Skip to main content
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.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1. J. L. Robar, “Generation and modelling of megavoltage photon beams for contrast-enhanced radiation therapy,” Phys. Med. Biol. 51(21), 54875504 (2006).
2. E. J. Orton and J. L. Robar, “Megavoltage image contrast with low-atomic number target materials and amorphous silicon electronic portal imagers,” Phys. Med. Biol. 54(5), 12751289 (2009).
3. T. Connell and J. L. Robar, “Low-Z target optimization for spatial resolution improvement in megavoltage imaging,” Med. Phys. 37(1), 124131 (2010).
4. A. Tsechanski, A. F. Bielajew, S. Faermann, and Y. Krutman, “A thin target approach for portal imaging in medical accelerators,” Phys. Med. Biol. 43(8), 22212236 (1998).
5. D. Parsons and J. L. Robar, “Beam generation and planar imaging at energies below 2.40 MeV with carbon and aluminum linear accelerator targets,” Med. Phys. 39(7), 45684578 (2012).
6. D. Parsons and J. L. Robar, “The effect of copper conversion plates on low-Z target image quality,” Med. Phys. 39(9), 53625371 (2012).
7. S. Flampouri, P. M. Evans, F. Verhaegen, A. E. Nahum, E. Spezi, and M. Partridge, “Optimization of accelerator target and detector for portal imaging using Monte Carlo simulation and experiment,” Phys. Med. Biol. 47(18), 33313349 (2002).
8. D. A. Roberts, V. N. Hansen, A. C. Niven, M. G. Thompson, J. Seco, and P. M. Evans, “A low Z linac and flat panel imager: Comparison with the conventional imaging approach,” Phys. Med. Biol. 53(22), 63056319 (2008).
9. D. A. Roberts et al., “Kilovoltage energy imaging with a radiotherapy linac with a continuously variable energy range,” Med. Phys. 39(3), 12181226 (2012).
10. O. Z. Ostapiak, P. F. O’Brien, and B. A. Faddegon, “Megavoltage imaging with low Z targets: Implementation and characterization of an investigational system,” Med. Phys. 25(10), 19101918 (1998).
11. B. A. Faddegon, V. Wu, J. Pouliot, B. Gangadharan, and A. Bani-Hashemi, “Low dose megavoltage cone beam computed tomography with an unflattened 4 MV beam from a carbon target,” Med. Phys. 35(12), 57775786 (2008).
12. D. Sawkey et al., “A diamond target for megavoltage cone-beam CT,” Med. Phys. 37(3), 12461253 (2010).
13. D. W. Rogers, B. A. Faddegon, G. X. Ding, C. M. Ma, J. We, and T. R. Mackie, “BEAM: A Monte Carlo code to simulate radiotherapy treatment units,” Med. Phys. 22(5), 503524 (1995).
14. S. Agostinelli et al., “GEANT4: A Simulation toolkit,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506(3), 250303 (2003).
15. M. Constantin, D. E. Constantin, P. J. Keall, A. Narula, M. Svatos, and J. Perl, “Linking computer-aided design (CAD) to Geant4-based Monte Carlo simulations for precise implementation of complex treatment head geometries,” Phys. Med. Biol. 55(8), N211N220 (2010).
16. M. Constantin et al., “Modeling the TrueBeam linac using a CAD to Geant4 geometry implementation: Dose and IAEA-compliant phase space calculations,” Med. Phys. 38(7), 40184024 (2011).
17. E. Gete et al., “A Monte Carlo approach to validation of FFF VMAT treatment plans for the TrueBeam linac,” Med. Phys. 40(2), 021707 (13pp.) (2013).
18. INDC International Nuclear Data Committee, Phase-Space Database for External Beam Radiotherapy Summary Report of a Consultants’ Meeting (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 2006).
19. D. Sawkey et al., “Measurement of incident electron spots on TrueBeam,” Med. Phys. 40(6), 332 (2013).
20. Z. Chang et al., “Commissioning and dosimetric characteristics of TrueBeam system: Composite data of three TrueBeam machines,” Med. Phys. 39(11), 69817018 (2012).
21. C. M. Ma and D. W. O. Rogers, BEAMdp Users Manual NRCC Report PIRS-0509(C)revA (NRCC, Ottawa, Canada, 2009).
22. S. Lang, J. Hrbacek, A. Leong, and S. Klöck, “Ion-recombination correction for different ionization chambers in high dose rate flattening-filter-free photon beams,” Phys. Med. Biol. 57(9), 28192827 (2012).
23. I. Kawrakow, “Accurate condensed history Monte Carlo simulation of electron transport. I. EGSnrc, the new EGS4 version,” Med. Phys. 27(3), 485498 (2000).
24. P. Munro and D. C. Bouius, “X-ray quantum limited portal imaging using amorphous silicon flat-panel arrays,” Med. Phys. 25(5), 689702 (1998).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



The focus of this work was the demonstration and validation of VirtuaLinac with clinical photonbeams and to investigate the implementation of low-Z targets in a TrueBeam linear accelerator(Linac) using Monte Carlomodeling.

VirtuaLinac, a cloud based web application utilizing Geant4 Monte Carlo code, was used to model the Linac treatment head components. Particles were propagated through the lower portion of the treatment head using BEAMnrc. Dose distributions and spectral distributions were calculated using DOSXYZnrc and BEAMdp, respectively. For validation, 6 MV flattened and flattening filter free (FFF) photonbeams were generated and compared to measurement for square fields, 10 and 40 cm wide and at d for diagonal profiles. Two low-Z targets were investigated: a 2.35 MeV carbon target and the proposed 2.50 MeV commercial imaging target for the TrueBeam platform. A 2.35 MeV carbon target was also simulated in a 2100EX Clinac using BEAMnrc. Contrast simulations were made by scoring the dose in the phosphor layer of an IDU20 aSi detector after propagating through a 4 or 20 cm thick phantom composed of water and ICRP bone.

Measured and modeled depth dose curves for 6 MV flattened and FFF beams agree within 1% for 98.3% of points at depths greater than 0.85 cm. Ninety three percent or greater of points analyzed for the diagonal profiles had a gamma value less than one for the criteria of 1.5 mm and 1.5%. The two low-Z target photon spectra produced in TrueBeam are harder than that from the carbon target in the Clinac. Percent dose at depth 10 cm is greater by 3.6% and 8.9%; the fraction of photons in the diagnostic energy range (25–150 keV) is lower by 10% and 28%; and contrasts are lower by factors of 1.1 and 1.4 (4 cm thick phantom) and 1.03 and 1.4 (20 cm thick phantom), for the TrueBeam 2.35 MV/carbon and commercial imagingbeams, respectively.

VirtuaLinac is a promising new tool for Monte Carlomodeling of novel target designs. A significant spectral difference is observed between the low-Z target beam on the Clinac platform and the proposed imagingbeam line on TrueBeam, with the former providing greater diagnostic energy content.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd