• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.120-125
• /
• 2010

For the measurements of an absorbed dose using the standard dosimetry based on an absorbed dose to water the variety of factors, whether big, small, or tiny, may influence the accuracy of dosimetry. The beam quality correction factor ${\kappa}_{Q,Q_0}$ of an ionization chamber might also be one of them. The cylindrical type of ionization chamber, the PTW30013 chamber, was chosen for this work and 9 chambers of the same type were collected from several institutes where the chamber types are used for the reference dosimetry. They were calibrated from the domestic Secondary Standard Dosimetry Laboratory with the same electrometer and cable. These calibrated chambers were used to measure absorbed doses to water in the reference condition for the photon beam of 6 MV and 10 MV and the electron beam of 12 MeV from Siemens ONCOR. The biggest difference among chambers amounts to 2.4% for the 6 MV photon beam, 0.8% for the 10 MV photon beam, and 2.4% for the 12 MeV electron beam. The big deviation in the photon of 6 MV demonstrates that if there had been no problems with the process of measurements application of the same ${\kappa}_{Q,Q_0}$ to the chambers used in this study might have influenced the deviation in the photon 6 MV and that how important an external audit is.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.21-30
• /
• 1988

The 6 MV photon beam of a linear accelerator (Mevatron 67) was studied for electron contamination. The surface dose, attributable almost entirely to contamination electrons, has a linear dependence on field width for square fields and an inverse square dependence on distance from the bottom of the fixed head assembly. Build-up and surface dose measurements were taken with and without an acrylic blocking tray in place. Further measurements were made with a copper filter designed to reduce secondary electrons emitted by photon interactions with the acrylic tray. The results are discussed in relation to skin sparing effect for radiation therapy patients. To achieve the maximum skin sparing effect, the selection of the optimum SSD and TSD is needed.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.191-199
• /
• 2008

PTV considered for the energy, dose distribution exposed to lung and spinal cord, and the characteristic of DVH(Dose Volume Histogram) were compared and investigated by planning the intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using the photon energies of 6 MV and 10 MV according to tumor location like as the anterior, middle, and posterior regions of lung, and the mediastinum region in lung cancer patients. Our institution installed the linear accelerator (Varian 21 EX-s, USA) equipped with 120 multileaf collimator for lung cancer patients, which is producing the photon energies of 6 MV and 10 MV, and radiation therapy planning was performed with ECLIPSE system (Varian, SomaVision 6.5, USA), which support inverse treatment planning. The tomographic images of 3 mm slice thickness for lung cancer patients were acquired using planning CT, and acquired tomographic images were sent to the Varis system, and then treatment planning was performed in the ECLIPSE system. The radiation treatment planning of the IMRT was processed from various angles according to the regions of the tumor, and using various beam lines according to the size and location of the tumor. The investigation of the characteristic of dose distributions for the energy of 6 MV and 10 MV according to tumor locations in lung cancer patients resulted that the maximum dose of 10 MV energy was 1.2% less than that of 6 MV energy without depending on the tumor location of lung cancer, and the reduction effects of MU were occurred from 10 to 25 MU. Radiation dose exposed to the lung satisfied the less 30% of V20, however radiation dose in 6 MV energy was from 0.1% to 0.5% less than that in 10 MV energy. Radiation dose exposed to the spinal cord for 6 MV energy was from 0.6% to 2.1% less than that for 6 MV energy.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.8 no.7
• /
• pp.449-454
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is(was) to investigate the shielding ratio of 1 mmPb and the off axis ratio outside the field edge at depth of 1 cm from a phantom surface for 6 MV photon beam. A dose of 180 cGy was delivered to a depth of 10 cm for a $10{\times}10cm^2$ and $15{\times}15cm^2$ field in the SAD technique. The off axis ratio was calculated by measuring the dose of optically stimulated luminescent nanoDot dosimeters(OSLnDs) positioned at 2, 4 and 6 cm from the field edge, and the center axis of field. And the shielding ratio of 1 mmPb was calculated by measuring the dose of OSLnDs positioned at 2, 4 and 6 cm from the field edge.. As a result, for a $10{\times}10cm^2$ and $15{\times}15cm^2$ field, the off axis ratios were acquired 0.008-0.023 and 0.011-0.028, respectively. Also the shielding ratios of 1 mmPb were acquired 0.868-0.888 and 0.807-0.842, respectively. These results provide data to protect organs at risk outside the radiation treatment field.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.1-18
• /
• 2000

For wedged photon beams, the variation of the wedge factor with field size was reported by several authors. However, until now such variation with field size had not been explained quantitatively. Therefore, the variation of the wedge factor was investigated by measuring outputs with field sizes increasing from 4 cm $\times$ 4 cm to 25 cm $\times$ 25 cm for open and wedged 6 and 10MV X-ray beams. The relative outputs for wedged fields to 10 cm $\times$ 10 cm have been obtained. The results show the Increase of the wedge factor caused by the change in fluence of high energy Photon beam with field size, up to 8.0% for KD77-6MV X-ray beam. This increase could be explained as a linear function of the irradiated wedge volume except small field size up to about 10 cm. In the cases of the narrow rectangular beam parallel to the wedge direction, the wedge factor decreases slightly with increasing field size up to about 10-15 cm due to a relatively reduced photon fluence from the change of the wedge thickness. We could explain the causes of a wedge factor variation with field size as the fluences of primary photon passed throughout the wedge, contributing to the dose at the central beam axis and that the fluences were affected by the gradient of the wedge with the change of field size. For clinical use, the formula developed to describe the wedge factor variation with field size has been corrected.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.79-84
• /
• 2011

In this study, Geant4 based Monte Carlo simulations were carried out for medical linear accelerator. Modified Medical Linac2 toolkit was used for calculation. The energy spectrum, most probable energy and the photon mean energy compared with the published results using the EGS4 code. The results well agreed with published results. The calculated results of photon fluence, energy fluence and mean energy according to the radius from the centre of the beam were analyzed. Monte Carlo simulation using Medical Linac2 code is considered to be useful for analysis of medical linear accelerator. Because the calculated results varies depending on Physics List model for same head structure. It it important to choose the right model for research purpose. Monte Carlo simulation using GEANT4 Medical Linac2 is a valuable for any novice to adopt this code to the study related to 6 MV photon fluence from medical linear accelerator.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.337-342
• /
• 1991

The comparison of the KAPM Dosimetric Protocol (1990) with the TG-21 and $C_{\lambda}/C_E$(ICRU-21 and SCRAD protocol) method is studied. The therapetutic range of radiation (photon 4MV-l5MV and electron 6 MeV-20MeV) and three kinds of the chambers were used in the water phantom. The results from 7G-21 and KAPM protocol did not show much differences (less than 1$\%$) throughout the whole energy range; $N_D$ from KAPM protocol and Ngas from TG-21 showed 0.2$\%$ deviation mainly from W/e difference between two protocols. But the results from KAPM protocol (1990) and those from $C_{\lambda}/C_E$ Method showed $-1.9{\pm}0.6\%$ (KAPM protocol is higher) deviation for photom beam and $+3.3{\pm}1\%$ (KAPM protocol is lower) deviation for electron beams.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.55-71
• /
• 1993

Measured and calculated the TMR and SMR factors from percent depth dose underpartial attenuators which cover the whole part of the radiation beam with variousfilter thickness from 0 to 50 mm. This study was performed for x-ray beams generated with a 6 MV linear acceleratorat source to surface distance of 100cm in a water phantom for Lipowitz metal. TMR(0,d,t) was derived from non-linear polynomial regression with field sizedifferencies and a given filter thickness. In this experiments, the TMR(0,10,50) of 50mm of filter thickness was showed13.6 % higher than that of open field and SMR(5,10,50) was 38.5% smaller than thatof open field in same depth.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.39 no.4
• /
• pp.571-575
• /
• 2016

Monte Carlo simulations are widely used as the most accurate technique for dose calculation in radiation therapy. In this paper, the GATE6(Geant4 Application for Tomographic Emission ver.6) code was employed to calculate the dosimetric performance of the photon beams from a linear accelerator(LINAC). The treatment head of a Varian 21EX Clinac was modeled including the major geometric structures within the beam path such as a target, a primary collimator, a flattening filter, a ion chamber, and jaws. The 6 MV photon spectra were characterized in a standard $10{\times}10cm^2$ field at 100 cm source-to-surface distance(SSD) and subsequent dose estimations were made in a water phantom. The measurements of percentage depth dose and dose profiles were performed with 3D water phantom and the simulated data was compared to measured reference data. The simulated results agreed very well with the measured data. It has been found that the GATE6 code is an effective tool for dose optimization in radiotherapy applications.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.269-276
• /
• 2009

Radiation treatment techniques using photon beam such as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) as well as intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) demand accurate dose calculation in order to increase target coverage and spare healthy tissue. Both jaw collimator and multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) for photon beams have been used to achieve such goals. In the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system (TPS), which we are using in our clinics, a set of model parameters like jaw collimator transmission factor (JTF) and MLC transmission factor (MLCTF) are determined from the measured data because it is using a model-based photon dose algorithm. However, model parameters obtained by this auto-modeling process can be different from those by direct measurement, which can have a dosimetric effect on the dose distribution. In this paper we estimated JTF and MLCTF obtained by the auto-modeling process in the Pinnacle3 TPS. At first, we obtained JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement, which were the ratio of the output at the reference depth under the closed jaw collimator (MLCs for MLCTF) to that at the same depth with the field size $10{\times}10\;cm^2$ in the water phantom. And then JTF and MLCTF were also obtained by auto-modeling process. And we evaluated the dose difference through phantom and patient study in the 3D-CRT plan. For direct measurement, JTF was 0.001966 for 6 MV and 0.002971 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.01657 for 6 MV and 0.01925 for 10 MV. On the other hand, for auto-modeling process, JTF was 0.001983 for 6 MV and 0.010431 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.00188 for 6 MV and 0.00453 for 10 MV. JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement were very different from those by auto-modeling process and even more reasonable considering each beam quality of 6 MV and 10 MV. These different parameters affect the dose in the low-dose region. Since the wrong estimation of JTF and MLCTF can lead some dosimetric error, comparison of direct measurement and auto-modeling of JTF and MLCTF would be helpful during the beam commissioning.