Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Monte Carlo comparison of superficial dose between flattening filter free and flattened beams.
Javedan, Khosrow; Feygelman, Vladimir; Zhang, Ray R; Moros, Eduardo G; Correa, Candace R; Trotti, Andy; Li, Weiqi; Zhang, Geoffrey G.
Afiliación
  • Javedan K; Radiation Oncology Department, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
  • Feygelman V; Radiation Oncology Department, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
  • Zhang RR; School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
  • Moros EG; Radiation Oncology Department, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
  • Correa CR; Radiation Oncology Department, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
  • Trotti A; Radiation Oncology Department, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
  • Li W; Radiation Oncology Department, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
  • Zhang GG; Radiation Oncology Department, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. Electronic address: geoffrey.zhang@moffitt.org.
Phys Med ; 30(4): 503-8, 2014 Jun.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24662096
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the superficial dose from FFF beams in comparison with the conventional flattened ones using a Monte Carlo (MC) method. Published phase-space files which incorporated real geometry of a TrueBeam accelerator were used for the dose calculation in phantom and clinical cases. The photon fluence on the central axis is 3 times that of a flattened beam for a 6 MV FFF beam and 5 times for a 10 MV beam. The mean energy across the field in air at the phantom surface is 0.92-0.95 MeV for the 6 MV FFF beam and 1.18-1.30 MeV for the corresponding flattened beam. At 10 MV, the values are 1.52-1.72 and 2.15-2.87 MeV for the FFF and flattened beams, respectively. The phantom dose at the depth of 1 mm in the 6 MV FFF beam is 6% ± 2.5% (of the maximum dose) higher compared to the flattened beam for a 25 × 25 cm(2) field and 14.6% ± 1.9% for the 2 × 2 cm(2) field. For the 10 MV beam, the corresponding differences are 3.4% ± 1.5% and 10.7% ± 0.6%. The skin dose difference at selected points on the patient's surface between the plans using FFF and flattened beams in the head-and-neck case was 6.5% ± 2.3% (1SD), and for the breast case it was 6.4% ± 2.3%. The Monte Carlo simulations showed that due to the lower mean energy in the FFF beam, the clinical superficial dose is higher without the flattening filter compared to the flattened beam.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Contexto en salud: 1_ASSA2030 Problema de salud: 1_financiamento_saude Asunto principal: Dosis de Radiación / Método de Montecarlo / Radioterapia de Intensidad Modulada Tipo de estudio: Health_economic_evaluation Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Phys Med Asunto de la revista: BIOFISICA / BIOLOGIA / MEDICINA Año: 2014 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Contexto en salud: 1_ASSA2030 Problema de salud: 1_financiamento_saude Asunto principal: Dosis de Radiación / Método de Montecarlo / Radioterapia de Intensidad Modulada Tipo de estudio: Health_economic_evaluation Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Phys Med Asunto de la revista: BIOFISICA / BIOLOGIA / MEDICINA Año: 2014 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos
...