1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Progress toward a microradiation therapy small animal conformal irradiator
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.2349693
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/33/10/10.1118/1.2349693
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/33/10/10.1118/1.2349693

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

(a) Experimental setup used for validation of Monte Carlo computations. (b) Radial profile for 1.6 mm aperture shows good agreement between Monte Carlo data and radiochromic film measurements.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Collimator prototype for a small animal radiation therapy device.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Normalized beam profiles for various collimator openings at the reference source-to-surface distance corresponding to (a) 5, (b) 7.5, (c) 10, (d) 12.5, and (e) 15 mm diam field size at the reference depth .

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Radial symmetry of beam profiles for five different field sizes at the reference source-to-surface distance .

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Percent depth dose attenuation for five field sizes at the reference source-to-surface distance .

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Normalized beam profiles and the corresponding radial fits for five field sizes at the reference source-to-surface distance .

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Depth variation of selected normalized radial profiles (geometric divergence) for the reference field size and source-to-surface distance .

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Normalized and scaled radial profile fits for the reference field size and source-to-surface distance .

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Radial profile fit errors for the reference field size and source-to-surface distance .

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Differences between Monte Carlo dose distributions and the corresponding fits at the reference source-to-surface distance for five field sizes: (a) 5, (b) 7.5, (c) 10, (d) 12.5, and (e) 15 mm.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.
Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

Differences between dose distributions obtained by the Monte Carlo simulations and the corresponding distributions obtained by using the canonical form. Left column: dose differences for and (a) 5, (b) 10, and (c) 15 mm. Right column: dose differences for and (d) 5, (e) 10, and (f) 15 mm.

Image of FIG. 13.
FIG. 13.

Comparison of the model with the gamma dose distribution method. The distance and dose difference criteria were 1 mm and 5%, respectively. A contour is drawn where . Left column: dose differences for and (a) 5, (b) 10, and (c) 15 mm. Right column: dose differences for and (d) 5, (e) 10, and (f) 15 mm.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

The summary of Monte Carlo EGSnrc parameters used for generating phase space files.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/33/10/10.1118/1.2349693
2006-09-26
2014-04-24
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Progress toward a microradiation therapy small animal conformal irradiator
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/33/10/10.1118/1.2349693
10.1118/1.2349693
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM