Cargando…

Comparison of penh, fluka, and Geant4/topas for absorbed dose calculations in air cavities representing ionization chambers in high‐energy photon and proton beams

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work is to analyze whether the Monte Carlo codes penh, fluka, and geant4/topas are suitable to calculate absorbed doses and [Formula: see text] ratios in therapeutic high‐energy photon and proton beams. METHODS: We used penh, fluka, geant4/topas, and egsnrc to calculate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baumann, Kilian‐Simon, Horst, Felix, Zink, Klemens, Gomà, Carles
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6851981/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31350915
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mp.13737
_version_ 1783469732561682432
author Baumann, Kilian‐Simon
Horst, Felix
Zink, Klemens
Gomà, Carles
author_facet Baumann, Kilian‐Simon
Horst, Felix
Zink, Klemens
Gomà, Carles
author_sort Baumann, Kilian‐Simon
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The purpose of this work is to analyze whether the Monte Carlo codes penh, fluka, and geant4/topas are suitable to calculate absorbed doses and [Formula: see text] ratios in therapeutic high‐energy photon and proton beams. METHODS: We used penh, fluka, geant4/topas, and egsnrc to calculate the absorbed dose to water in a reference water cavity and the absorbed dose to air in two air cavities representative of a plane‐parallel and a cylindrical ionization chamber in a 1.25 MeV photon beam and a 150 MeV proton beam — egsnrc was only used for the photon beam calculations. The physics and transport settings in each code were adjusted to simulate the particle transport as detailed as reasonably possible. From these absorbed doses, [Formula: see text] factors, [Formula: see text] factors, and [Formula: see text] ratios (which are the basis of Monte Carlo calculated beam quality correction factors [Formula: see text]) were calculated and compared between the codes. Additionally, we calculated the spectra of primary particles and secondary electrons in the reference water cavity, as well as the integrated depth–dose curve of 150 MeV protons in water. RESULTS: The absorbed doses agreed within 1.4% or better between the individual codes for both the photon and proton simulations. The [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] factors agreed within 0.5% or better for the individual codes for both beam qualities. The resulting [Formula: see text] ratios for 150 MeV protons agreed within 0.7% or better. For the 1.25 MeV photon beam, the spectra of photons and secondary electrons agreed almost perfectly. For the 150 MeV proton simulation, we observed differences in the spectra of secondary protons whereas the spectra of primary protons and low‐energy delta electrons also agreed almost perfectly. The first 2 mm of the entrance channel of the 150 MeV proton Bragg curve agreed almost perfectly while for greater depths, the differences in the integrated dose were up to 1.5%. CONCLUSION: penh, fluka, and geant4/topas are capable of calculating beam quality correction factors in proton beams. The differences in the [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] factors between the codes are 0.5% at maximum. The differences in the [Formula: see text] ratios are 0.7% at maximum.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6851981
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68519812019-11-18 Comparison of penh, fluka, and Geant4/topas for absorbed dose calculations in air cavities representing ionization chambers in high‐energy photon and proton beams Baumann, Kilian‐Simon Horst, Felix Zink, Klemens Gomà, Carles Med Phys COMPUTATIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DOSIMETRY PURPOSE: The purpose of this work is to analyze whether the Monte Carlo codes penh, fluka, and geant4/topas are suitable to calculate absorbed doses and [Formula: see text] ratios in therapeutic high‐energy photon and proton beams. METHODS: We used penh, fluka, geant4/topas, and egsnrc to calculate the absorbed dose to water in a reference water cavity and the absorbed dose to air in two air cavities representative of a plane‐parallel and a cylindrical ionization chamber in a 1.25 MeV photon beam and a 150 MeV proton beam — egsnrc was only used for the photon beam calculations. The physics and transport settings in each code were adjusted to simulate the particle transport as detailed as reasonably possible. From these absorbed doses, [Formula: see text] factors, [Formula: see text] factors, and [Formula: see text] ratios (which are the basis of Monte Carlo calculated beam quality correction factors [Formula: see text]) were calculated and compared between the codes. Additionally, we calculated the spectra of primary particles and secondary electrons in the reference water cavity, as well as the integrated depth–dose curve of 150 MeV protons in water. RESULTS: The absorbed doses agreed within 1.4% or better between the individual codes for both the photon and proton simulations. The [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] factors agreed within 0.5% or better for the individual codes for both beam qualities. The resulting [Formula: see text] ratios for 150 MeV protons agreed within 0.7% or better. For the 1.25 MeV photon beam, the spectra of photons and secondary electrons agreed almost perfectly. For the 150 MeV proton simulation, we observed differences in the spectra of secondary protons whereas the spectra of primary protons and low‐energy delta electrons also agreed almost perfectly. The first 2 mm of the entrance channel of the 150 MeV proton Bragg curve agreed almost perfectly while for greater depths, the differences in the integrated dose were up to 1.5%. CONCLUSION: penh, fluka, and geant4/topas are capable of calculating beam quality correction factors in proton beams. The differences in the [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] factors between the codes are 0.5% at maximum. The differences in the [Formula: see text] ratios are 0.7% at maximum. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-08-19 2019-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6851981/ /pubmed/31350915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mp.13737 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle COMPUTATIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DOSIMETRY
Baumann, Kilian‐Simon
Horst, Felix
Zink, Klemens
Gomà, Carles
Comparison of penh, fluka, and Geant4/topas for absorbed dose calculations in air cavities representing ionization chambers in high‐energy photon and proton beams
title Comparison of penh, fluka, and Geant4/topas for absorbed dose calculations in air cavities representing ionization chambers in high‐energy photon and proton beams
title_full Comparison of penh, fluka, and Geant4/topas for absorbed dose calculations in air cavities representing ionization chambers in high‐energy photon and proton beams
title_fullStr Comparison of penh, fluka, and Geant4/topas for absorbed dose calculations in air cavities representing ionization chambers in high‐energy photon and proton beams
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of penh, fluka, and Geant4/topas for absorbed dose calculations in air cavities representing ionization chambers in high‐energy photon and proton beams
title_short Comparison of penh, fluka, and Geant4/topas for absorbed dose calculations in air cavities representing ionization chambers in high‐energy photon and proton beams
title_sort comparison of penh, fluka, and geant4/topas for absorbed dose calculations in air cavities representing ionization chambers in high‐energy photon and proton beams
topic COMPUTATIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DOSIMETRY
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6851981/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31350915
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mp.13737
work_keys_str_mv AT baumannkiliansimon comparisonofpenhflukaandgeant4topasforabsorbeddosecalculationsinaircavitiesrepresentingionizationchambersinhighenergyphotonandprotonbeams
AT horstfelix comparisonofpenhflukaandgeant4topasforabsorbeddosecalculationsinaircavitiesrepresentingionizationchambersinhighenergyphotonandprotonbeams
AT zinkklemens comparisonofpenhflukaandgeant4topasforabsorbeddosecalculationsinaircavitiesrepresentingionizationchambersinhighenergyphotonandprotonbeams
AT gomacarles comparisonofpenhflukaandgeant4topasforabsorbeddosecalculationsinaircavitiesrepresentingionizationchambersinhighenergyphotonandprotonbeams