• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.87-92
• /
• 2007

A thermal neutron beam facility utilizing a typical tangential beam port for Neutron Capture Therapy was installed at the HANARO, 30 MW multi-purpose research reactor. Mixed beams with different physical characteristics and relative biological effectiveness would be emitted from the BNCT irradiation facility, so a quantitative analysis of each component of the mixed beams should be performed to determine the accurate delivered dose. Thus, various techniques were applied including the use of activation foils, TLDs and ionization chambers. All the dose measurements were perform ed with the water phantom filled with distilled water. The results of the measurement were compared with MCNP4B calculation. The thermal neutron fluxes were $1.02E9n/cm^2{\cdot}s\;and\;6.07E8n/cm^2{\cdot}s$ at 10 and 20 mm depth respectively, and the fast neutron dose rate was insignificant as 0.11 Gy/hr at 10 mm depth in water The gamma-ray dose rate was 5.10 Gy/hr at 20 mm depth in water Good agreement within 5%, has been obtained between the measured dose and the calculated dose using MCNP for neutron and gamma component and discrepancy with 14% for fast neutron flux Considering the difficulty of neutron detection, the current study support the reliability of these results and confirmed the suitability of the thermal neutron beam as a dosimetric data for BNCT clinical trials.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.203-210
• /
• 2006

Purpose : To estimate the dose to the embryo/fetus of a pregnant patient with brain tumors, and to design an shielding device to keep the embryo/fetus dose under acceptable levels Materials and Methods : A shielding wall with the dimension of 1.55 m height, 0.9 m width, and 30 m thickness is fabricated with 4 trolleys under the wall. It is placed between a Patient and the treatment head of a linear accelerator to attenuate the leakage radiation effectively from the treatment head, and is placed 1 cm below the lower margin of the treatment field in order to minimize the dose to a patient from the treatment head. An anti-patient scattering neck supporters with 2 cm thick Cerrobend metal is designed to minimize the scattered radiation from the treatment fields, and it is divided into 2 section. They are installed around the patient neck by attach from right and left sides. A shielding bridge for anti-room scattered radiation is utilized to place 2 sheets of 3 mm lead plates above the abdomen to setup three detectors under the lead sheets. Humanoid phantom is irradiated with the same treatment parameters, and with and without shielding devices using TLD, and ionization chambers with and without a build-up cap. Results : The dose to the embryo/fetus without shielding was 3.20, 3.21, 1.44, 0.90 cGy at off-field distances of 30, 40, 50, and 60 cm. With shielding, the dose to embryo/fetus was reduced to 0.88, 0.60, 0.35, 0.25 cGy, and the ratio of the shielding effect varied from 70% to 80%. TLD results were 1.8, 1.2, 0.8, 1.2, and 0.8 cGy. The dose measured by the survey meter was 10.9 mR/h at the patient's surface of abdomen. The dose to the embryo/fetus was estimated to be about 1 cGy during the entire treatment. Conclusion : According to the AAPM Report No 50 regarding the dose limit of the embryo/fetus during the pregnancy, the dose to the embryo/fetus with little risk is less than 5 cGy. Our measurements satisfy the recommended values. Our shielding technique was proven to be acceptable.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.3-17
• /
• 1997

Because a wedged beam consists of attenuated primary photons and scattered radiations from wedge, the spectrum of the wedged beam does not coincide with that of an open beam with same geometry. The aims of current report are to get exact information about whether effects of 15-60$^{\circ}$ wedge for 4 -10 MV photon beams should be considered for dose calculation or not, and to suggest a reference condition for measurement of wedge transmission factor. Percent depth dose of both open and wedged fields with angles of 15, 30, 45, 60$^{\circ}$ for beams of 4 MV(Clinac 4/100, Varian), two 6 MV(Clinac 6/100 and Clinac 2100C, Varian), 10 MV(Clinac 2100C, Varian) X-rays were measured to 30cm deep in water using ionization chambers. Hardening factors of photon beams were calculated with measured PDDs. Both field size factors and transmission factors of wedge filters were measured at d$_{max}$ in water. Beam hardening factors of wedged fields of 4 and 6 MV X-ray were larger than 1 for all wedge angles, field sizes and depths deeper than d$_{max}$ Beam hardening factors for wedge angles 15, 30, 45, 60$^{\circ}$ for 10$\times$10cm were respectively 1.010, 1.014, 1.023 and 1.034 for 4MV X-ray, 1.005, 1.008, 1.019, and 1.024 for 6MV X-ray of Clinac 6/100, 1.011, 1.021, 1.032, 1.036 for 6MV X-ray of Clinac 2100C, and 1.008, 1.012, 1.012 and 1.012 for 10MV X-ray. Beam hardening factors of 10MV X-ray were 1 within 1.2％ difference for all wedge angles, depths and field sizes. It was made clear that for 6MV X-rays, the beam hardening factor depends on treatment machine. The relationship of the factor and depth was linear. Field size factor at d$_{max}$ was independent of wedge angle except for the field of 15$\times$15cm. and maximum difference of the field size factors for the field size was 1.4％ for 4MV X-ray. When the wedge factor is determined, dependence of the factor on field size is negligible at d$_{max}$ but should be considered at deeper depth. Calculating dose distribution or MU, the beam hardening factor should be applied for 4~6MV X-ray beams, but might not be considered for 10MV beam. When wedge transmission factor was determined at d$_{max}$ or in air, field size factors for open field are also applicable to wedged fields, but otherwise, field size factor for each wedge or wedge factor depending on field size should be applied.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.87-102
• /
• 1997

The absolute absorbed dose can be determined according to the measurement conditions; measurement material, detector, energy and calibration protocols. The purpose of this study is to compare the absolute absorbed dose due to the differences of measurement condition and calibration protocols for photon beams. Dosimetric measurements were performed with a farmer type PTW and NEL ionization chambers in water, solid water, and polystyrene phantoms using 6MV photon beams from Siemens linear accelerator. Measurements were made along the central axis of 10cm $\times$ 10cm field size for constant target to surface distance of 100cm for water, solid water and polystyrene phantom. Theoretical absorbed dose intercomparisons between TG21 and IAEA protocol were performed for various measurement combinations of phantom, ion chamber, and electrometer. There were no significant differences of absorbed dose value between TG21 and IAEA protocol. The differences between two protocols are within 1％ while the average value of IAEA protocol was 0.5％ smaller than TG21 protocol. For the purpose of comparison, all the relative absorbed dose were nomalized to NEL ion chamber with Keithley electrometer and water phantom, The average differences are within 1％, but individual discrepancies are in the range of - 2.5％ to 1.2％ depending upon the choice of measurement combination. The largest discrepancy of - 2.5％ was observed when NEL ion chamber with Keithley electrometer is used in solid water phantom. The main cause for this discrepancy is due to the use of same parameters of stopping power, absorption coeficient, etc. as used in water phantom. It should be mentioned that the solid water phantom is not recommended for absolute dose calibration as the alternative of water, since absorbed dose show some dependency on phantom material other than water. In conclusion, the trend of variation was not much dependent on calibration protocol. However, it shows that absorbed dose could be affected by phantom material other than water.