MCPTV - Monte Carlo dose calculation in radiation therapy with carbon ions. Phys Med Biol2010; 55: 3917.
14.
JabbariI, MonadiS. Development and validation of MCNPX-based Monte Carlo treatment plan verification system. Journal of medical physics/Association of Medical Physicists of India.2015; 40(2): 80.
15.
EstesGP, TaylorWM. Computational radiology and imaging with the MCNP Monte Carlo code. Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States), 1995.
16.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Adult Reference Computational Phantoms. Publication 110 (New York: Elsevier), 2009.
ChiavassaS, LemosquetA, Aubineau-LanieceI, de CarlanL, ClairandI, FerrerL, et al. Dosimetric comparison of Monte Carlo codes (EGS4, MCNP, MCNPX) considering external and internal exposures of the Zubal phantom to electron and photon sources. Radiation Protection Dosimetry2005; 116(1-4): 631-5.
19.
ChibaniaO, LiXA. Monte Carlo dose calculations in homogeneous media and at interfaces: A comparison between GEPTS, EGSnrc, MCNP, and measurements. Medical Physics2002; 29(5): 835-47.
20.
JerajR, KeallPJ, OstwaldPM. Comparisons between MCNP, EGS4 and experiment for clinical electron beams. Phys Med Biol1999; 44: 705-17.
21.
SteinfeldsE, editor Comparison of predictions by MCNP and EGSnrc of radiation dose imparted to various material targets by beams and small volumetric sources. Computational Medical Physics Working Group Workshop II; 2007; University of Florida (UF), Gainesville, Florida USA on CD-ROM, American Nuclear Society, LaGrange Park.
22.
MiftenM, WiesmeyerM, KapurA, MaCMC. Comparison of RTP dose distributions in heterogeneous phantoms with the BEAM Monte Carlo simulation system. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics2001; 2(1): 21-31.
23.
LiJS, PawlickiT, DengJ, JiangSB, MokE, MaCM. Validation of a Monte Carlo dose calculation tool for radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol2000; 45: 2969-85.
24.
SteinfeldsE, editor Comparison of predictions by MCNP and EGSnrc of radiation dose imparted to various material targets by beams and small volumetric sources. University of Florida (UF), Gainesville, American Nuclear Society, 2007.
25.
LoveP, LewisD, Al-AffanI, SmithC. Comparison of EGS4 and MCNP Monte Carlo codes when calculating radiotherapy depth doses. Physics in medicine and biology1998; 43(5): 1351.
26.
HadadK, MoghadamA, WatchmanCJ, HamiltonRJ. A CT Based Monte Carlo Dosimetry for Post Implant LDR Brachytherapy. Joint AAMP/COMP Meeting; Vancouver, Canada, 2011.
Van't RietA, MakAC, MoerlandMA, EldersLH, van der ZeeW. A conformation number to quantify the degree of conformality in brachytherapy and external beam irradiation: application to the prostate. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics1997; 37(3): 731-6.
34.
CollinsSP, CoppaND, ZhangY, CollinsBT, McRaeDA, JeanWC. CyberKnife® radiosurgery in the treatment of complex skull base tumors: analysis of treatment planning parameters. Radiation Oncology2006; 1(1): 1.
35.
KatariaT, SharmaK, SubramaniV, KarrthickK, BishtSS. Homogeneity Index: An objective tool for assessment of conformal radiation treatments. Journal of Medical Physics2012; 37(4): 207.
36.
PathakP, VashishtS. A quantitative analysis of intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans and comparison of homogeneity indices for the treatment of gynecological cancers. Journal of Medical Physics2013; 38(2): 67.
37.
MaylesP, RosenwaldJ-C. Handbook of Radiotherapy Physics Theory and Practice, 2007.
