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

Title: SU-F-T-66: Characteristics of Electron Beams From Varian Trubeam

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the electron beam data between Truebeam and 2300ix Varian accelerators for percent depth dose for broad beam and small circular cutouts, cone factors, head scatter factor as a function of cone size and SSD, phantom scatter factor, blocking factor, distance factor and virtual source position. Methods: Measurements were performed for Truebeam and 2300ix Varian accelerators. The main energies used were: 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 MeV. PDD was measured at SSD = 100 cm for open beam and small circular cutouts (r = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 6.6cm) for different energies. Measurements to determine the head scatter factor (H) were done as a function of radius for six representative energies and five cone sizes (6, 10, 15, 20 and 25cm2). The phantom scatter factor (PSF) is defined as the ratio of blocking factor in water at reference depth and head scatter factor in air. PSF was measured as a function of radius and electron energy. Distance factor was measured for all energies and cones for three SSD’s (100, 110 and 120cm). Results: The percent depth dose (PDD) was measured for small cutouts of radius r = 0.5,more » 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 and 5.6cm. Blocking factor (BF) was measured for Truebeam and 2300ix accelerators, for different circular cutouts and energies for a 10×10 cone. Cone factors were compared between the two accelerators for different energies and applicator sizes. Conclusion: Cone factors measured for the two accelerator types differ by up to 5% for the largest applicator size. Blocking factors differs by up to 3%, with the largest variation for the smallest field size (0.5cm). Distance factor for different SSD’s differ by up to 4.5%.« less

Authors:
; ;  [1]
  1. University Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22642314
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:
43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS; ACCELERATORS; BUNDESAMT FUER STRAHLENSCHUTZ; DEPTH DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; ELECTRON BEAMS; MEV RANGE 01-10; MEV RANGE 10-100; PHANTOMS

Citation Formats

Dimofte, A, Kennedy, C, and Zhu, T. SU-F-T-66: Characteristics of Electron Beams From Varian Trubeam. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956201.
Dimofte, A, Kennedy, C, & Zhu, T. SU-F-T-66: Characteristics of Electron Beams From Varian Trubeam. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956201.
Dimofte, A, Kennedy, C, and Zhu, T. 2016. "SU-F-T-66: Characteristics of Electron Beams From Varian Trubeam". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956201.
@article{osti_22642314,
title = {SU-F-T-66: Characteristics of Electron Beams From Varian Trubeam},
author = {Dimofte, A and Kennedy, C and Zhu, T},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the electron beam data between Truebeam and 2300ix Varian accelerators for percent depth dose for broad beam and small circular cutouts, cone factors, head scatter factor as a function of cone size and SSD, phantom scatter factor, blocking factor, distance factor and virtual source position. Methods: Measurements were performed for Truebeam and 2300ix Varian accelerators. The main energies used were: 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 MeV. PDD was measured at SSD = 100 cm for open beam and small circular cutouts (r = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 6.6cm) for different energies. Measurements to determine the head scatter factor (H) were done as a function of radius for six representative energies and five cone sizes (6, 10, 15, 20 and 25cm2). The phantom scatter factor (PSF) is defined as the ratio of blocking factor in water at reference depth and head scatter factor in air. PSF was measured as a function of radius and electron energy. Distance factor was measured for all energies and cones for three SSD’s (100, 110 and 120cm). Results: The percent depth dose (PDD) was measured for small cutouts of radius r = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 and 5.6cm. Blocking factor (BF) was measured for Truebeam and 2300ix accelerators, for different circular cutouts and energies for a 10×10 cone. Cone factors were compared between the two accelerators for different energies and applicator sizes. Conclusion: Cone factors measured for the two accelerator types differ by up to 5% for the largest applicator size. Blocking factors differs by up to 3%, with the largest variation for the smallest field size (0.5cm). Distance factor for different SSD’s differ by up to 4.5%.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956201},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: Accurately determining out-of-field doses when using electron beam radiotherapy is of importance when treating pregnant patients or patients with implanted electronic devices. Scattered doses outside of the applicator field in electron beams have not been broadly investigated, especially since manufacturers have taken different approaches in applicator designs. Methods: In this study, doses outside of the applicator field were measured for electron beams produced by a 10×10 applicator on two Varian 21iXs operating at 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV, a Varian TrueBeam operating at 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV, and an Elekta Versa HD operating atmore » 6, 9, 12 and 15 MeV. Peripheral dose profiles and percent depth doses were measured in a Wellhofer water phantom at 100 cm SSD with a Farmer ion chamber. Doses were compared to peripheral photon doses from AAPM’s Task Group #36 report. Results: Doses were highest for the highest electron energies. Doses typically decreased with increasing distance from the field edge but showed substantial increases over some distance ranges. Substantial dose differences were observed between different accelerators; the Elekta accelerator had much higher doses than any Varian unit examined. Surprisingly, doses were often similar to, and could be much higher than, doses from photon therapy. Doses decreased sharply with depth before becoming nearly constant; the dose was found to decrease to a depth of approximately E(MeV)/4 in cm. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that proper shielding may be very important when utilizing electron beams, particularly on a Versa HD, while treating pregnant patients or those with implanted electronic devices. Applying a water equivalent bolus of Emax(MeV)/4 thickness (cm) on the patient would reduce fetal dose drastically for all clinical energies and is a practical solution to manage the potentially high peripheral doses seen from modern electron beams. Funding from NIH Grant number: #CA180803.« less
  • Purpose: The design of the linac head is different for TrueBeam than Clinac, and there are differences in measured dose distributions in water phantoms between TrueBeam and Clinac for electron beams. Therefore, MC models for Clinac may not be applied directly to the Truebeam linac. The purpose of this study is to validate a Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation framework for electron beams on Varian TrueBeam with phase space files provided by Varian. Methods: The particle histories from the phase space file were used as input for the down-stream simulation including jaws, applicators, and water phantom. MC packages BEAMnrc/DOSYXZnrc weremore » used. The down-stream beam components were modeled according to manufacturer specifications and the dose distributions were compared with the measured data of standard cones. The measurements were performed in a water phantom with a p-type electron field diode (diameter 0.2cm) and ion chamber (CC13). Depth dose and orthogonal profiles at depths defined by R{sub 1} {sub 0} {sub 0}, R{sub 5} {sub 0}, Rp were compared. Results: Preliminary results for a 16 MeV phase space and 10x10, 15x15, and 20x20 cm{sup 2} applicator are presented. Simulations were run for a statistical uncertainty of <2% at depth of maximum dose for a voxel resolution of 0.5x0.5x0.2cm{sup 2}. Dose and range differences for the PDD profiles were within 2% and 1 mm, respectively. Dose differences within the central 80% of the beam width for the orthogonal profiles at depth of maximum dose were less than 2% for the 10x10, 15x15, and 20x20 cm{sup 2} applicator, respectively. Conclusion: Varian electron phase space files simulations are in agreement with measured commissioning data. These phase space files can be used in the simulation of TrueBeam linacs, and will provide reproducibility across publications. Analyses for all electron energies and standard applicators are under way and results will be included in the presentation.« less
  • Purpose: In a previous study we have demonstrated the feasibility of using EPID to QA electron beam parameters on a single Varian TrueBeam LINAC. This study aims to provide further investigation on (1) reproducibility of using EPID to detect electron beam energy changes on multiple machines and (2) evaluation of appropriate calibration methods to compare results from different EPIDs. Methods: Ad-hoc mode electron beam images were acquired in developer mode with XML code. Electron beam data were collected on a total of six machines from four institutions. A custom-designed double-wedge phantom was placed on the EPID detector. Two calibration methodsmore » - Pixel Sensitivity Map (PSM) and Large Source-to-Imager Distance Flood Field (LSID-FF) - were used. To test the sensitivity of EPID in detecting energy drifts, Bending Magnet Current (BMC) was detuned to invoke energy changes corresponding to ∼±1.5 mm change in R50% of PDD on two machines from two institutions. Percent depth ionization (PDI) curves were then analyzed and compared with the respective baseline images using LSID-FF calibration. For reproducibility testing, open field EPID images and images with a standard testing phantom were collected on multiple machines. Images with and without PSM correction for same energies on different machines were overlaid and compared. Results: Two pixel shifts were observed in PDI curve when energy changes exceeded the TG142 tolerance. PSM showed the potential to correct the differences in pixel response of different imagers. With PSM correction, the histogram of images differences obtained from different machines showed narrower distributions than those images without PSM correction. Conclusion: EPID is sensitive for electron energy changes and the results are reproducible on different machines. When overlaying images from different machines, PSM showed the ability to partially eliminate the intrinsic variation of various imagers. Research Funding from Varian Medical Systems Inc.Dr. Sasa Mutic receives compensation for providing patient safety training services from Varian Medical Systems, the sponsor of this study.« less
  • Dose distribution patterns of 4 MV x rays from a Varian Clinac 4 linear accelerator are compared with those from a /sup 60/Co teletherapy machine. Field flatteners of lead and depleted uranium were used. Dose distribution maps display the off-axis high dose or ''horns'' with lead filters and circular dose distribution patterns. The uranium field flattener clearly ''clipped the horns'' and eliminated circular dose distribution patterns with larger fields.