Upload
others
View
12
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Research ArticleFLUKA Monte Carlo for Basic Dosimetric Studies of DualEnergy Medical Linear Accelerator
K. Abdul Haneefa,1 T. Siji Cyriac,2,3 M. M. Musthafa,4 R. Ganapathi Raman,3 V. T. Hridya,5
A. Siddhartha,6 and K. K. Shakir6
1 Department of Physics, University & INFN of Torino, Via P.Giuria, 10125 Torino, Italy2 Department of Radiation Therapy, HCG-Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai 400 056, India3 Department of Physics, Noorul Islam Centre for Higher Education, Kumaracoil, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District,Tamilnadu 629 180, India
4Department of Physics, University of Calicut, Thenhipalam, Kerala 673635, India5 Department of Radiation Therapy, K.S Hegde Medical Academy, Nitte University, Deralakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka 575018, India6Department of Radiation Therapy, AJ Cancer Institute-Kuntikana, Mangalore, Karnataka 575004, India
Correspondence should be addressed to K. Abdul Haneefa; [email protected]
Received 29 January 2014; Revised 9 July 2014; Accepted 9 July 2014; Published 24 July 2014
Academic Editor: Tibor Major
Copyright © 2014 K. Abdul Haneefa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properlycited.
General purpose Monte Carlo code for simulation of particle transport is used to study the basic dosimetric parameters likepercentage depth dose and dose profiles and compared with the experimental measurements from commercial dual energymedicallinear accelerator. Varian Clinac iX medical linear accelerator with dual energy photon beams (6 and 15MV) is simulated usingFLUKA. FLAIR is used to visualize and edit the geometry. Experimental measurements are taken for 100 cm source-to-surface(SSD) in 50 × 50 × 50 cm3 PTW water phantom using 0.12 cc cylindrical ionization chamber. Percentage depth dose for standardsquare field sizes and dose profiles for various depths are studied in detail. The analysis was carried out using ROOT (a DATAanalysis frame work developed at CERN) system. Simulation result shows good agreement in percentage depth dose and beamprofiles with the experimental measurements for Varian Clinac iX dual energy medical linear accelerator.
1. Introduction
Monte Carlo (MC) method has become a powerful tool inradiation therapy for studying the dosimetric parameters.It is a common objective of medical physics to achieve anaccuracy of better than ±5% for the delivery of dose. But thiscan be realized only if the dose calculation accuracy is betterthan ±2%. Therefore, in the future, Monte Carlo algorithmswill have a clear preference compared with all other methodsof dose calculation. At present, different Monte Carlo codesare used widely for modeling medical linear accelerators[1–4].
Monte Carlo methods are applied in radiation therapyto analyze the adequacy of linac head components, tobenchmark dose calculation models, and to study the beam
characteristics [5, 6]. Modeling of medical linear acceleratorin clinical environments using any Monte Carlo models isquite complex to address source definition and collimatormaterials definitions. Commercial manufactures of medicallinear accelerators are distributing limited versions withconfidence of agreements. Different approaches are suggestedin many literatures to quantify this limited knowledge formodeling [7, 8]. Percentage depth dose (PDD) and beamprofiles are the basic parameters to ensure the adequacy ofMonte Carlo modeling [9].
Monte Carlo for treatment planning is practically impos-sible in Indian scenarios, where there are a large number ofpatients with limited facilities. A Monte Carlo model takesconsiderable time to optimize individual treatment plans.However, the beam characteristic and other parameters can
Hindawi Publishing CorporationJournal of RadiotherapyVolume 2014, Article ID 343979, 7 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/343979
2 Journal of Radiotherapy
be tuned using any availableMonte Carlo codes for all clinicalinstitutions [10]. Time consuming process for Monte Carlocalculations is greatly influenced in our study to make simpleand reliable model to mimic the clinical scenario.
In this study, we modeled a commercial medical linearaccelerator, Varian Clinac iX, using FLUKA [11, 12] MonteCarlo code by using FLAIR [13] (FLUKAAdvanced Interface)as per the manufactures recommendations. Percentage depthdose (PDD) values and lateral profiles of dose depositionwere evaluated for standard square field sizes. Our resultsare compared with the experimental data taken from VarianClinac iX machine. CERN developed ROOT v5-34 [14]software is used for analysis.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. FLUKA Monte Carlo Calculations. Dual energy photonbeam from Varian Clinac iX (Varian Medical Systems, PaloAlto, CA, USA) is modeled using FLUKA Monte Carlo. Wesimplified this model without altering any components in thelinac head as per manufactures description. Version 2011.2b.4(updated in 11 September 2013) of FLUKAcodewas utilized inthe present research.This code is amultipurposeMonteCarlocode which has been developed for accurate simulation of theinteraction and propagation in matter of about 60 differentparticles, including photons and electrons from 1 keV tothousands of TeV, neutrinos,muons of any energy, hadrons ofenergies up to 20 TeV and all the corresponding antiparticles,neutrons down to thermal energies, and heavy ions. A well-described physical phenomenon in our energy range is thepower of this tool.
Figure 1 shows major components including target, pri-mary collimator, fattening filter, and secondary collimatorjaws. Actual components combination is not shown in thefigure, because of confidence of agreement signed with themanufacturer. Target with tungsten coupled with copper isdefined in the simulation. Primary and secondary collimatorsare defined using tungsten. Water phantom of 50 × 50 ×50 cm3 cube is defined at 100 cm from the target with 1 cmplastic outer covering layer except in beam entrance plane.
FLAIR giveswide options to choose desired FLUKA inputcards (the type of interaction and transport thresholds can beset in the physics and transport section of the cards). EM-CASCA card is used as a default in both cases. Number ofprimary photons for this study was set at 5 × 107 for 6MVand 8 × 107 for 15MV histories in 5 cycles. Electromagneticintersection input file was carried out in electromagneticFLUKA cascade mode [12]. A production threshold of 10 keVis used for EMF and 50 keV for delta ray production.
2.2. Dose Measurements. All the measurements were carriedout by Scanditronix automatic water phantom (Blue Phan-tom, Scanditronix Wellhofer AB, Sweden) and a cylindricalionization chamber of 0.12 cm3 active volume. Both PDDcurves and beam profiles were taken using 1mm step sizefor measurements. For comparison 2mm readings wereconsidered to obtain better illustration in PDD and 1mm
Electron beam
Primary collimator
Target
Flattening filter
Ionization chamber
Water phantom
X-Jaw
Y-Jaw
11.18 cm
25.65 cm
7.87 cm
60 cm
55.3 cm
Figure 1:The schematic representation of Varian Clinac iX medicallinear accelerator and water phantom simulated in our study.
binning for profile plots. Beam quality measurements werecarried out using TPS 20/10 on both energies before the datataking. Room lasers and standard scalars are used for accurateposition of water phantom.
2.3. Beam Energy Optimization. Standard 10 × 10 cm2 fieldsize is used to obtain the beam energy for both photonenergies. Percentage depth dose for this field size is comparedbetweenMonte Carlo calculated and the measurements.Thisis a common approach bymany authors [1, 9] for beamenergyoptimization.
Three independent measurements were taken to reducethe uncertainties in maximum dose point and the compar-ison is performed to this normalized point. Initial energyvalue of photon beam is taken as the default value as setby the manufacturer. Further, the value was increased ordecreased according to the result of the first comparisonbetween calculations and measurements. In 6MV photonbeam, the energies of 6.0, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4MeV were sim-ulated and for 15MV photon beam, the energies of 15.0,15.2, 15.3, and 15.4MeV were simulated. Local differences
Journal of Radiotherapy 3
Depth (cm)0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Dep
th d
ose (
%)
2030405060708090
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Relat
ive e
rror
(%)
00.5
11.5
25 × 5
Depth (cm)
−0.5
−1
−1.5
−2
(a)
Depth (cm)0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Dep
th d
ose (
%)
2030405060708090
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Relat
ive e
rror
(%)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Depth (cm)
−0.5
−1
−1.5
−2
10 × 10
(b)
Depth (cm)0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Dep
th d
ose (
%)
2030405060708090
1001
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Depth (cm)
Relat
ive e
rror
(%)
0
0.5
1.5
−0.5
−1
−1.5
15 × 15
(c)
Depth (cm)0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Dep
th d
ose (
%)
2030405060708090
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Depth (cm)
1
Relat
ive e
rror
(%)
0
0.5
1.5
−0.5
−1
−1.5
20 × 20
Measurement FLUKA
(d)
Figure 2: Comparison of calculated and measured percentage depth dose for 6 MV photon beam for field sizes 5 × 5 cm2 (a), 10 × 10 cm2 (b),15 × 15 cm2 (c), and 20 × 20 cm2 (d). Relative error is shown on right side.
4 Journal of Radiotherapy
Depth (cm)0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Dep
th d
ose (
%)
30405060708090
100
Relat
ive e
rror
(%)
0
1
3
25 × 5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Depth (cm)
−1
−3
−2
(a)
Depth (cm)0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Dep
th d
ose (
%)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Relat
ive e
rror
(%)
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Depth (cm)
−0.5
−1
−1.5
10 × 10
(b)
Depth (cm)0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Dep
th d
ose (
%)
30405060708090
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Depth (cm)
Relat
ive e
rror
(%)
00.5
11.5
2
−0.5
−1
−1.5
−2
15 × 15
(c)
Depth (cm)0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Dep
th d
ose (
%)
30405060708090
100 20 × 20
Measurement FLUKA
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Depth (cm)
1
Relat
ive e
rror
(%)
0
0.5
1.5
−0.5
−1
−1.5
(d)
Figure 3: Comparison of calculated and measured percentage depth dose for 15MV photon beam for field sizes 5 × 5 cm2 (a), 10 × 10 cm2(b), 15 × 15 cm2 (c), and 20 × 20 cm2 (d). Relative error is shown on right side.
Journal of Radiotherapy 5
Off-axis distance (mm)0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Rela
tive d
ose (
%)
0
20
40
60
80
100 dmax
Off-axis distance (mm)0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Relat
ive e
rror
(%)
−14
−12
−10
−8
−6
−4
−2
0
2
MeasurementFLUKA
(a)
Off-axis distance (mm)0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Relat
ive d
ose (
%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Off-axis distance (mm)0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Relat
ive e
rror
(%)
−16
−14
−12
−10
−8
−6
−4
−2
0
2
MeasurementFLUKA
5 cm
(b)
Figure 4: Comparison of calculated and measured depth dose profile and relative error (right side) for 6MV photon beam for depth ofmaximum dose (a) and 5 cm depths (b).
between simulation andmeasurement results were calculatedfor accurate comparison between results.
2.4. PDD and Beam Profile Comparison. Using the modeleddual energy linac, percentage depth dose and beam profileswere generated. PDD of both energies for 5 × 5 cm2, 10 ×10 cm2, 15 × 15 cm2, and 20 × 20 cm2 were generated usingFLAIR of FLUKA Monte Carlo. This study estimates theaccuracy and adequacy of our simplified model. The beamprofiles of 6 and 15MV photon, including sharp dose fall offpenumbra region (dose region between 80% and 20%) for10 × 10 cm2 at depth of maximum dose and at 5 cm depth iscompared in this study.
3. Results and Discussion
The Monte Carlo simulated percent depth dose curves andprofiles across the central axis for flattened beams at differentdepths were compared against the measured data to verifythe goodness of the MC model. The PDD curves are onlysensitive to the mean energy of the incident electron, butdose profile curves are both dependent on the mean energy.Therefore, logically, one can use PDD to find the optimalenergy. In our study 10 × 10 cm2 field size is used to optimizethe beam energy. The optimum beam energy for 6MV and15MV clinical photon is found as 6.2MeV and 15.3MeV.These values are largely dependent on the Monte Carlomodels where linac head components are simulated.
6 Journal of Radiotherapy
Off-axis distance (mm)0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Rela
tive d
ose (
%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
MeasurementFLUKA
Off-axis distance (mm)0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Relat
ive e
rror
(%)
−18
−16
−14
−12
−10
−8
−6
−4
−2
0
2dmax
(a)
Off-axis distance (mm)0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Relat
ive d
ose (
%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Off-axis distance (mm)0 20 40 60 80 100 120 160140
Relat
ive e
rror
(%)
−18
−16
−14
−12
−10
−8
−6
−4
−2
0
2
MeasurementFLUKA
5 cm
(b)
Figure 5: Comparison of calculated and measured depth dose profile and relative error (right side) for 15MV photon beam for depth ofmaximum dose (a) and 5 cm depths (b).
3.1. Depth Dose Curves Comparison. A comparison for thedepth dose curves is shown in Figures 2 and 3. It can beconcluded from the above figures that the Monte Carlomodel for 6 and 15MV photon beam accurately matches themeasured data, while central axis depth dose curves for the 6and 15MV flattened beams for 5 × 5 cm2, 10 × 10 cm2, 15 ×15 cm2, and 20 × 20 cm2 show good agreement betweenmeasurement and simulation. Relative errors ((calculated −measured)/calculated) over the depth are plotted separatelyin the previously mentioned figures.This small variationmaybe due to the changes in the geometry, especially in thetruncated shape of flattening filter. Larger field sizes are notconsidered in this work due the limited use of such fields inour routine clinical practice.
3.2. Beam Profile Comparison. A cross-plane dose profilescomparison is shown in Figure 4 for 6MV and Figure 5for 15MV photon beam. It is found that the Monte Carlo
model has good agreement with the measured data fromthe previously mentioned figures. The flat region (within thefield definition) is 2-3%. The difference in the penumbrais about 10%. The dose profile have a difference of 10–15%between data and simulationwith in the field and high energyphoton beam have a difference of 12%–18% in out-of-field(low dose) region. In the outside beam edge, our results werein agreement with previous studies [15, 16] where MonteCarlo predicts 20%–30% lower dose than the measurements.
4. Conclusion
This simplified FLUKA Monte Carlo model (avoiding themultileaf collimator) of Varian Clinac iX linac, based onthe manufacturer’s information, gives good agreement inpercentage depth dose curves and beam profile plots. MonteCarlo model with retracted multileaf collimator shows per-fect agreement for basic physical properties in standard field
Journal of Radiotherapy 7
sizes. Although percentage depth dose values in the build-upregion showmore dependence on the field size (Figures 2 and3), we commissioned calculation results for percentage depthdose curves and beam profiles (Figure 4) for different fieldsizes using recommended criteria for photon beam models.Measurements and simulation agrees better (
Submit your manuscripts athttp://www.hindawi.com
Stem CellsInternational
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION
of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Behavioural Neurology
EndocrinologyInternational Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Disease Markers
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
BioMed Research International
OncologyJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
PPAR Research
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Journal of
ObesityJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
OphthalmologyJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Diabetes ResearchJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Research and TreatmentAIDS
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Gastroenterology Research and Practice
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Parkinson’s Disease
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com