Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:10:58.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental measurements and Monte Carlo modelling of the XSTRAHL 150 superficial X-ray therapy unit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2014

Fayez H. H. Al-Ghorabie
Fayez H. H. Al-Ghorabie*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia
*
Correspondence to: Fayez H. H. Al-Ghorabie, Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah 21955, Saudi Arabia. Tel: +96 612 527 0000. Fax: +96 612 556 4560. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Superficial X-ray therapy units are used for the treatment of certain types of skin cancer and some severe dermatological conditions. The performance assessment and beam characteristics of the superficial unit are very important to ensure accurate dose delivery during patient treatment. Both experimental measurements and Monte Carlo calculations can be used for this purpose.

Purpose

This study aims to investigate whether it is possible to reproduce experimentally measured data for the XSTRAHL 150 superficial X-ray unit with simulations using the BEAMnrc Monte Carlo code.

Materials and Methods

The experimental procedure applied in this study included the following: experimental measurements of different X-ray spectra, half-value layers, percentage depth dose and beam profiles. Monte Carlo modelling of the XSTRAHL 150 unit was performed with the BEAMnrc code. The validity of the model was checked by comparing the theoretical calculations with experimental measurements.

Results

There was good agreement (∼1%) between experimentally measured and simulated X-ray spectra. Results of half-value layers obtained from simulated and measured spectra showed that there was a maximum of 3·6% difference between BEAMnrc and measurements and a minimum of 2·3%. In addition, simulated percentage depth dose and profile curves have been compared against experimental measurements and show good agreement (within 2% for the depth dose curves and 3–5% for beam profile curves, depending on the applicator size).

Conclusion

The results of this study provide information about particles’ interaction in different kilovoltage and filter combinations. This information is useful for X-ray tube design and development of new target/filter combinations to improve beam quality in superficial X-ray radiotherapy. The data presented here may provide a base for comparison and a reference for other or potential new users of the XSTRAHL 150 X-ray unit.

Keywords

BEAMnrckilovoltage X-rayMonte Carlo modellingXSTRAHL 150
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 43 - 55
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Bratherton, D G. Skin malignancy. In Hope-Stone H F (ed.). Radiotherapy in Clinical Practice. London: Butterworths, 1986: 280–292.Google Scholar
2.McLelland, J, Chu, A C. Skin. In Sikora K, Halnan K E (eds). Treatment of Cancer. London: Chapman and Hall, 1990: 611–618.Google Scholar
3.Klevenhagen, S C, Aukett, R J, Harrison, R M, Moretti, C, Nahum, A E, Rosser, K E. The IPEMB code of practice for the determination of absorbed dose for X-rays below 300 kV generating potential (0.035 mm Al-4 mm Cu HVL; 10–300 kV generating potential). Phys Med Biol 1996; 41: 2605–2625.Google Scholar
4.Hill, R, Healy, B, Holloway, L, Kuncic, Z, Thwaites, D, Baldock, C. Advances in kilovoltage X-ray beam dosimetry. Phys Med Biol 2014; 59: R183–R231.Google Scholar
5.Verhaegen, F, Nahum, A E, Van de Putte, S, Namito, Y. Monte Carlo modelling of radiotherapy kV X-ray units. Phys Med Biol 1999; 44: 1767–1789.Google Scholar
6.Bhat, M, Pattison, J, Bibbo, G, Caon, M. Off-axis X-ray spectra: a comparison of Monte Carlo simulated and computed X-ray spectra with measured spectra. Med Phys 1999; 26: 303–309.Google Scholar
7.Mercier, J R, Kopp, D T, McDavid, W D, Dove, S B, Lancaster, J L, Tucker, D M. Modification and benchmarking of MCNP for low-energy tungsten spectra. Med Phys 2000; 27: 2680–2687.Google Scholar
8.Ay, M R, Shahriari, M, Sarkar, S, Adib, M, Zaidi, H. Monte Carlo simulation of X-ray spectra in diagnostic radiology and mammography using MCNP4C. Phys Med Biol 2004; 49: 4897–4917.Google ScholarPubMed
9.Cranley, K, Gilmore, B J, Fogarty, G W A, Desponds, L. Catalogue of diagnostic X-ray spectra and other data. IPEM Report 78. York (UK): the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM); 1997 (CD-ROM edition).Google Scholar
10.Mainegra-Hing, E, Kawrakow, I. Efficient X-ray tube simulations. Med Phys 2006; 33: 2683–2690.Google Scholar
11.Knöös, T, Munck Af Rosenschold, P, Wieslander, E. Modelling of an orthovoltage X-ray therapy unit with the EGSnrc Monte Carlo package. J Phys: Conf Ser 2007; 74: 021009.Google Scholar
12.Chica, U, Anguiano, M, Lallena, A M. Benchmark of PENELOPE for low and medium energy X-rays. Physica Medica 2009; 25: 51–57.Google Scholar
13.Rogers, D W O, Faddegon, B A, Ding, G X, Ma, C M, Wei, J, Mackie, T R. BEAM: a Monte Carlo code to simulate radiotherapy treatment units. Med Phys 1995; 22: 503–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Rogers, D W O, Walters, B, Kawrakow, I. BEAMnrc Users Manual. Report No.: PIRS-0509(A)revL. Ottawa (Canada): National Research Council of Canada; 2011. https://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/solutions/advisory/beam_index.htmlGoogle Scholar
15.Kawrakow, I. Accurate condensed history Monte Carlo simulation of electron transport. I. EGSnrc, the new EGS4 version. Med Phys 2000; 27: 485–488.Google Scholar
16.Kawrakow, I, Mainegra-Hing, E, Rogers, D W O, Tessier, F, Walters, B. The EGSnrc code system: Monte Carlo simulation of electron and photon transport. Report No.: PIRS-701. Ottawa (Canada): National Research Council of Canada, 2011. https://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/solutions/advisory/egsnrc_index.htmlGoogle Scholar
17.Walters, B, Kawrakow, I, Rogers, D W O. DOSXYZnrc users manual. Report No.: PIRS-794revB. Ottawa (Canada): National Research Council of Canada, 2011.Google Scholar
18.Ali, E S M, Rogers, D W O. Efficiency improvements of X-ray simulations in EGSnrc user-codes using bremsstrahlung cross-section enhancement (BCSE). Med Phys 2007; 34: 2143–2154.Google Scholar
19.Poludniowski, G, Landry, G, DeBlois, F, Evans, P M, Verhaegen, F. SpekCalc: a program to calculate photon spectra from tungsten anode X-ray tubes. Phys Med Biol 2009; 54: N433–N438.Google Scholar
20.Ma, C M, Coffey, C W, DeWerd, L Aet al. AAPM protocol for 40-300 kV X-ray beam dosimetry in radiotherapy and radiobiology. Med Phys 2001; 28: 868–893.Google Scholar
21.International Atomic Energy Agency. Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy: An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry Based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water. IAEA TRS-398. Vienna (Austria): IAEA, 2001.Google Scholar
22.Matsumoto, M, Yamamoto, A, Honda, I, Taniguchi, A, Kanamori, H. Direct measurement of mammography X-ray spectra using a CdZnTe detector. Med Phys 2000; 27: 1499–1502.Google Scholar
23.Matzke, M. Unfolding of pulse height spectra: the HEPRO program system. Report No.: PTB-N-19. Braunschweig (Germany): Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, 1994.Google Scholar
24.Klevenhagen, S C, Thwaites, D I. Kilovoltage X-rays. In Williams J R, Thwaites D I (eds). Radiotherapy Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993: 95–112.Google Scholar
25.Aukett, R J, Thomas, D W, Seaby, A, Gittins, J T. Performance characteristics of the Pantak DXT-300 kilovoltage X-ray treatment machine. Br J Radiol 1996; 69: 726–734.Google Scholar
26.Gerig, L, Soubra, M, Salhani, D. Beam characteristics of the therapax DXT300 orthovoltage therapy unit. Phys Med Biol 1994; 39: 1377–1392.Google Scholar
27.Evans, P A, Moloney, A J, Mountford, P J. Performance assessment of the Gulmay D3300 kilovoltage X-ray therapy unit. Br J Radiol 2001; 74: 537–547.Google Scholar