• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.241-249
• /
• 2015

As radiation therapy is one of three major cancer treatment methods, many cancer patients get radiation therapy. To exposure as much radiation to cancer while normal tissues near tumor get little radiation, medical physicists make a radiotherapy plan treatment and perform quality assurance before patient treatment. Despite these efforts, unintended medical accidents can occur by some errors. In order to solve the problem, patient internal dose reconstruction methods by measuring transit dose are suggested. As feasibility study for development of patient dose verification system, inverse square law, percentage depth dose and scatter factor are used to calculate dose in the water-equivalent homogeneous phantom. As a calibration results of ionization chamber and glass dosimeter to transit radiation, signals of glass dosimeter are 0.824 times at 6 MV and 0.736 times at 10 MV compared to dose measured by ionization chamber. Average scatter factor is 1.4 and Mayneord F factor was used to apply percentage depth dose data. When we verified the algorithm using the water-equivalent homogeneous phantom, maximum error was 1.65%.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.57-65
• /
• 1990

Newly developed LiF(Mg, Cu, Na, Si) thermoluminescence phosphors sealed in a plastic capsules (32mm dia., 0.9mm wall thickness) were used for in-phantom dosimetry of $^{60}Co$ $\gamma$-irradiation. The absorbed doses in water were determined by applying the general cavity theory to the absorbed dose in TLD cavity, which was computed from exposure. The absorbed doses at various sites in the water-phantom were measured by LiF(Mg, Cu, Na, Si) TLD and compared with doses obtained by the ionization method. Both results were consistent within the experimental fluctuation$({\pm}3%)$ Central axis percentage depth doses and phantom-air ratios measured by LiF(Mg. Cu, Na, Si) TLD showed good agreement with the published values[Br. J. Radiology, Suppl. 17(1983)].

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.43-48
• /
• 2009

When the PDD (percentage depth dose) in the megavoltage beams is measured in the water phantom, the polarity and ion recombination effects of ionization chambers with depth in water are not usually taken into consideration. We try to investigate if those variations with depth should be taken into consideration or could be ignored for the thimble type semiflex ionization chamber (PTW $31010^{TM}$, SN 1551). According to the recommendation of IAEA TRS-398, the 4 representative depths of $d_s$, $d_{max}$, $d_{90}$ and $d_{50}$ were used for the electron beams. For the photon beams, the 4 depths were arbitrarily chosen for the photon beams, which were $d_s$, $d_{max}$, $d_{10}$ and $d_{20}$. For the high energy photon beam both polarity and ion recombination factors of the chamber with depth in water gives the good agreements within the maximum $\pm$0.2%, while the $C_{polS}$ with depth came within the maximum $\pm$ 0.4% and the $C_{IRS}$ within the maximum $\pm$0.6% in every electron beam used. This study shows that PDI (percentage depth ionization) could be a good approximation to PDD for the chamber used.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.287-291
• /
• 1989

Radiation dosimetry has been extended to small fields less than $4\times4cm^2$ which may be suitable for irradiation of small intracranial tumors. Special consideration was given to the percentage depth dose and scatter correction factors with 0.14ml ion chamber, film dosimetry and TLD measurement. Calculated dose distributions were compared with measured data.

• 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.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.131-141
• /
• 1991

A comprehensive set of dosimetric measurements has been made on the Varian Clinac 1800 15 MV photon beam. Beam quality, percentage depth dose, dose in the build up region, output, symmetry and flatness, transmission through iead (Cerrobend), tray attenuation, isodose curves for the open and wedged fields were measured using 3 dimensional water phantom dosimetry system (including film densitometer system) and polystyrene phantoms. These dosimetric measurements sufficiently characterized the beam to permit clinical use. The depth dose characteristics of photon beam is $d_{max}$ of 3.0 cm and percentage depth dose of $76.8\%$ at 10 cm,100 cm source-surface distance, field size of $10\times10\;cm^2$ for 15 MV X-ray beam. The Output factors ranged 0.927 for $4\times4\;cm^2$ field to 1,087 for $35\times35\;cm^2$ field. The build-up level of maximum dose was at 3.0 cm and surface dose was approximately $15.5\%$ for a field size $10\times10\;cm^2$ The stability of output is $within\pm1\%$ and flatness and symmetry are $within\pm3\%$. The half value thickness (HVL) of lead is 13 mm, which corresponds to an attenuation coefficient of $0.053\;mm^{-1}$. These figures compare facorably with the manufacturesr`s specifications.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.12 no.4
• /
• pp.443-450
• /
• 2018

The Geant 4 simulated the linear accelerator (VARIAN CLINAC) based on the previously implemented BEAMnrC data, using the head structure of the linear accelerator. In the 10 MV photon flux, Geant4 was compared with the measured value of the percentage of the deep dose and the lateral dose of the water phantom. In order to apply the dose calculation to the body part, the actual patient's lung area was scanned at 5 mm intervals. Geant4 dose distributions were obtained by irradiating 10 MV photons at the irradiation field ($5{\times}5cm^2$) and SAD 100 cm of the water phantom. This result is difficult to measure the dose absorbed in the actual lung of the patient so the doses by the treatment planning system were compared. The deep dose curve measured by water phantom and the deep dose curve calculated by Geant4 were well within ${\pm}3%$ of most depths except the build-up area. However, at the 5 cm and 20 cm sites, 2.95% and 2.87% were somewhat higher in the calculation of the dose using Geant4. These two points were confirmed by the geometry file of Genat4, and it was found that the dose was increased because thoracic spine and sternum were located. In cone beam CT, the dose distribution error of the lungs was similar within 3%. Therefore, if the contour map of the dose can be directly expressed in the DICOM file when calculating the dose using Geant4, the clinical application of Geant4 will be used variously.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.163-171
• /
• 2020

Purpose: In this study, the accuracies of electron Monte Carlo (eMC) calculation algorithms were evaluated to determine whether electron beams were modeled by optional air profiles (APs) designed for each applicator size. Methods: Electron beams with the energies of 6, 9, 12, and 16 MeV for VitalBeam (Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA, USA) and 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV for Clinac iX (Varian Medical System) were used. Optional APs were measured at the source-to-detector distance of 95 cm with jaw openings appropriate for each machine, electron beam energy, and applicator size. The measured optional APs were postprocessed and converted into the w2CAD format. Then, the electron beams were modeled and calculated with and without optional APs. Measured profiles, percentage depth doses, penumbras with respect to each machine, and energy were compared to calculated dose distributions. Results: For VitalBeam, the profile differences between the measurement and calculation were reduced by 0.35%, 0.15%, 0.14%, and 0.38% at 6, 9, 12, and 16 MeV, respectively, when the beams were modeled with APs. For Clinac iX, the differences were decreased by 0.16%, -0.31%, 0.94%, 0.42%, and 0.74%, at 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV, respectively, with the insertion of APs. Of note, no significant improvements in penumbra and percentage depth dose were observed, although the beam models were configured with APs. Conclusions: The accuracy of the eMC calculation can be improved in profiles when electron beams are modeled with optional APs.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2002.09a
• /
• pp.260-262
• /
• 2002

An accurate measurement of dose distribution is indispensable to perform radiation therapy planning. A measurement technique using a radiographic film, which is called a film dosimetry, is widely used because it is easy to obtain a dose distribution with a good special resolution. In this study, we tried to develop an analyzing system for the film dosimetry using usual office automation equipments such as a personal computer and an image scanner. A film was sandwiched between two solid water phantom blocks (30 ${\times}$ 30 ${\times}$ 15cm). The film was exposed with Cobalt-60 ${\gamma}$-ray whose beam axis was parallel to the film surface. The density distribution on the exposed film was stored in a personal computer through an image scanner (8bits) and the film density was shown as the digital value with NIH-image software. Isodose curves were obtained from the relationship between the digital value and the absorbed dose calculated from percentage depth dose and absorbed dose at the reference point. The isodose curves were also obtained using an Isodose plotter, for reference. The measurements were carried out for 31cGy (exposure time: 120seconds) and 80cGy (exposure time: 300seconds) at the reference point. While the isodose curves obtained with our system were drawn up to 60% dose range for the case of 80cGy, the isodose curves could be drawn up to 80% dose range for the case of 31cGy. Furthermore, the isodose curves almost agreed with that obtained with the isodose plotter in low dose range. However, further improvement of our system is necessary in high dose range.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.15-22
• /
• 2023

This study compared the dose calculated using the electron Monte Carlo (eMC) dose calculation algorithm employing the old version (eMC V13.7) of the Varian Eclipse treatment-planning system (TPS) and its newer version (eMC V16.1). The eMC V16.1 was configured using the same beam data as the eMC V13.7. Beam data measured using the VitalBeam linear accelerator were implemented. A box-shaped water phantom (30×30×30 cm³) was generated in the TPS. Consequently, the TPS with eMC V13.7 and eMC V16.1 calculated the dose to the water phantom delivered by electron beams of various energies with a field size of 10×10 cm². The calculations were repeated while changing the dose-smoothing levels and normalization method. Subsequently, the percentage depth dose and lateral profile of the dose distributions acquired by eMC V13.7 and eMC V16.1 were analyzed. In addition, the dose-volume histogram (DVH) differences between the two versions for the heterogeneous phantom with bone and lung inserted were compared. The doses calculated using eMC V16.1 were similar to those calculated using eMC V13.7 for the homogenous phantoms. However, a DVH difference was observed in the heterogeneous phantom, particularly in the bone material. The dose distribution calculated using eMC V16.1 was comparable to that of eMC V13.7 in the case of homogenous phantoms. The version changes resulted in a different DVH for the heterogeneous phantoms. However, further investigations to assess the DVH differences in patients and experimental validations for eMC V16.1, particularly for heterogeneous geometry, are required.