Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2012 Oct 21;57(20):6381-93.
doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/20/6381. Epub 2012 Sep 21.

Comparison of MCNPX and Geant4 proton energy deposition predictions for clinical use

U Titt  1 , B Bednarz, H Paganetti
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of MCNPX and Geant4 proton energy deposition predictions for clinical use

U Titt et al. Phys Med Biol. .

Abstract

Several different Monte Carlo codes are currently being used at proton therapy centers to improve upon dose predictions over standard methods using analytical or semi-empirical dose algorithms. There is a need to better ascertain the differences between proton dose predictions from different available Monte Carlo codes. In this investigation Geant4 and MCNPX, the two most-utilized Monte Carlo codes for proton therapy applications, were used to predict energy deposition distributions in a variety of geometries, comprising simple water phantoms, water phantoms with complex inserts and in a voxelized geometry based on clinical CT data. The Gamma analysis was used to evaluate the differences of the predictions between the codes. The results show that in all the cases the agreement was better than clinical acceptance criteria.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example longitudinal and lateral energy deposition profiles calculated with Geant4 and with MCNPX, also showing the respective results of the Gamma analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Lateral and longitudinal energy deposition profiles in the complex phantom geometry. The lateral profiles shown in Figures 2a and 2c, as well as the longitudinal profiles (Figure 2e) show excellent agreement, as can be seen from the Gamma index analysis data given in Figure 2b, d and f.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Example of results of the dose prediction in a coronal slice of the CT geometry using (a.) MCNPX and (b.) Geant4 (values in MeV cm−3 per source particle). (c.) 2D Gamma analysis of energy deposition in a CT geometry representing a patient. Acceptance criteria were 2% and 2 mm in this case. White points were those with Γ > 1, i.e., points which failed. The CT image indicates the field size and direction of the proton beams.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Statistics of Gamma analysis results of the lateral profile comparisons at various depths for all water phantom cases investigated.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Statistics of Gamma analysis results of the longitudinal energy deposition profile comparisons of all water phantom cases.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Example of relative uncertainties, σ, of the 200 MeV proton simulation through an 8cm thick HBB, consistent of lung material, in a simple water phantom.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Agostinelli S, Allison J, Amako K, Apostolakis J, Araujo H, Arce P, Asai M, Axen D, Banerjee S, Barrand G, Behnerl F, Bellagamba L, Boudreau J, Broglia L, Brunengo A, Burkhardt H, Chauvie S, Chuma J, Chytracek R, Cooperman G, Cosmo G, Degtyarenko P, Dell’Acqua A, Depaola G, Dietrich D, Enami R, Feliciello A, Ferguson C, Fesefeldt H, Folger G, Foppiano F, Forti A, Garelli S, Giani S, Giannitrapani R, Gibin D, Cadenas JJG, Gonzalez I, Abril GG, Greeniaus G, Greiner W, Grichine V, Grossheim A, Guatelli S, Gumplinger P, Hamatsu R, Hashimoto K, Hasui H, Heikkinen A, Howard A, Ivanchenko V, Johnson A, Jones FW, Kallenbach J, Kanaya N, Kawabata M, Kawabata Y, Kawaguti M, Kelner S, Kent P, Kimura A, Kodama T, Kokoulin R, Kossov M, Kurashige H, Lamanna E, Lampen T, Lara V, Lefebure V, Lei F, Liendl M, Lockman W, Longo F, Magni S, Maire M, Medernach E, Minamimoto K, Freitas PMd, Morita Y, Murakami K, Nagamatu M, Nartallo R, Nieminen P, Nishimura T, Ohtsubo K, Okamura M, O’Neale S, Oohata Y, Paech K, Perl J, Pfeiffer A, Pia MG, Ranjard F, Rybin A, S. Sadilova a, Salvo ED, Santin G, Sasaki T, Savvas N, Sawada Y, Scherer S, Sei S, Sirotenko V, Smith D, Starkov N, Stoecker H, Sulkimo J, Takahata M, Tanaka S, Tcherniaev E, Tehrani ES, Tropeano M, Truscott P, Uno H, Urban L, Urban P, Verderi M, Walkden A, Wander W, Weber H, Wellisch JP, Wenaus T, Williams DC, Wright D, Yamada T, Yoshida H, Zschiesche D. Geant4—a simulation toolkit. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A. 2003;506:250–303.
    1. Allison J, Amako K, Apostolakis J, Araujo H, Dubois PA, Asai M, Barrand G, Capra R, Chauvie S, Chytracek R, Cirrone GAP, Cooperman G, Cosmo G, Cuttone G, Daquino GG, Donszelmann M, Dressel M, Folger G, Foppiano F, Generowicz J, Grichine V, Guatelli S, Gumplinger P, Heikkinen A, Hrivnacova I, Howard A, Incerti S, Ivanchenko V, Johnson T, Jones F, Koi T, Kokoulin R, Kossov M, Kurashige H, Lara V, Larsson S, Lei F, Link O, Longo F, Maire M, Mantero A, Mascialino B, McLaren I, Lorenzo PM, Minamimoto K, Murakami K, Nieminen P, Pandola L, Parlati S, Peralta L, Perl J, Pfeiffer A, Pia MG, Ribon A, Rodrigues P, Russo G, Sadilov S, Santin G, Sasaki T, Smith D, Starkov N, Tanaka S, Tcherniaev E, Tome B, Trindade A, Truscott P, Urban L, Verderi M, Walkden A, Wellisch JP, Williams DC, Wright D, Yoshida H. Geant4 developments and applications. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR. 2006;53:270–278.
    1. Bues M, Newhauser WD, Titt U, Smith AR. Therapeutic step and shoot proton beam spot-scanning with a multi-leaf collimator: a Monte Carlo study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;115:164–169. - PubMed
    1. ICRU. Report 44, Tissue Substitutes in Radiation Dosimetry and Measurement. International Commission on Radiation Unites & Measurements. 1989
    1. Jarlskog CZ, Paganetti H. Physics Settings for Using the Geant4 Toolkit in Proton Therapy. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science. 2008s;55:1018–1025.

Publication types