Lourenço A, Shipley D, Wellock N, Thomas R, Bouchard H, Kacperek A, Fracchiolla F, Lorentini S, Schwarz M, MacDougall N, Royle G, Palmans H
Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom. Division of Acoustics and Ionising Radiation, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington TW11 0LW, United Kingdom.
Phys Med Biol. 2017 May 21;62(10):3883-3901. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa67d4. Epub 2017 Mar 20.
The aim of this work was to evaluate the water-equivalence of new trial plastics designed specifically for light-ion beam dosimetry as well as commercially available plastics in clinical proton beams. The water-equivalence of materials was tested by computing a plastic-to-water conversion factor, [Formula: see text]. Trial materials were characterized experimentally in 60 MeV and 226 MeV un-modulated proton beams and the results were compared with Monte Carlo simulations using the FLUKA code. For the high-energy beam, a comparison between the trial plastics and various commercial plastics was also performed using FLUKA and Geant4 Monte Carlo codes. Experimental information was obtained from laterally integrated depth-dose ionization chamber measurements in water, with and without plastic slabs with variable thicknesses in front of the water phantom. Fluence correction factors, [Formula: see text], between water and various materials were also derived using the Monte Carlo method. For the 60 MeV proton beam, [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] factors were within 1% from unity for all trial plastics. For the 226 MeV proton beam, experimental [Formula: see text] values deviated from unity by a maximum of about 1% for the three trial plastics and experimental results showed no advantage regarding which of the plastics was the most equivalent to water. Different magnitudes of corrections were found between Geant4 and FLUKA for the various materials due mainly to the use of different nonelastic nuclear data. Nevertheless, for the 226 MeV proton beam, [Formula: see text] correction factors were within 2% from unity for all the materials. Considering the results from the two Monte Carlo codes, PMMA and trial plastic #3 had the smallest [Formula: see text] values, where maximum deviations from unity were 1%, however, PMMA range differed by 16% from that of water. Overall, [Formula: see text] factors were deviating more from unity than [Formula: see text] factors and could amount to a few percent for some materials.
这项工作的目的是评估专门为轻离子束剂量测定设计的新型试验塑料以及临床质子束中市售塑料的水等效性。通过计算塑料与水的转换因子[公式:见原文]来测试材料的水等效性。试验材料在60 MeV和226 MeV未调制质子束中进行了实验表征,并将结果与使用FLUKA代码的蒙特卡罗模拟进行了比较。对于高能束,还使用FLUKA和Geant4蒙特卡罗代码对试验塑料和各种商用塑料进行了比较。实验信息是通过在水模体前有无不同厚度塑料板的情况下,对水中横向积分深度剂量电离室测量获得的。水与各种材料之间的注量校正因子[公式:见原文]也使用蒙特卡罗方法得出。对于60 MeV质子束,所有试验塑料的[公式:见原文]和[公式:见原文]因子与1相差在1%以内。对于226 MeV质子束,三种试验塑料的实验[公式:见原文]值与1的最大偏差约为1%,并且实验结果表明在这些塑料中哪种最接近水方面没有优势。由于主要使用了不同的非弹性核数据,在Geant4和FLUKA之间发现了各种材料的不同校正幅度。然而,对于226 MeV质子束,所有材料的[公式:见原文]校正因子与1相差在2%以内。考虑到两个蒙特卡罗代码的结果,PMMA和试验塑料#3的[公式:见原文]值最小,与1的最大偏差为1%,然而,PMMA的射程与水的射程相差16%。总体而言,[公式:见原文]因子比[公式:见原文]因子更偏离1,并且对于某些材料可能达到百分之几。