Simulation of large x-ray fields using independently measured source and geometry details.

Purpose: Obtain an accurate simulation of the dose from the 6 and 18 MV x-ray beams from a Siemens Oncor linear accelerator by comparing simulation to measurement. Constrain the simulation by independently determining parameters of the treatment head and incident beam, in particular, the energy and spot size. Methods: Measurements were done with the treatment head in three different configurations: (1) The clinical configuration, (2) the flattening filter removed, and (3) the target and flattening filter removed. Parameters of the incident beam and treatment head were measured directly. Incident beam energy and spectral width were determined from the percent-depth ionization of the raw beam (as described previously), spot size was determined using a spot camera, and the densities of the flattening filters were determined by weighing them. Simulations were done with EGSnrc/BEAMnrc code. An asymmetric simulation was used, including offsets of the spot, primary collimator, and flattening filter from the collimator rotation axis. Results: Agreement between measurement and simulation was obtained to the least restrictive of 1% or 1 mm at 6 MV, both with and without the flattening filter in place, except for the buildup region. At 18 MV, the agreement was 1.5%/1.5 mm with the flattening filter inmore » place and 1%/1 mm with it removed, except for in the buildup region. In the buildup region, the discrepancy was 2%/2 mm at 18 MV and 1.5%/1.5 mm at 6 MV with the flattening filter either removed or in place. The methodology for measuring the source and geometry parameters for the treatment head simulation is described. Except to determine the density of the flattening filter, no physical modification of the treatment head is necessary to obtain those parameters. In particular, the flattening filter does not need to be removed as was done in this work. Conclusions: Good agreement between measured and simulated dose distributions was obtained, even in the buildup region. The simulation was tightly constrained by independent measurements of parameters of the incident beam and treatment head. The method of obtaining the input parameters is described, and can be carried out on a clinical linear accelerator.« less

[1]  A Fenster,et al.  X-ray sources of medical linear accelerators: focal and extra-focal radiation. , 1993, Medical physics.

[2]  Frank Verhaegen,et al.  Monte Carlo modelling of external radiotherapy photon beams. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  Joseph Perl,et al.  Monte Carlo simulation of large electron fields , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  I. Kawrakow.  Accurate condensed history Monte Carlo simulation of electron transport. I. EGSnrc, the new EGS4 version. , 2000, Medical physics.

[5]  Helen H Liu,et al.  Report of the AAPM Task Group No. 105: Issues associated with clinical implementation of Monte Carlo-based photon and electron external beam treatment planning. , 2007, Medical physics.

[6]  D. Rogers,et al.  AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams. , 1999, Medical physics.

[7]  B A Faddegon,et al.  Determination of electron energy, spectral width, and beam divergence at the exit window for clinical megavoltage x-ray beams. , 2009, Medical physics.

[8]  M R McEwen,et al.  Influence of ion chamber response on in-air profile measurements in megavoltage photon beams. , 2005, Medical physics.

[9]  Omar Chibani,et al.  On the discrepancies between Monte Carlo dose calculations and measurements for the 18 MV varian photon beam. , 2007, Medical physics.

[10]  Frank Verhaegen,et al.  Validation of Monte Carlo calculated surface doses for megavoltage photon beams. , 2005, Medical physics.

[11]  R. Mohan,et al.  Determining the incident electron fluence for Monte Carlo-based photon treatment planning using a standard measured data set. , 2003, Medical physics.

[12]  Judith Balogh,et al.  Clinical considerations of Monte Carlo for electron radiotherapy treatment planning , 1998 .

[13]  B A Faddegon,et al.  The flatness of Siemens linear accelerator x-ray fields. , 1999, Medical physics.

[14]  B. Faddegon,et al.  Description and dosimetric verification of the PEREGRINE Monte Carlo dose calculation system for photon beams incident on a water phantom. , 2001, Medical physics.

[15]  B. Bjärngard,et al.  Evaluation of a beam-spot camera for megavoltage x rays. , 1988, Medical physics.

[16]  I. Kawrakow.  On the effective point of measurement in megavoltage photon beams. , 2006, Medical physics.

[17]  B Faddegon,et al.  Comparison of beam characteristics of a gold x-ray target and a tungsten replacement target. , 2004, Medical physics.

[18]  G. Ding,et al.  Dose discrepancies between Monte Carlo calculations and measurements in the buildup region for a high-energy photon beam. , 2002, Medical physics.

[19]  M Coghe,et al.  Decoupling initial electron beam parameters for Monte Carlo photon beam modelling by removing beam-modifying filters from the beam path , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[20]  A. Boyer,et al.  Tissue Inhomogeneity Corrections for Megavoltage Photon Beams , 2004 .

[21]  D W O Rogers,et al.  Monte Carlo calculation of nine megavoltage photon beam spectra using the BEAM code. , 2002, Medical physics.

[22]  D. Sheikh-Bagheri,et al.  Sensitivity of megavoltage photon beam Monte Carlo simulations to electron beam and other parameters. , 2002, Medical physics.

[23]  C. Ma,et al.  BEAM: a Monte Carlo code to simulate radiotherapy treatment units. , 1995, Medical physics.

[24]  M. Asai,et al.  Benchmarking of Monte Carlo simulation of bremsstrahlung from thick targets at radiotherapy energies. , 2008, Medical physics.

[25]  Analysis of dose perturbation factors of a NACP-02 ionization chamber in clinical electron beams. , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[26]  M R McEwen,et al.  The effective point of measurement of ionization chambers and the build-up anomaly in MV x-ray beams. , 2008, Medical physics.