Dataset Information

PENELOPE/PRIMO-calculated photon and electron spectra from clinical accelerators.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The availability of photon and electron spectra in digital form from current accelerators and Monte Carlo (MC) systems is scarce, and one of the packages widely used refers to linacs with a reduced clinical use nowadays. Such spectra are mainly intended for the MC calculation of detector-related quantities in conventional broad beams, where the use of detailed phase-space files (PSFs) is less critical than for MC-based treatment planning applications, but unlike PSFs, spectra can easily be transferred to other computer systems and users. METHODS:A set of spectra for a range of Varian linacs has been calculated using the PENELOPE/PRIMO MC system. They have been extracted from PSFs tallied for field sizes of 10 cm × 10 cm and 15 cm × 15 cm for photon and electron beams, respectively. The influence of the spectral bin width and of the beam central axis region used to extract the spectra have been analyzed. RESULTS:Spectra have been compared to those by other authors showing good agreement with those obtained using the, now superseded, EGS4/BEAM MC code, but significant differences with the most widely used photon data set. Other spectra, particularly for electron beams, have not been published previously for the machines simulated in this work. The influence of the bin width on the spectrum mean energy for 6 and 10 MV beams has been found to be negligible. The size of the region used to extract the spectra yields differences of up to 40% for the mean energies in 10 MV beams, but the maximum difference for TPR 20,10 values derived from depth-dose distributions does not exceed 2% relative to those obtained using the PSFs. This corresponds to kQ differences below 0.2% for a typical Farmer-type chamber, considered to be negligible for reference dosimetry. Different configurations for using electron spectra have been compared for 6 MeV beams, concluding that the geometry used for tallying the PSFs used to extract the spectra must be accounted for in subsequent calculations using the spectra as a source. CONCLUSIONS:An up-to-date set of consistent spectra for Varian accelerators suitable for the calculation of detector-related quantities in conventional broad beams has been developed and made available in digital form.

SUBMITTER: Brualla L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6330451 | biostudies-other | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

PENELOPE/PRIMO-calculated photon and electron spectra from clinical accelerators.

Brualla Lorenzo L Rodriguez Miguel M Sempau Josep J Andreo Pedro P

Radiation oncology (London, England) 20190111 1

<h4>Background</h4>The availability of photon and electron spectra in digital form from current accelerators and Monte Carlo (MC) systems is scarce, and one of the packages widely used refers to linacs with a reduced clinical use nowadays. Such spectra are mainly intended for the MC calculation of detector-related quantities in conventional broad beams, where the use of detailed phase-space files (PSFs) is less critical than for MC-based treatment planning applications, but unlike PSFs, spectra ...[more]

PMID: 30634994

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo better meet clinical needs and facilitate optimal treatment planning, we added two new electron energy beams (7 and 11 MeV) to two Varian TrueBeam linacs.MethodsWe worked with the vendor to create two additional customized electron energies without hardware modifications. For each beam, we set the bending magnet current and then optimized other beam-specific parameters to achieve depths of 50% ionization (I50 ) of 2.9 cm for 7 MeV and 4.2 cm for the 11 MeV beam with the 15 × 15 cm2 cone at 100 cm source-to-surface distance (SSD) by using an ionization chamber profiler (ICP) with a double-wedge (DW) phantom. Beams were steered and balanced to optimize symmetry with the ICP. After all parameters were set, full commissioning was done including measuring beam profiles, percent depth doses (PDDs), output factors (OFs) at standard, and extended SSDs. Measured data were compared between the two linacs and against the values calculated by our RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) following Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a (MPPG 5.a) guidelines.ResultsThe I50 values initially determined with the ICP/DW agreed with those from a PDD-scanned in-water phantom within 0.2 mm for the 7 and 11 MeV on both linacs. Comparison of the beam characteristics from the two linacs indicated that flatness and symmetry agreed within 0.4%, and point-by-point differences in PDD were within 0.01% ± 0.3% for the 7 MeV and 0.01% ± 0.3% for the 11 MeV. The OF ratios between the two linacs were 1.000 ± 0.007 for the 7 MeV and 1.004 ± 0.007 for the 11 MeV. Agreement between TPS-calculated outputs and measurements were -0.1% ± 1.0% for the 7 MeV and 0.2% ± 0.8% for the 11 MeV. All other parameters met the MPPG 5.a's 3%/3-mm criteria.ConclusionWe were able to add two new beam energies with no hardware modifications. Tuning of the new beams was facilitated by the ICP/DW system allowing us to have the procedures done in a few hours and achieve highly consistent results across two linacs. PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc.

Project description:Although there are many works on evaluating dose calculations of the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) using various homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms, related work concerning dosimetry due to tangential photon beam is lacking. In this study, dosimetry predicted by the AAA and collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithm was evaluated using the tangential photon beam and phantom geometry. The photon beams of 6 and 15 MV with field sizes of 4 × 4 (or 7 × 7), 10 × 10 and 20 × 20 cm², produced by a Varian 21 EX linear accelerator, were used to test performances of the AAA and CCC using Monte Carlo (MC) simulation (EGSnrc-based code) as a benchmark. Horizontal dose profiles at different depths, phantom skin profiles (i.e., vertical dose profiles at a distance of 2 mm from the phantom lateral surface), gamma dose distributions, and dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of skin slab were determined. For dose profiles at different depths, the CCC agreed better with doses in the air-phantom region, while both the AAA and CCC agreed well with doses in the penumbra region, when compared to the MC. Gamma evaluations between the AAA/CCC and MC showed that deviations of 2D dose distribution occurred in both beam edges in the phantom and air-phantom interface. Moreover, the gamma dose deviation is less significant in the air-phantom interface than the penumbra. DVHs of skin slab showed that both the AAA and CCC underestimated the width of the dose drop-off region for both the 6 and 15 MV photon beams. When the gantry angle was 0°, it was found that both the AAA and CCC overestimated doses in the phantom skin profiles compared to the MC, with various photon beam energies and field sizes. The mean dose differences with doses normalized to the prescription point for the AAA and CCC were respectively: 7.6% ± 2.6% and 2.1% ± 1.3% for a 10 × 10 cm2 field, 6 MV; 16.3%± 2.1% and 6.7% ± 2.1% for a 20 × 20 cm2 field, 6 MV; 5.5% ± 1.2% and 1.7% ± 1.4% for a 10 × 10 cm2, 15 MV; 18.0% ± 1.3% and 8.3% ± 1.8% for a 20 × 20 cm², 15 MV. However, underestimations of doses in the phantom skin profile were found with small fields of 4 × 4 and 7 × 7 cm² for the 6 and 15 MV photon beams, respectively, when the gantry was turned 5° anticlockwise. As surface dose with tangential photon beam geometry is important in some radiation treatment sites such as breast, chest wall and sarcoma, it is found that neither of the treatment planning system algorithms can predict the dose well at depths shallower than 2 mm. The dosimetry data and beam and phantom geometry in this study provide a better knowledge of a dose calculation algorithm in tangential-like irradiation.

Dataset Information

PENELOPE/PRIMO-calculated photon and electron spectra from clinical accelerators.

Publications

PENELOPE/PRIMO-calculated photon and electron spectra from clinical accelerators.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets