skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-F-J-56: The Connection Between Cherenkov Light Emission and Radiation Absorbed Dose in Proton Irradiated Phantoms

Abstract

Purpose: Range verification in proton therapy is of great importance. Cherenkov light follows the photon and electron energy deposition in water phantom. The purpose of this study is to investigate the connection between Cherenkov light generation and radiation absorbed dose in a water phantom irradiated with proton beams. Methods: Monte Carlo simulation was performed by employing FLUKA Monte Carlo code to stochastically simulate radiation transport, ionizing radiation dose deposition, and Cherenkov radiation in water phantoms. The simulations were performed for proton beams with energies in the range 50–600 MeV to cover a wide range of proton energies. Results: The mechanism of Cherenkov light production depends on the initial energy of protons. For proton energy with 50–400 MeV energy that is below the threshold (∼483 MeV in water) for Cherenkov light production directly from incident protons, Cherenkov light is produced mainly from the secondary electrons liberated as a result of columbic interactions with the incident protons. For proton beams with energy above 500 MeV, in the initial depth that incident protons have higher energy than the Cherenkov light production threshold, the light has higher intensity. As the slowing down process results in lower energy protons in larger depths in the watermore » phantom, there is a knee point in the Cherenkov light curve vs. depth due to switching the Cherenkov light production mechanism from primary protons to secondary electrons. At the end of the depth dose curve the Cherenkov light intensity does not follow the dose peak because of the lack of high energy protons to produce Cherenkov light either directly or through secondary electrons. Conclusion: In contrast to photon and electron beams, Cherenkov light generation induced by proton beams does not follow the proton energy deposition specially close to the end of the proton range near the Bragg peak.« less

Authors:
; ;  [1];  [2]
  1. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
  2. UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22632188
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; 60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; ABSORBED RADIATION DOSES; BONE JOINTS; BRAGG CURVE; CHERENKOV RADIATION; COMPUTERIZED SIMULATION; DEPTH DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; ELECTRON BEAMS; ENERGY ABSORPTION; ENERGY LOSSES; IONIZING RADIATIONS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHANTOMS; PROTON BEAMS; RADIATION TRANSPORT; RADIOTHERAPY; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES

Citation Formats

Darafsheh, A, Kassaee, A, Finlay, J, and Taleei, R. SU-F-J-56: The Connection Between Cherenkov Light Emission and Radiation Absorbed Dose in Proton Irradiated Phantoms. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4955964.
Darafsheh, A, Kassaee, A, Finlay, J, & Taleei, R. SU-F-J-56: The Connection Between Cherenkov Light Emission and Radiation Absorbed Dose in Proton Irradiated Phantoms. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955964.
Darafsheh, A, Kassaee, A, Finlay, J, and Taleei, R. 2016. "SU-F-J-56: The Connection Between Cherenkov Light Emission and Radiation Absorbed Dose in Proton Irradiated Phantoms". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955964.
@article{osti_22632188,
title = {SU-F-J-56: The Connection Between Cherenkov Light Emission and Radiation Absorbed Dose in Proton Irradiated Phantoms},
author = {Darafsheh, A and Kassaee, A and Finlay, J and Taleei, R},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Range verification in proton therapy is of great importance. Cherenkov light follows the photon and electron energy deposition in water phantom. The purpose of this study is to investigate the connection between Cherenkov light generation and radiation absorbed dose in a water phantom irradiated with proton beams. Methods: Monte Carlo simulation was performed by employing FLUKA Monte Carlo code to stochastically simulate radiation transport, ionizing radiation dose deposition, and Cherenkov radiation in water phantoms. The simulations were performed for proton beams with energies in the range 50–600 MeV to cover a wide range of proton energies. Results: The mechanism of Cherenkov light production depends on the initial energy of protons. For proton energy with 50–400 MeV energy that is below the threshold (∼483 MeV in water) for Cherenkov light production directly from incident protons, Cherenkov light is produced mainly from the secondary electrons liberated as a result of columbic interactions with the incident protons. For proton beams with energy above 500 MeV, in the initial depth that incident protons have higher energy than the Cherenkov light production threshold, the light has higher intensity. As the slowing down process results in lower energy protons in larger depths in the water phantom, there is a knee point in the Cherenkov light curve vs. depth due to switching the Cherenkov light production mechanism from primary protons to secondary electrons. At the end of the depth dose curve the Cherenkov light intensity does not follow the dose peak because of the lack of high energy protons to produce Cherenkov light either directly or through secondary electrons. Conclusion: In contrast to photon and electron beams, Cherenkov light generation induced by proton beams does not follow the proton energy deposition specially close to the end of the proton range near the Bragg peak.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4955964},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: A number of recent studies have proposed that light emitted by the Cherenkov effect may be used for a number of radiation therapy dosimetry applications. Here we investigate the fundamental nature and accuracy of the technique for the first time by using a theoretical and Monte Carlo based analysis. Methods: Using the GEANT4 architecture for medically-oriented simulations (GAMOS) and BEAMnrc for phase space file generation, the light yield, material variability, field size and energy dependence, and overall agreement between the Cherenkov light emission and dose deposition for electron, proton, and flattened, unflattened, and parallel opposed x-ray photon beams wasmore » explored. Results: Due to the exponential attenuation of x-ray photons, Cherenkov light emission and dose deposition were identical for monoenergetic pencil beams. However, polyenergetic beams exhibited errors with depth due to beam hardening, with the error being inversely related to beam energy. For finite field sizes, the error with depth was inversely proportional to field size, and lateral errors in the umbra were greater for larger field sizes. For opposed beams, the technique was most accurate due to an averaging out of beam hardening in a single beam. The technique was found to be not suitable for measuring electron beams, except for relative dosimetry of a plane at a single depth. Due to a lack of light emission, the technique was found to be unsuitable for proton beams. Conclusions: The results from this exploratory study suggest that optical dosimetry by the Cherenkov effect may be most applicable to near monoenergetic x-ray photon beams (e.g. Co-60), dynamic IMRT and VMAT plans, as well as narrow beams used for SRT and SRS. For electron beams, the technique would be best suited for superficial dosimetry, and for protons the technique is not applicable due to a lack of light emission. NIH R01CA109558 and R21EB017559.« less
  • For reasons of phantom material reproducibility, the absorbed dose protocols of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) (TG-51) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (TRS-398) have made the use of liquid water as a phantom material for reference dosimetry mandatory. In this work we provide a formal framework for the measurement of absorbed dose to water using ionization chambers calibrated in terms of absorbed dose to water but irradiated in solid phantoms. Such a framework is useful when there is a desire to put dose measurements using solid phantoms on an absolute basis. Putting solid phantom measurementsmore » on an absolute basis has distinct advantages in verification measurements and quality assurance. We introduce a phantom dose conversion factor that converts a measurement made in a solid phantom and analyzed using an absorbed dose calibration protocol into absorbed dose to water under reference conditions. We provide techniques to measure and calculate the dose transfer from solid phantom to water. For an Exradin A12 ionization chamber, we measured and calculated the phantom dose conversion factor for six Solid Water{sup TM} phantoms and for a single Lucite phantom for photon energies between {sup 60}Co and 18 MV photons. For Solid Water{sup TM} of certified grade, the difference between measured and calculated factors varied between 0.0% and 0.7% with the average dose conversion factor being low by 0.4% compared with the calculation whereas for Lucite, the agreement was within 0.2% for the one phantom examined. The composition of commercial plastic phantoms and their homogeneity may not always be reproducible and consistent with assumed composition. By comparing measured and calculated phantom conversion factors, our work provides methods to verify the consistency of a given plastic for the purpose of clinical reference dosimetry.« less
  • Purpose: Previous dosimetry protocols allowed calibrations of proton beamline dose monitors to be performed in plastic phantoms. Nevertheless, dose determinations were referenced to absorbed dose-to-muscle or absorbed dose-to-water. The IAEA Code of Practice TRS 398 recommended that dose calibrations be performed with ionization chambers only in water phantoms because plastic-to-water dose conversion factors were not available with sufficient accuracy at the time of its writing. These factors are necessary, however, to evaluate the difference in doses delivered to patients if switching from calibration in plastic to a protocol that only allows calibration in water. Methods: This work measured polystyrene-to-water dosemore » conversion factors for this purpose. Uncertainties in the results due to temperature, geometry, and chamber effects were minimized by using special experimental set-up procedures. The measurements were validated by Monte Carlo simulations. Results: At the peak of non-range-modulated beams, measured polystyrene-to-water factors ranged from 1.015 to 1.024 for beams with ranges from 36 to 315 mm. For beams with the same ranges and medium sized modulations, the factors ranged from 1.005 to 1.019. The measured results were used to generate tables of polystyrene-to-water dose conversion factors. Conclusions: The dose conversion factors can be used at clinical proton facilities to support beamline and patient specific dose per monitor unit calibrations performed in polystyrene phantoms.« less
  • A Monte Carlo code EGS4 expanded for low energy photon transport was validated by measuring absorbed doses in a phantom for 30 and 10 keV monoenergetic photons from synchrotron radiation. Using the EGS4 code, depth doses at 0.07 mm, 0.02 to 0.1 mm, and 10 mm in the ICRU slab phantoms were calculated for 1.5 to 50 keV photons using the updated photon cross section data PHOTX. The results show that the doses at 0.02 to 0.1 mm below 10 keV are practical indices of effective dose as calculated by others. 19 refs., 7 figs., 7 tabs.