Monte Carlo‐based investigations on the impact of removing the flattening filter on beam quality specifiers for photon beam dosimetry

Purpose The impact of removing the flattening filter in clinical electron accelerators on the relationship between dosimetric quantities such as beam quality specifiers and the mean photon and electron energies of the photon radiation field was investigated by Monte Carlo simulations. The purpose of this work was to determine the uncertainties when using the well‐known beam quality specifiers or energy‐based beam specifiers as predictors of dosimetric photon field properties when removing the flattening filter. Methods Monte Carlo simulations applying eight different linear accelerator head models with and without flattening filter were performed in order to generate realistic radiation sources and calculate field properties such as restricted mass collision stopping power ratios Symbol, mean photon and secondary electron energies. To study the impact of removing the flattening filter on the beam quality correction factors kQ, this factor for detailed ionization chamber models was calculated by Monte Carlo simulations. Symbol. No caption available. Stopping power ratios Symbol and kQ values for different ionization chambers as a function of Symbol and %dd(10)x were calculated. Moreover, mean photon energies in air and at the point of measurement in water as well as mean secondary electron energies at the point of measurement were calculated. Symbol. No caption available. Symbol. No caption available. Results The results revealed that removing the flattening filter led to a change within 0.3% in the relationship between %dd(10)x and Symbol, whereby the relationship between Symbol and Symbol changed up to 0.8% for high energy photon beams. However, Symbol was a good predictor of Symbol for both types of linear accelerator with energies Symbol 10 MeV with a maximal deviation between both types of accelerators of 0.23%. Symbol. No caption available. Symbol. No caption available. Symbol. No caption available. Symbol. No caption available. Symbol. No caption available. Symbol. No caption available. According to the results, the mean photon energy below the linear accelerators head as well as at the point of measurement may not be suitable as a predictor of Symbol and kQ to merge the dosimetry of both linear accelerator types. It was possible to derive Symbol using the mean secondary electron energy at the point of measurement as a predictor with an accuracy of 0.17%. A bias between kQ for linear accelerators with and without flattening filter within 1.1% and 1.6% was observed for Symbol and %dd(10)x respectively. Symbol. No caption available. Symbol. No caption available. Symbol. No caption available. Conclusion The results of this study have shown that removing the flattening filter led to a change in the relationship between the well‐known beam quality specifiers and dosimetric quantities at the point of measurement, namely Symbol, mean photon and electron energy. Furthermore, the results show that a beam profile correction is important for dose measurements with large ionization chambers in flattening filter free beams. Symbol. No caption available.

[1]  Iwan Kawrakow,et al.  NRC User Codes for EGSnrc , 2010 .

[2]  D W O Rogers,et al.  Which accelerator photon beams are "clinic-like" for reference dosimetry purposes? , 2003, Medical physics.

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

[4]  Iwan Kawrakow,et al.  Ionization chamber gradient effects in nonstandard beam configurations. , 2009, Medical physics.

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

[6]  D. Rogers,et al.  Monte Carlo calculations of kQ, the beam quality conversion factor. , 2010, Medical physics.

[7]  J Lehmann,et al.  Comparison between the TRS-398 code of practice and the TG-51 dosimetry protocol for flattening filter free beams , 2016, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  Tommy Knöös,et al.  Combining tissue-phantom ratios to provide a beam-quality specifier for flattening filter free photon beams. , 2014, Medical physics.

[9]  U Titt,et al.  A flattening filter free photon treatment concept evaluation with Monte Carlo. , 2006, Medical physics.

[10]  A. Maio,et al.  Monte Carlo simulation of a typical 60Co therapy source. , 1999, Medical physics.

[11]  M R McEwen,et al.  Measured and Monte Carlo calculated kQ factors: Accuracy and comparison. , 2011, Medical physics.

[12]  S. Sharma Unflattened photon beams from the standard flattening filter free accelerators for radiotherapy: Advantages, limitations and challenges , 2011, Journal of medical physics.

[13]  B. R. Muira,et al.  The central electrode correction factor for high-Z electrodes in small ionization chambers , 2011 .

[14]  I Kawrakow,et al.  Efficiency improvements for ion chamber calculations in high energy photon beams. , 2008, Medical physics.

[15]  P. Andreo,et al.  Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy: An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water , 2001 .

[16]  Niko Papanikolaou,et al.  Flattening filter‐free accelerators: a report from the AAPM Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group , 2015, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[17]  I. Kawrakow,et al.  Large efficiency improvements in BEAMnrc using directional bremsstrahlung splitting. , 2004, Medical physics.

[18]  B. Poppe,et al.  Understanding the lateral dose response functions of high-resolution photon detectors by reverse Monte Carlo and deconvolution analysis , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[19]  I. Kawrakow,et al.  The EGSnrc Code System: Monte Carlo Simulation of Electron and Photon Transport , 2016 .

[20]  Radhe Mohan,et al.  Properties of unflattened photon beams shaped by a multileaf collimator. , 2006, Medical physics.

[21]  Tommy Knöös,et al.  Current status and future perspective of flattening filter free photon beams. , 2011, Medical physics.

[22]  K Zink,et al.  Corrigendum: Monte Carlo calculated correction factors for diodes and ion chambers in small photon fields , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  S. Seltzer,et al.  Addendum to the AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon beams. , 2014, Medical physics.

[24]  T. Knöös,et al.  Prediction of stopping-power ratios in flattening-filter free beams. , 2010, Medical physics.

[25]  D W O Rogers,et al.  Relationship between %dd(10)x and stopping-power ratios for flattening filter free accelerators: a Monte Carlo study. , 2008, Medical physics.

[26]  Malcolm R McEwen,et al.  Measurement of ionization chamber absorbed dose k(Q) factors in megavoltage photon beams. , 2010, Medical physics.

[27]  J. Heverhagen,et al.  Investigation of correction factors for non-reference conditions in ion chamber photon dosimetry with Monte-Carlo simulations. , 2010, Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik.

[28]  D. Rogers,et al.  Corrected relationship between %dd(10)x and stopping-power ratios. , 1999, Medical physics.

[29]  Jason Cashmore,et al.  The characterization of unflattened photon beams from a 6 MV linear accelerator , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.