Cargando…

Modeling the head of PRIMUS linear accelerator for electron‐mode at 10 MeV for different applicators

OBJECTIVE: This study is to validate the utilization of Monte Carlo (MC) simulation to model the head of Primus linear accelerator, thereafter, using it to estimate the energy fluence distribution (EFD), the percentage depth dose (PDD), and beam profiles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The BEAM(NRC) code th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Negm, Hani, Aly, Moamen M. O. M., Fathy, Walaa M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7075389/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32068335
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12836
_version_ 1783507032319459328
author Negm, Hani
Aly, Moamen M. O. M.
Fathy, Walaa M.
author_facet Negm, Hani
Aly, Moamen M. O. M.
Fathy, Walaa M.
author_sort Negm, Hani
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This study is to validate the utilization of Monte Carlo (MC) simulation to model the head of Primus linear accelerator, thereafter, using it to estimate the energy fluence distribution (EFD), the percentage depth dose (PDD), and beam profiles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The BEAM(NRC) code that is based on the EGS(NRC) code has been used for modeling the linear accelerator head for 10 MeV electron beam with different applicator sizes (10 × 10, 15 × 15, and 20 × 20 cm(2)). The phase space was acquired from BEAM(NRC) at the end of each applicator and then used as an input file to DOSXYZ(NRC) and BEAMDP to calculate the EFD, PDD, and beam profiles. RESULTS: There were a good consistency between the outcomes of the MC simulation and measured PDD and off‐axis dose profiles that performed in a water phantom for all applicators. The PDD for the applicators proved to be favorable as a direct comparison of R(100), R(90), R(80), and R(50) yielded results of < 2 mm, while it was 6 mm in R(100) for the applicator 15 × 15 cm(2). The discrepancies in the surface doses (<3%) showed a quick decline in the build‐up region and differences reached 0% within the first 2.4 mm. For the beam profiles comparison, the differences ranged from 2% (2 mm) to 3% (6 mm) for all applicators. CONCLUSION: Our examination demonstrated that the MC simulation by BEAM(NRC) code was accurate in modeling the Primus linear accelerator head.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7075389
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70753892020-03-17 Modeling the head of PRIMUS linear accelerator for electron‐mode at 10 MeV for different applicators Negm, Hani Aly, Moamen M. O. M. Fathy, Walaa M. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics OBJECTIVE: This study is to validate the utilization of Monte Carlo (MC) simulation to model the head of Primus linear accelerator, thereafter, using it to estimate the energy fluence distribution (EFD), the percentage depth dose (PDD), and beam profiles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The BEAM(NRC) code that is based on the EGS(NRC) code has been used for modeling the linear accelerator head for 10 MeV electron beam with different applicator sizes (10 × 10, 15 × 15, and 20 × 20 cm(2)). The phase space was acquired from BEAM(NRC) at the end of each applicator and then used as an input file to DOSXYZ(NRC) and BEAMDP to calculate the EFD, PDD, and beam profiles. RESULTS: There were a good consistency between the outcomes of the MC simulation and measured PDD and off‐axis dose profiles that performed in a water phantom for all applicators. The PDD for the applicators proved to be favorable as a direct comparison of R(100), R(90), R(80), and R(50) yielded results of < 2 mm, while it was 6 mm in R(100) for the applicator 15 × 15 cm(2). The discrepancies in the surface doses (<3%) showed a quick decline in the build‐up region and differences reached 0% within the first 2.4 mm. For the beam profiles comparison, the differences ranged from 2% (2 mm) to 3% (6 mm) for all applicators. CONCLUSION: Our examination demonstrated that the MC simulation by BEAM(NRC) code was accurate in modeling the Primus linear accelerator head. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-02-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7075389/ /pubmed/32068335 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12836 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Negm, Hani
Aly, Moamen M. O. M.
Fathy, Walaa M.
Modeling the head of PRIMUS linear accelerator for electron‐mode at 10 MeV for different applicators
title Modeling the head of PRIMUS linear accelerator for electron‐mode at 10 MeV for different applicators
title_full Modeling the head of PRIMUS linear accelerator for electron‐mode at 10 MeV for different applicators
title_fullStr Modeling the head of PRIMUS linear accelerator for electron‐mode at 10 MeV for different applicators
title_full_unstemmed Modeling the head of PRIMUS linear accelerator for electron‐mode at 10 MeV for different applicators
title_short Modeling the head of PRIMUS linear accelerator for electron‐mode at 10 MeV for different applicators
title_sort modeling the head of primus linear accelerator for electron‐mode at 10 mev for different applicators
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7075389/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32068335
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12836
work_keys_str_mv AT negmhani modelingtheheadofprimuslinearacceleratorforelectronmodeat10mevfordifferentapplicators
AT alymoamenmom modelingtheheadofprimuslinearacceleratorforelectronmodeat10mevfordifferentapplicators
AT fathywalaam modelingtheheadofprimuslinearacceleratorforelectronmodeat10mevfordifferentapplicators