Sawkey D L, Faddegon B A
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, 1600 Divisadero Street, San Francisco, California 94143, USA.
Med Phys. 2009 Mar;36(3):698-707. doi: 10.1118/1.3070547.
Monte Carlo simulations of x-ray beams typically take parameters of the electron beam in the accelerating waveguide to be free parameters. In this paper, a methodology is proposed and implemented to determine the energy, spectral width, and beam divergence of the electron source. All treatment head components were removed from the beam path, leaving only the exit window. With the x-ray target and flattener out of the beam, uncertainties in physical characteristics and relative position of the target and flattening filter, and in spot size, did not contribute to uncertainty in the energy. Beam current was lowered to reduce recombination effects. The measured dose distributions were compared with Monte Carlo simulation of the electron beam through the treatment head to extract the electron source characteristics. For the nominal 6 and 18 MV x-ray beams, the energies were 6.51 +/- 0.15 and 13.9 +/- 0.2 MeV, respectively, with the uncertainties resulting from uncertainties in the detector position in the measurement and in the stopping power in the simulations. Gaussian spectral distributions were used, with full widths at half maximum ranging from 20 +/- 4% at 6 MV to 13 +/- 4% at 18 MV required to match the fall-off portion of the percent-depth ionization curve. Profiles at the depth of maximum dose from simulations that used the manufacturer-specified exit window geometry and no beam divergence were 2-3 cm narrower than measured profiles. Two simulation configurations yielding the measured profile width were the manufacturer-specified exit window thickness with electron source divergences of 3.3 degrees at 6 MV and 1.8 degrees at 18 MV and an exit window 40% thicker than the manufacturer's specification with no beam divergence. With the x-ray target in place (and no flattener), comparison of measured to simulated profiles sets upper limits on the electron source divergences of 0.2 degrees at 6 MV and 0.1 degrees at 18 MV. A method of determining source characteristics without mechanical modification of the treatment head, and therefore feasible in clinics, is presented. The energies and spectral widths determined using this method agree with those determined with only the exit window in the beam path.
X射线束的蒙特卡罗模拟通常将加速波导中电子束的参数视为自由参数。本文提出并实施了一种方法来确定电子源的能量、光谱宽度和束发散度。所有治疗头组件均从束流路径中移除,仅留下出射窗。由于X射线靶和均整器不在束流中,靶和均整滤过器的物理特性及相对位置以及光斑尺寸的不确定性对能量不确定性没有影响。降低束流以减少复合效应。将测量的剂量分布与通过治疗头的电子束的蒙特卡罗模拟进行比较,以提取电子源特性。对于标称的6和18 MV X射线束,能量分别为6.51±0.15和13.9±0.2 MeV,不确定性源于测量中探测器位置的不确定性以及模拟中阻止本领的不确定性。使用高斯光谱分布,半高全宽范围从6 MV时的20±4%到18 MV时的13±4%,以匹配百分深度电离曲线的下降部分。使用制造商指定的出射窗几何形状且无束发散的模拟在最大剂量深度处的轮廓比测量轮廓窄2 - 3 cm。产生测量轮廓宽度的两种模拟配置是:制造商指定的出射窗厚度,6 MV时电子源发散度为3.3度,18 MV时为1.8度;以及比制造商规格厚40%的出射窗且无束发散。当X射线靶就位(且无均整器)时,测量轮廓与模拟轮廓的比较设定了6 MV时电子源发散度的上限为0.2度,18 MV时为0.1度。本文提出了一种无需对治疗头进行机械修改即可确定源特性的方法,因此在临床中可行。使用此方法确定的能量和光谱宽度与仅在束流路径中有出射窗时确定的结果一致。