Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33564639›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical physics & engineering2021

A Comparison between Electron Gamma Shower, National Research Council/Easy Particle Propagation (EGSnrc/Epp) and Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code (MCNP) in Simulation of the INTRABEAM ® System with Spherical Applicators.

E M Tegaw, Gh Geraily, S M Etesami, S Gholami, H Ghanbari, M Farzin, G F Tadesse, M Shojaei

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical physics & engineering, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 99% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

E M TegawPhD, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus (TUMS-IC), Tehran, Iran.
Gh GerailyPhD, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus (TUMS-IC), Tehran, Iran.
S M EtesamiPhD, School of Particles and Accelerators, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran.
S GholamiPhD, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus (TUMS-IC), Tehran, Iran.
H GhanbariPhD, Department of Medical Nanotechnology, School of Advanced Technologies in Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
M FarzinPhD, Radiation Oncology Research Center, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
G F TadessePhD, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus (TUMS-IC), Tehran, Iran.
M ShojaeiPhD, Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus (TUMS-IC), Tehran, Iran.
Tehran University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline 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.

objectiveThis 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 MATERIAL AND

methodsThis simulation study was done by increasing the number of particles and compared the performance of MCNP4c and EGSnrc/Epp simulations using an INTRABEAM

resultsThe 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.

conclusionTherefore, in all comparisons criteria used, EGSnrc/Epp MC code is much better than MCNP4c MC code for simulating an INTRABEAM

Indexed as

Computer SimulationEGSnrc/Epp, RadiotherapyINTRABEAM® SystemMCNP4cMonte Carlo MethodMonte Carlo N-Particle TransportSimulationSpherical ApplicatorsStatistical Uncertainty

Identifiers

PMID33564639
PMCPMC7859382
OpenAlexW3118347587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.