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.
Experimental and Monte Carlo studies of fluence corrections for graphite calorimetry in low- and high-energy clinical proton beams
A. Ferrari, P. R. Sala, A. Fassó, and J. Ranft, “ fluka: A multi-particle transport code,” CERN 2005-10, INFN/TC 05/11, SLAC-R-773 (2005).
T. T. Böhlen, F. Cerutti, M. P. W. Chin, A. Fassó, A. Ferrari, P. G. Ortega, A. Mairani, P. R. Sala, G. Smirnov, and V. Vlachoudis, “The fluka code: Developments and challenges for high energy and medical applications,” Nucl. Data Sheets 120, 211–214 (2014).
ICRU, “Prescribing, recording, and reporting proton-beam therapy,” Report 78, Bethesda, MD, 2007.
IAEA, “Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: An international code of practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water,” Technical Report Series TRS-398, 2000.
H. Palmans, R. Thomas, M. Simon, S. Duane, A. Kacperek, A. DuSautoy, and F. Verhaegen, “A small-body portable graphite calorimeter for dosimetry in low-energy clinical proton beams,” Phys. Med. Biol. 49, 3737–3749 (2004).
AAPM, “Protocol for heavy charged-particle therapy beam dosimetry; a report of Task Group 20 Radiation Therapy Committee, American Association of Physicists in Medicine Report 16,” American Institute of Physics (1986).
ICRU, Clinical proton dosimetry. I. Beam production, beam delivery and measurement of absorbed dose (Report 59) IAEA TRS-398, 1998.
H. Paganetti, “Nuclear interactions in proton therapy: Dose and relative biological effect distributions originating from primary and secondary particles,” Phys. Med. Biol. 47, 747–764 (2002).
H. Palmans, L. Al-Sulaiti, P. Andreo, D. Shipley, A. Lühr, N. Bassler, J. Martinkovič, J. Dobrovodský, S. Rossomme, R. A. S. Thomas, and A. Kacperek, “Fluence correction factors for graphite calorimetry in a low-energy clinical proton beam. I. Analytical and Monte Carlo simulations,” Phys. Med. Biol. 58, 3481–3499 (2013).
A. Lühr, D. C. Hansen, N. Sobolevsky, H. Palmans, S. Rossomme, and N. Bassler, “Fluence correction factors and stopping power ratios for clinical ion beams,” Acta Oncol. 50, 797–805 (2011).
S. Rossomme, H. Palmans, D. Shipley, R. Thomas, N. Lee, F. Romano, P. Cirrone, G. Cuttone, D. Bertrand, and S. Vynckier, “Conversion from dose-to-graphite to dose-to-water in an 80 MeV/A carbon ion beam,” Phys. Med. Biol. 58, 5363–5380 (2013).
H. Palmans, L. Al-Sulaiti, P. Andreo, R. A. S. Thomas, D. R. S. Shipley, J. Martinkovič, and A. Kacperek, “Conversion of dose-to-graphite to dose-to-water in a clinical proton beam,” inStandards, Applications and Quality Assurance in Medical Radiation Dosimetry–Proceedings of an International Symposium (IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 2011), Vol. 1, pp. 343–355.
G. X. Ding, D. W. Rogers, J. E. Cygler, and T. R. Mackie, “Electron fluence correction factors for conversion of dose in plastic to dose in water,” Med. Phys. 24, 161–176 (1997).
K. R. Kase, G. J. Adler, and B. E. Bjärngard, “Comparisons of electron beam dose measurements in water and polystyrene using various dosimeters,” Med. Phys. 9, 13–19 (1982).
H. Palmans, J. E. Symons, J. M. Denis, E. A. Kock, D. T. L. Jones, and S. Vynckier, “Fluence correction factors in plastic phantoms for clinical proton beams,” Phys. Med. Biol. 47, 3055–3071 (2002).
Proton Therapy Physics, edited byH. Paganetti, Series in Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering (CRC, Florida, 2011).
ICRU, “Stopping powers and ranges for protons and alpha particles,” Report 49, Bethesda, MD, 1993.
F. Verhaegen and H. Palmans, “A systematic Monte Carlo study of secondary electron fluence perturbation in clinical proton beams (70–250 MeV) for cylindrical and spherical ion chambers,” Med. Phys. 28, 2088–2095 (2001).
ICRU, “Nuclear data for neutron and proton radiotherapy and for radiation protection,” Report 63, Bethesda, MD, 2000.
D. E. Bonnett, A. Kacperek, M. A. Sheen, R. Goodall, and T. E. Saxton, “The 62 MeV proton beam for the treatment of ocular melanoma at Clatterbridge,” Br. J. Radiol. 66, 907–914 (1993).
C. Baker, D. Shipley, H. Palmans, and A. Kacperek, “Monte Carlo modelling of a clinical proton beam-line for the treatment of ocular tumours,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 562, 1005–1008 (2006).
ISO, Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, 1995).
M. Schippers, in Proton Beam Production and Dose Delivery Techniques - Principles and Practice of Proton Beam Therapy (AAPM 2015 Summer School), edited byI. J. Das and H. Paganetti (Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, WI, USA, 2015).
Article metrics loading...
The aim of this study was to determine fluence corrections necessary to convert absorbed dose to graphite, measured by graphite
calorimetry, to absorbed dose to water. Fluence corrections were obtained from experiments and Monte Carlo simulations in low- and high-energy proton beams.
Fluence corrections were calculated to account for the difference in fluence between water and graphite at equivalent depths. Measurements were performed with narrow proton beams. Plane-parallel-plate ionization chambers with a large collecting area compared to the beam diameter were used to intercept the whole beam. High- and low-energy proton beams were provided by a scanning and double scattering delivery system, respectively. A mathematical formalism was established to relate fluence corrections derived from Monte Carlo simulations, using the fluka code [A. Ferrari et al., “fluka: A multi-particle transport code,” in CERN 2005-10, INFN/TC 05/11, SLAC-R-773 (2005) and T. T. Böhlen et al., “The fluka Code: Developments and challenges for high energy and medical applications,” Nucl. Data Sheets 120, 211–214 (2014)], to partial fluence corrections measured experimentally.
A good agreement was found between the partial fluence corrections derived by Monte Carlo simulations and those determined experimentally. For a high-energy beam of 180 MeV, the fluence corrections from Monte Carlo simulations were found to increase from 0.99 to 1.04 with depth. In the case of a low-energy beam of 60 MeV, the magnitude of fluence corrections was approximately 0.99 at all depths when calculated in the sensitive area of the chamber used in the experiments. Fluence correction calculations were also performed for a larger area and found to increase from 0.99 at the surface to 1.01 at greater depths.
Fluence corrections obtained experimentally are partial fluence corrections because they account for differences in the primary and part of the secondary particle fluence. A correction factor, F(d), has been established to relate fluence corrections defined theoretically to partial fluence corrections derived experimentally. The findings presented here are also relevant to water and tissue-equivalent-plastic materials given their carbon content.
Full text loading...
Most read this month