Professional Documents
Culture Documents
0031 9155 2F47 2F7 2F303
0031 9155 2F47 2F7 2F303
Energy spectra, angular spread, fluence profiles and dose distributions of 6 and 18 MV photon
This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.
(http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/47/7/303)
View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more
Download details:
IP Address: 134.99.128.41
This content was downloaded on 19/11/2013 at 08:01
George X Ding
Medical Physics, Fraser Valley Cancer Center, British Columbia Cancer Agency, 13750,
96th Avenue, Surrey, BC, Canada V3V 1Z2
E-mail: gding@bccancer.bc.ca
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to provide detailed characteristics of incident
photon beams for different field sizes and beam energies. This information is
critical to the future development of accurate treatment planning systems. It
also enhances our knowledge of radiotherapy photon beams. The EGS4 Monte
Carlo code, BEAM, has been used to simulate 6 and 18 MV photon beams from
a Varian Clinac-2100EX accelerator. A simulated realistic beam is stored in a
phase space data file, which contains details of each particle’s complete history
including where it has been and where it has interacted. The phase space files
are analysed to obtain energy spectra, angular distribution, fluence profile and
mean energy profiles at the phantom surface for particles separated according to
their charge and history. The accuracy of a simulated beam is validated by the
excellent agreement between the Monte Carlo calculated and measured dose
distributions. Measured depth–dose curves are obtained from depth–ionization
curves by accounting for newly introduced chamber fluence corrections and
the stopping-power ratios for realistic beams. The study presents calculated
depth–dose components from different particles as well as calculated surface
dose and contribution from different particles to surface dose across the field.
It is shown that the increase of surface dose with the increase of the field size
is mainly due to the increase of incident contaminant charged particles. At
6 MV, the incident charged particles contribute 7% to 21% of maximum
dose at the surface when the field size increases from 10 × 10 to 40 ×
40 cm2. At 18 MV, their contributions are up to 11% and 29% of maximum
dose at the surface for 10 × 10 cm2 and 40 × 40 cm2 fields respectively.
However, the fluence of these incident charged particles is less than 1% of
incident photon fluence in all cases.
(Some figures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version)
0031-9155/02/071025+22$30.00 © 2002 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 1025
1026 G X Ding
1. Introduction
BEAM is a general purpose Monte Carlo user code for simulation of radiotherapy beams
from treatment units (Rogers et al 1995). It is based on the EGS4 code system. It has been
benchmarked against measurements for electron and photon beams from accelerators as well as
beams from Co-60 units (Ding 1995, Mora et al 1999, Rogers et al 1995, Sheikh-Bagheri et al
2000). The original studies mainly focused on electron beams (Ding et al 1995, 1996, 1997,
Zhang et al 1998, 1999). Using the BEAM code, the characteristics of the electron beams
in commercial medical accelerators have been extensively studied (Ding and Rogers 1995,
Ma et al 1997). However, similar detailed information for photon beams is not easily
available although the BEAM code has been widely used to study photon beams from medical
accelerators (Deng et al 2000, Faddegon et al 1999, Keall et al 2000, Liu et al 1997a, 1997b,
Schach von Wittenau et al 1999, 2000, Siebers et al 1999, van der Zee and Welleweerd 1999).
The energy and angular distributions of photons and contaminant charged particles
(electrons and positrons) from medical accelerators are the most important characteristics
of radiotherapy photon beams. Knowledge of clinical beams is essential for dosimetry and
the development of a new accurate treatment planning system. Experimentally it is difficult
to obtain detailed information because of various limitations in the clinical environment and
detectors. A number of experimental investigations of photon energy spectra have been
reported (Huang et al 1982, 1983, Jessen 1973, Levy et al 1974, 1976, Nath and Schulz 1976,
Swindell 1983). Some of the techniques used in the literature employ reconstruction methods
to obtain the energy spectra from measured narrow-beam transmission data. Others deduce
energy spectra from the spectroscopy of Compton scattered photons. One of the major
advantages of the Monte Carlo technique is that it allows detailed information about each
particle’s history to be known. Monte Carlo simulation can be used to obtain the information
that cannot be measured experimentally. Originally, Mohan et al (1985) had calculated a
photon’s energy spectra and angular distributions using the EGS3 Monte Carlo code. The
charged particles in the photon beams were not studied. Using the BEAM code van der Zee
and Welleweerd (1999) investigated some characteristics of a 10 MV photon beam from
an ELEKTA SL linac. Deng et al (2000) also studied photon beam characterization and
modelling for treatment planning of 4 to 15 MV beams from Varian Clinac 2100C and
2300CD accelerators.
This study aims to provide more comprehensive information for radiotherapy photon
beams including incident photons as well as contaminating electrons and positrons in a
radiotherapy beam for different field sizes and beam energies. This information enhances
our knowledge of radiotherapy photon beams. It also serves as a benchmark to demonstrate
the accuracy of the Monte Carlo technique in simulating the radiotherapy photon beams. In
addition, it provides detailed information on the Monte Carlo computing speed required to
simulate an incident beam and to calculate a dose distribution on current computers.
Table 1. BEAM simulation benchmark data when bremsstrahlung splitting technique is not
employed. The simulation is performed on a Pentium III with 1 GHz processor. The total
particle’s entries include photons, electrons and positrons. Each particle’s entry has a weight of 1.
Phase space
Energy Field size Histories/h file size (kb) Total entries Photon entries
(MV) (cm2) (×106) (per 1000 history) (per 1000 history) (per 1000 history)
Table 2. BEAM simulation benchmark data when the selective bremsstrahlung splitting (SBS)
technique is employed. The parameters used with SBS are: Nmin = 10, Nmax = 100. The simulation
is performed on a Pentium III with 1 GHz processor. Each particle’s entry has weights between
0.01 and 0.1.
Beam
nominal Phase space Total entries Photon entries
energy Field size Histories/h file size (kb) (per 1000 history) (per 1000 history)
(MV) (cm2) (×106) (per 1000 history) (×102) (×102)
6 10 × 10 2.96 3.07 1.095 1.091
6 40 × 40 2.09 74.5 26.61 26.51
18 10 × 10 0.538 17.9 6.392 6.333
18 40 × 40 0.271 378 135.0 133.8
analysing beam or as input to the EGS4 user code DOSXYZ to calculate the dose distributions
in a water phantom. This investigation presents simulated 6 and 18 MV beams from a Varian
Clinac-2100EX linear accelerator.
In the incident beam simulation, the EGS4 options and settings used to generate the
phase space files were: AE = ECUT = 0.700 MeV, AP = PCUT = 0.010 MeV, no photon
interaction forcing and no Rayleigh scattering. The electron range rejection technique was used
to increase the simulation speed. The value for ESAVE = 2 MeV was used since it provided a
factor of 2–3 increase in speed and ignored only 0.1% of photons (Sheikh-Bagheri et al 2000)
reaching the phantom surface, produced due to bremsstrahlung anywhere in the accelerator
head except in the target. Range rejection was turned off in the target to provide the most
accurate model for bremsstrahlung production. A variance reduction technique called selective
bremsstrahlung splitting (SBS) (Rogers et al 2000) was also used in the beam simulation to
increase the speed. The parameters used with SBS were: Nmin = 10, Nmax = 100. A Russian
roulette of secondary electrons is not employed. It is worth mentioning that simulations
were performed initially with both range rejection and SBS turned off. The results of the
simulations using both methods were the same within statistics. However, the simulation speed
with SBS turned on was much faster (almost two orders of magnitude) as shown in tables 1
and 2.
The CPU used for the simulation was a Pentium III with 1 GHz processors. For 6 MV
beams, a total of 5 × 108 and 2 × 107 electron histories were simulated for the 10 × 10 cm2 and
40 × 40 cm2 fields respectively. While at 18 MV, a total of 1 × 108 and 5 × 106 electron histories
are simulated for 10 × 10 cm2 and 40 × 40 cm2 fields respectively. The detailed benchmark data
of BEAM simulation when the bremsstrahlung splitting technique was off and on are shown in
1028 G X Ding
table 1 and 2 respectively. The dose calculation using the DOSXYZ code ran at 1.5 × 107 and
1.1 × 107 histories per h for 6 and 18 MV respectively. The dose calculation speed depends
on the requirement of voxel size and its statistical uncertainty, which was less than 1% in this
study. In this study the incident beam simulation took about 100–200 h for a 10 × 10 cm2
field and 10–20 h for a 40 × 40 cm2 field at 6 or 18 MV. The dose calculation using
DOSXYZ code took about 50–100 h for each field. The size of a phase space file was about
1–2 GB.
The starting incident electron energy and radial spread were both adjusted to produce the
best match between Monte Carlo calculated and measured dose distributions of the largest
field size for a given beam energy. These were the only two adjustable parameters in the
beam simulation. The final incident electrons had an energy distribution (which was taken
as a Gaussian with a FWHM of 1 MeV) and the distribution was centred at 6.02 MeV and
18.00 MeV for 6 MV and 18 MV beam respectively. The electron beam radial intensity
distribution was also taken as Gaussian with the FWHM of 1.2 mm and 1.5 mm for 6 MV and
18 MV beam respectively.
It is worth mentioning that dose profiles of large fields were very sensitive to the size of
the radial spread of incident electrons. While the central axis depth–dose curve only depended
on the incident electron energy, finding the best choice for the incident electron on target was
time consuming. Fortunately, it was only required to be done once.
When the Monte Carlo calculated dose distributions were in agreement with measured
dose distributions, the phase space files were then analysed to obtain the incident particles’
energy spectra, angular distributions, fluence profiles and mean energy profiles at the phantom
surface.
1994, Johansson et al 1977, Van der Plaetsen et al 1994). However, if one assumes that the
values of Pfl at dmax in TG-21 still apply to another depth (Ding and Yu 2001, Huq et al
1997, Reft and Kuchnir 1999, Rogers 1998) away from dmax, the data of Pfl given in TG-21
(TG-21 1983) could be used to correct the component of depth ionization contributed by the
contaminant electrons. In this study the following polynomial fitted curve (Ding and Yu 2001)
was used
Pfl (R50 , z) = a + bĒ z + c(Ē z )2 − d(Ē z )3 + e(Ē z )4 (1)
where the polynomial fitting parameters for a chamber with diameter of 6 mm were: a =
0.95202, b = 1.3725 × 10−3, c = 3.7981 × 10−4, d = 2.8342 × 10−5, and e = 5.6462 ×
10−7, and Ē z was the calculated mean electron energy at depth z in water from the incident
contaminant electrons. Equation (1) was assumed to apply to positrons as well. Although this
was a rough approximation the end result was not sensitive because the ionization contributed
by contaminant positrons was much smaller compared to electrons.
The amount of actual corrections to the depth–ionization curves depended on the amount
of ionization contributed by the contaminant charged particles. This correction factor applied
to the component of the depth ionization that is contributed by the contaminant charged
particles. In the past, this correction has never been made because the exact amount of dose
contributed by the contaminant electrons is hard to determine without a full Monte Carlo
simulation.
1.125
1.115
1.100
1.095
18 MV, 40x40
1.090
1.085
1.080
18 MV, 10x10
1.075
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Figure 1. Calculated water-to-air stopping-power ratios as a function of depth for realistic photon
beams from a Varian Clinac-2100EX accelerator calculated using EGSnrc code SPRRZnrc. The
SSD is 100 cm for the incident beams.
100
6 MV beam, 10x10 cm 2 field
90
80 Measured
Calculated (total)
70
Photons
%dd
60 Primary photons
Electrons
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Depth in water/cm
(a)
Figure 2(a). Comparison of measured and Monte Carlo calculated central axis depth–dose curves
along with calculated components from incident photons, primary photons, electrons and positrons
for a 6 MV photon beam from a Varian Clinac-2100EX accelerator, field size = 10 × 10 cm2 and
SSD = 100 cm. The x- and y-axes are offset from zero for clarity.
3.1. Comparison between measured and Monte Carlo calculated dose distributions
Comparisons of depth–dose curves are shown in figures 2(a)–(d) for 10 × 10 cm2 and 40 ×
40 cm2 fields at 6 and 18 MV respectively. The Monte Carlo calculation also breaks the depth–
dose curve into various components. The dose contribution from incident photons is referred
to as photons. Photons, which have not interacted with any part of the accelerator except at
the target, are referred to as primary photons. The contribution from incident contaminant
Energy spectra, angular spread, fluence profiles and dose distributions of photon beams 1031
100
6 MV beam, 40 x 40 cm 2 field
90
Measured
80
Calculated (total)
70 Photons
Primary photons
%dd 60
Electrons
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Depth in water/cm
(b)
Figure 2(b). Comparison of measured and Monte Carlo calculated central axis depth–dose curves
along with dose contributions from incident photons, primary photons, electrons and positrons for
a 40 × 40 cm2 field at 6 MV (SSD = 100 cm).
100
18 MV, 10 x 10 cm 2 field
90
Measured
80 Calculated (total)
Photons
70 Primary photons
Electrons
60
Positrons
%dd
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Depth in water/cm
(c)
Figure 2(c). Comparison of measured and Monte Carlo calculated central axis depth–dose curves
along with dose contributions from incident photons, primary photons, electrons and positrons for
a 10 × 10 cm2 field at 18 MV (SSD = 100 cm).
100
90
18 MV, 40 x 40 cm2 field
80
70
%dd 60
50
Measured
40 Calculated (total)
Photons
30 Primary photons
Electrons
20
Positrons
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Depth in water/cm
(d)
Figure 2(d). Comparison of measured and Monte Carlo calculated central axis depth–dose curves
along with dose contributions from incident photons, primary photons, electrons and positrons for
a 40 × 40 cm2 field at 18 MV (SSD = 100 cm).
had the same value at a depth 10 as that of the corresponding measured data. All profile data
were normalized and scaled in the same manner.
It can be seen that the charged particle contamination contributes significantly to the
surface dose. The increase of surface dose with the increase of the field size is mainly due
to the increase of these contaminant charged particles. At the largest field size the electron
contamination is almost tripled compared to the 10 × 10 cm2 field. At 6 MV the contaminant
charged particles contribute 7% and 21% of the maximum dose at the surface for 10 × 10 cm2
and 40 × 40 cm2 fields respectively. Beyond a few millimetres their contributions are
negligible. However, at 18 MV, their contributions are 4% and 6% even at dmax (=3 cm)
for 10 × 10 cm2 and 40 × 40 cm2 fields respectively. At the surface their contributions are
up to 11% and 29% of maximum dose for 10 × 10 cm2 and 40 × 40 cm2 fields as shown in
figures 2(c) and 2(d) respectively. The electron contamination is more than tripled compared
to the 10 × 10 cm2 field. It is interesting to see that the contaminant charged particles
contribute more dose than the incident photons at the surface as shown in figure 2(d). The
results here generally agree with the experimental results by Butson et al 1996a, 1996b, 1997a,
1997b.
Figures 2(e)–(f) present Monte Carlo calculated surface dose and contribution from
different particles to surface dose across the fields for 10 × 10 cm2 and 40 × 40 cm2 fields at
6 and 18 MV respectively. It is seen that the contaminant charged particles play a significant
role in making the surface dose flat across the field, particularly at 18 MV.
Figures 2(g)–(h) show the comparisons between measured and the Monte Carlo calculated
dose profiles and contributions from primary photons at various depths for the 40 × 40 cm2
field at 6 and 18 MV respectively. The calculated dose profiles match the measurements
at all depths. It is seen that the dose profiles from all particles and from primary photons
have a very similar shape beyond the depth where contaminant charged particles can reach.
The dose contribution from primary photons has almost the same value between a depth
of 3 and 5 cm at the central axis while their contribution differs between a depth of 3
Energy spectra, angular spread, fluence profiles and dose distributions of photon beams 1033
70 Surface dose 70
6 MV 40 x 40 field
60 60
relative dose
50 10x10 field 50
40 40
Total
Photons
30 Primary photons 30
Electrons
Positrons
20 20
10 10
0 0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
X-axis/cm
(e)
Figure 2(e). Monte Carlo calculated results showing the total surface dose and contribution from
different particles to surface dose across the field for 10 × 10 cm2 and 40 × 40 cm2 fields at 6 MV.
The calculated dose is the average dose between 0 and 0.25 cm depth in water.
50 50
Surface dose
18MV 40 x 40 field
Total
relative dose
40 Photons 40
Primary photons
Electrons
Positrons
30 30
10 x 10 field
20 20
10 10
0 0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
X-axis/cm
(f)
Figure 2(f). Monte Carlo calculated results showing the total surface dose and contribution from
different particles to surface dose across 10 × 10 cm2 and 40 × 40 cm2 fields at 18 MV. The
calculated dose is the average dose between 0 and 0.25 cm depth in water.
and 5 cm away from the central axis. This is caused by different incident photon spectra
between the central axis and away from the central axis. The mean energy of the incident
photons at phantom surface decreases away from the central axis. More details will be shown
later.
The agreements between Monte Carlo calculated and measured dose distributions are
excellent in all cases except for the 18 MV at the 40 × 40 cm2 field in the build-up region,
where the discrepancies are significant as seen in figure 2(d).
1034 G X Ding
110 110
6 MV
100 100
40 x 40 field
90 90
relative dose
80 80
70 70
60 Measured 60
Calculated (all)
Primary photons
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
X-axis/cm
(g)
Figure 2(g). Comparison of measured and Monte Carlo calculated dose profiles and contribution
from primary photons for a 40 × 40 cm2 field at 6 MV, SSD = 100 cm. The profiles are at depths
of 1.5, 5, 10, 20 and 35 cm.
110 110
Primary photons
18 MV depth = 3 cm
100 100
40 x 40 field
relative dose
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 Measured 20
Calculated (all)
10 Primary photons 10
0 0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
X-axis/cm
(h)
Figure 2(h). Comparison of measured and Monte Carlo calculated dose profiles and contribution
from primary photons for the 40 × 40 cm2 field at 18 MV, SSD = 100 cm. The profiles are at
depths of 3, 5, 10, 20 and 35 cm.
1x10-5
counts/MeV/per incident e-
Photons 6 MV, 10 x 10 cm2 field
9x10-6
8x10-6
Primary photons
7x10-6
6x10-6
Electrons x 0.3 x 10-2
5x10-6
4x10-6
Positrons x 0.3 x10 -3
3x10-6
2x10-6
1x10-6
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Energy/MeV
(a)
Figure 3(a). The energy spectra of photons, primary photons, electrons and positrons at the
phantom surface and inside the 10 × 10 cm2 field of a 6 MV beam from a Varian Clinac-2100EX
accelerator.
1.8x10-5
counts/MeV/per incident e-
1.0x10-5
Electrons x10-2
8.0x10-6
2.0x10-6
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Energy/MeV
(b)
Figure 3(b). The energy spectra of photons, primary photons, electrons and positrons at the
phantom surface and inside the 40 × 40 cm2 field of a 6 MV beam (SSD = 100 cm).
shown that the neutron dose in high-energy photon beams increases by more than a factor
of 2 for a field changing from the 10 × 10 to 30 × 30 cm2 field. However, the amount of
neutron dose in a high-energy photon beam is too small to explain the discrepancies. Further
investigation is needed to find the true cause of the discrepancy.
1.4x10-5
counts/MeV/per incident e-
Photons
18 MV, 10 x 10 cm2 field
-5
1.2x10 Primary photons
1.0x10-5
6.0x10-6
Positrons x 10-2
4.0x10-6
2.0x10-6
0.0
0 5 10 15
Energy/MeV
(c)
Figure 3(c). The energy spectra of photons, primary photons, electrons and positrons at the
phantom surface and inside the 10 × 10 cm2 field of a 18 MV beam from a Varian Clinac-2100EX
accelerator CL2100EX (SSD = 100 cm).
counts/per MeV/per incident e-
3.0x10-5
Photons 18 MV, 40 x 40 cm 2 field
2.5x10-5
Primary photons
-5
2.0x10
Electrons x 10-2
1.5x10-5
1.0x10-5
Positrons x 10-2
5.0x10-6
0.0
0 5 10 15
Energy/MeV
(d)
Figure 3(d). The energy spectra of photons, primary photons, electrons and positrons at the
phantom surface and inside the 40 × 40 cm2 field of an 18 MV beam (SSD = 100 cm).
Energy spectra of incident photons peak at 0.5 MeV and 0.3 MeV for the 10 × 10 cm2 and
40 × 40 cm2 fields at 6 MV respectively, while at 18 MV, energy spectra of incident photons
peak at 1.5 MeV and 0.5 MeV for the 10 × 10 cm2 and 40 × 40 cm2 fields respectively.
The counts per unit energy and per incident electron history at the target for photons are 2–3
magnitudes higher than those of contaminant charged particles.
The spectra of contaminant electrons peak at low energy while the spectra of positrons
peak at the average energy.
Energy spectra, angular spread, fluence profiles and dose distributions of photon beams 1037
100
6 MV, 10 x 10 cm 2 field
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
angle /degree
(a)
Figure 4(a). The angular distributions of photons, electrons and positrons at the phantom surface
and inside the 10 × 10 cm2 field of a 6 MV beam from a Varian Clinac-2100EX accelerator.
100
6 MV, 40x40 cm 2 field
relative counts /per degree
90 Photons
80
70
60 Electrons x 10 -3
50
40
30 Positrons x 10 -4
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
angle /degree
(b)
Figure 4(b). The angular distributions of photons, electrons and positrons at the phantom surface
and inside the 40 × 40 cm2 field of a 6 MV (SSD = 100 cm).
Figures 4(a)–(d) present the angular distributions of photons, electrons and positrons at a
phantom surface for the 10 × 10 cm2 and 40 × 40 cm2 fields for the 6 and 18 MV beams
respectively. Only particles, which are inside the fields, are counted. The angular distributions
of incident photons are similar to a point source while the contaminant electrons show a wide
angular spread. The wide angular spread of contaminant charged particles in the 10 × 10 cm2
field at 6 MV reflects the fact that a lot of them are created or scattered in the air gap (about
43 cm) between the accelerator head and phantom surface.
1038 G X Ding
100
18 MV, 10x10 cm 2 field
70 Electrons x 10-3
60
50
40
30 Positrons x 10-3
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
angle /degree
(c)
Figure 4(c). The angular distributions of photons, electrons and positrons at the phantom surface
and inside the 10 × 10 cm2 field of a 18 MV beam (SSD = 100 cm).
relative counts /per degree
100
Photons 18 MV, 40x40 cm 2 field
90
80
70
60
50
Electrons x 0.5 x 10-2
40
30
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
angle /degree
(d)
Figure 4(d). The angular distributions of photons, electrons and positrons at the phantom surface
and inside the 40 × 40 cm2 field of a 18 MV beam (SSD = 100 cm).
-2
2.5x10-5
-
2.0x10-5
Positrons x 0.2 x 10 -3
5.0x10-6
0.0
0 5 10 15
off-axis distance/cm
(a)
Figure 5(a). The planar fluence profiles of photons, primary photons, electrons and positrons at
the phantom surface for a 10 × 10 cm2 field at 6 MV from a Varian Clinac-2100EX accelerator
(SSD = 100 cm).
6 MV, 40 x 40 cm 2 field
2
Photons
planar fluence/incident e/cm
2.5x10 -5
-
2.0x10 -5
Primary photons
Electrons x 0.5 x 10 -2
1.5x10 -5
1.0x10 -5
-2
Electrons (created in air) x 0.5x 10
5.0x10 -6
Positrons x 10 -3
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
off-axis distance/cm
(b)
Figure 5(b). The planar fluence profiles of photons, primary photons, electrons and positrons at
the phantom surface of a 40 × 40 cm2 field at 6 MV (SSD = 100 cm).
electrons are created in the air gap (about 43 cm) between accelerator head and phantom
surface. However, for the 40 × 40 cm2 field at 6 MV, the majority of the contaminant electrons
(60%) are created in the accelerator head and only 40% are created in the air gap. At 18 MV,
the majority (>75%) of contaminant electrons are created in the accelerator head for field size
of 10 × 10 cm2 or 40 × 40 cm2.
At 6 MV, even at the field centre the fluence of the contaminant electrons is only about
0.1% and 0.4% of photon fluence for 10 × 10 cm2 and 40 × 40 cm2 fields respectively. For
positrons, their fluence is a magnitude smaller compared to the electrons.
At 18 MV near the central axis, the contaminant electron fluence is about 0.3% and 0.9%
of the photon’s fluence for the 10 × 10 cm2 and 40 × 40 cm2 fields respectively, while for
1040 G X Ding
18 MV, 10 x 10 cm 2 field
2
planar fluence/incident e/cm
8.0x10 -5 Photons
-
7.0x10 -5
6.0x10 -5
Primary photons Electrons x 0.5 x 10-2
5.0x10 -5
4.0x10 -5
Electrons (created in air) x 0.2 x 10-2
3.0x10 -5
2.0x10 -5
Positrons x 0.5 x 10-2
1.0x10 -5
0.0
0 5 10 15
off-axis distance/cm
(c)
Figure 5(c). The planar fluence profiles of photons, primary photons, electrons and positrons at
the phantom surface for a 10 × 10 cm2 field at 18 MV (SSD = 100 cm).
1.0x10 -4
18 MV, 40 x40 cm 2 field Photons
planar fluence/incident e-/cm 2
9.0x10 -5
Primary photons
8.0x10 -5
7.0x10 -5
Electronsx 10 -2
6.0x10 -5
5.0x10 -5
2.0x10 -5
1.0x10 -5
Positrons x 10-2
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
off-axis distance/cm
(d)
Figure 5(d). The planar fluence profiles of photons, primary photons, electrons and positrons at
the phantom surface for a 40 × 40 cm2 field at 18 MV (SSD = 100 cm).
positrons it is only about 0.07% and 0.2% of photon fluence for 10 × 10 cm2 and 40 × 40 cm2
fields respectively. It is worth mentioning that this relatively small fluence of contaminant
charged particles contributes up to 29% of maximum dose at the surface shown in figure 2(f).
2.0
6 MV, 10 x10 cm 2 field
1.9
mean energy/MeV
Positrons
1.8
Photons
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
Electrons
1.3
1.2
0 5 10
off-axis distance/cm
(a)
Figure 6(a). The mean energies of incident photons, electrons and positrons at the phantom
surface are shown as a function of off-axis distance for a 10 × 10 cm2 field at 6 MV from a Varian
Clinac-2100EX (SSD = 100 cm).
2.0
1.9 6 MV, 40x40 cm 2 field
1.8 Positrons
mean energy/MeV
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1 Photons Electrons
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
off-axis distance/cm
(b)
Figure 6(b). The mean energies of incident photons, electrons and positrons at the phantom surface
are shown as a function of off-axis distance for a 40 × 40 cm2 field at 6 MV (SSD = 100 cm).
at the field border. It is interesting to see that both mean incident energies are higher than
that of incident photons at 18 MV. It is worth mentioning that the rapid increase in mean
energy outside the treatment field for the 6 MV 10 × 10 cm2 field is real. It is similar
to the hardening effect of a wedged beam, where the photons that pass the wedge have
higher average energy. Here the photons, which have gone through the thick collimators,
have much higher mean energy. Figure 6(e) shows the mean energy profiles of primary
photons versus all photons as a function of off-axis distance for the 6 MV 10 × 10 cm2 field.
As the distance increases from the field edge, the portion of primary photons in the total
1042 G X Ding
mean energy/MeV
6
Positrons
Photons
3 Electrons
0 5 10
off-axis distance/cm
(c)
Figure 6(c). The mean energies of incident photons, electrons and positrons at the phantom surface
are shown as a function of off-axis distance for a 10 × 10 cm2 field at 18 MV (SSD = 100 cm).
3
Electrons
2
Photons
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
off-axis distance/cm
(d)
Figure 6(d). The mean energies of incident photons, electrons and positrons at the phantom surface
are shown as a function of off-axis distance for a 40 × 40 cm2 field at 18 MV (SSD = 100 cm).
photon fluence increases rapidly. Therefore the average mean energy of all photons increases
rapidly.
For the 40 × 40 cm2 field at 6 MV, the mean energy of incident photons gradually
decreases away from the central axis from 1.7 MeV at the centre to 1.2 MeV at the field
edge; then there is a sharp drop outside the field. While at 18 MV, the mean energy of
photons decreases away from central axis from 4.5 MeV at the centre to 3 MeV at the field
edge. The average photon’s energy inside the field is less than 1/3 of the nominal beam
energy.
Energy spectra, angular spread, fluence profiles and dose distributions of photon beams 1043
3.5
mean energy/MeV
3.0
2.0
Photons
1.5
0 5 10
off-axis distance/cm
(e)
Figure 6(e). The mean energy of all photons versus primary photons at the phantom surface as
a function of off-axis distance for a 10 × 10 cm2 field at 6 MV from a Varian Clinac-2100EX
(SSD = 100 cm).
4. Conclusions
This investigation presents incident particles’ energy spectra, angular distributions, fluence
profiles and mean energy profiles at the phantom surface. Because of the extensive use of
the LATCH feature (Rogers et al 1995), which allows us to separate particles according to
their history, detailed information is obtained for realistic incident particles including photons,
primary photons, contaminant electrons and positrons, and electrons created in the air between
the accelerator head and the phantom surface. The data presented here are for 6 and 18 MV
radiotherapy photon beams from a Varian Clinac-2100EX accelerator at field sizes of 10 ×
10 cm2 and 40 × 40 cm2. The characteristics of the incident photon beams presented are based
on the Monte Carlo simulation using EGS4 user code BEAM. This information enhances our
knowledge on many aspects of radiotherapy photon beams.
The study has presented the calculated depth–dose components from different particles
as well as calculated surface dose and contribution from different particles to surface dose
across the field. It is shown that the majority of the incident photons are primary photons. The
shape of the depth–dose curves and dose profiles is dominated by primary photons beyond
the build-up depth. The primary photons can be easily modelled by a point source. The
information of beam characteristics is very useful to the future development of an accurate
treatment planning system. It is also useful to improve photon beam dosimetry and to design
new accelerators.
The calculated and measured dose distributions in water phantoms are in remarkable
agreement in all cases except for 18 MV at a very large field in the dose build-up region.
The unresolved discrepancy may indicate the limitation in the EGS modelling as well as the
limitation of measurements at the build-up region in the high-energy photon beams. In any
case the real cause of the discrepancy needs further investigation.
1044 G X Ding
Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges Varian Medical Systems for providing the information on
the Varian Clinac linear accelerators. The author also wishes to thank Dr Cheryl Duzenli for
her support in the project.
References
Almond P R, Attix F H, Humphries L J, Kubo H, Nath R, Goetsch S and Rogers D W 1994 The calibration and use of
plane-parallel ionization chambers for dosimetry of electron beams: an extension of the 1983 AAPM protocol
report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No 39 Med. Phys. 21 1251–60
Energy spectra, angular spread, fluence profiles and dose distributions of photon beams 1045
Almond P R, Biggs P J, Coursey B M, Hanson W F, Huq M S, Nath R and Rogers D W 1999 AAPM’s TG-51 protocol
for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams Med. Phys. 26 1847–70
Andreo P, Burns D T, Hohlfeld K, Huq M S, Kanai T, Laitano F, Smyth V G and Vynckier S 2000 Absorbed dose
determination in external beam radiotherapy: an international code of practice for dosimetry based on standards
for absorbed dose to water Volume 398 of Technical Report Series (IAEA, Vienna: International Atomic Energy
Agency)
Andreo P and Nahum A E 1985 Stopping-power ratio for a photon spectrum as a weighted sum of the values for
monoenergetic photon beams Phys. Med. Biol. 30 1055–65
Butson M J, Mathur J N and Metcalfe P E 1997a Skin dose from radiotherapy x-ray beams: the influence of energy
Australas. Radiol. 41 148–50
Butson M J, Rozenfeld A, Mathur J N, Carolan M, Wong T P and Metcalfe P E 1996a A new radiotherapy surface
dose detector: the MOSFET Med. Phys. 23 655–8
Butson M J, Wong T P, Law A, Law M, Mathur J N and Metcalfe P E 1996b Magnetic repulsion of linear accelerator
contaminates Med. Phys. 23 953–5
Butson M J, Yu P, Kan M, Carolan M, Young E, Mathur J N and Metcalfe P E 1997b Skin dose reduction by a
clinically viable magnetic deflector Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 20 107–11
Deng J, Jiang S B, Kapur A, Li J, Pawlicki T and Ma C M 2000 Photon beam characterization and modelling for
Monte Carlo treatment planning Phys. Med. Biol. 45 411–27
d’Errico F, Nath R, Tana L, Curzio G and Alberts W G 1998 In-phantom dosimetry and spectrometry of photoneutrons
from an 18 MV linear accelerator Med. Phys. 25 1717–24
Ding G X 1995 An investigation of radiotherapy electron beams using Monte Carlo techniques PhD Thesis Department
of Physics, Carleton University, Ottawa Carleton Institute for Physics, Ottawa, Canada
Ding G X 2001 Dose discrepancies between the Monte Carlo calculation and measurement for high-energy photon
beam at buildup region Int. Workshop on Recent Developments in Accurate Radiation Dosimetry (Montreal,
Canada, 10–13 Oct. 2001) (abstract)
Ding G X and Rogers D W 1995 Energy spectra, angular spread, and dose distributions of electron beams from
various accelerators used in radiotherapy National Research Council of Canada, Report No PIRS-0439, Ottawa
(http://www.irs.inms.nrc.ca/inms/irs/papers/PIRS439/pirs439.html)
Ding G X, Rogers D W, Cygler J E and Mackie T R 1997 Electron fluence correction factors for conversion of dose
in plastic to dose in water Med. Phys. 24 161–76
Ding G X, Rogers D W and Mackie T R 1995 Calculation of stopping-power ratios using realistic clinical electron
beams Med. Phys. 22 489–501
Ding G X, Rogers D W and Mackie T R 1996 Mean energy, energy-range relationships and depth-scaling factors for
clinical electron beams Med. Phys. 23 361–76
Ding G X and Yu C W 2001 Determination of percentage depth–dose curves for electron beams using different types
of detectors Med. Phys. 28 298–302
Faddegon B A, O’Brien P and Mason D L 1999 The flatness of Siemens linear accelerator x-ray fields Med. Phys. 26
220–8
Hartmann Siantar C L et al 2001 Description and dosimetric verification of the PEREGRINE Monte Carlo dose
calculation system for photon beams incident on a water phantom Med. Phys. 28 1322–37
Huang P H, Kase K R and Bjarngard B E 1982 Simulation studies of 4 MV x-ray spectral reconstruction by numerical
analysis of transmission data Med. Phys. 9 695–702
Huang P H, Kase K R and Bjarngard B E 1983 Reconstruction of 4 MV bremsstrahlung spectra from measured
transmission data Med. Phys. 10 778–85
Huq M S, Yue N and Suntharalingam N 1997 Experimental determination of fluence correction factors at depths
beyond dmax for a Farmer type cylindrical ionization chamber in clinical electron beams Med. Phys. 24 1609–13
Jessen K A 1973 Measurements of primary spectra from a kilocurie 60Co unit and a 6 MeV linear accelerator Acta
Radiol. Ther. Phys. Biol. 12 561–8
Johansson K A, Mattsson L O, Lindborg L and Svensson H 1977 Absorbed-dose determination with ionization
chambers in electron and photon beams having energies between 1 and 50 MeV IAEA Symp. Proc. (Vienna:
IAEA-SM-222/35) pp 243–70
Kawrakow I 2000 Accurate condensed history Monte Carlo simulation of electron transport: II. Application to ion
chamber response simulations Med. Phys. 27 499–513
Keall P J, Siebers J V, Jeraj R and Mohan R 2000 The effect of dose calculation uncertainty on the evaluation of
radiotherapy plans Med. Phys. 27 478–84
Levy L B, Waggener R G, McDavid W D and Payne W H 1974 Experimental and calculated bremsstrahlung spectra
from a 25 MeV linear accelerator and a 19 MeV betatron Med. Phys. 1 62–7
Levy L B, Waggener R G and Wright A E 1976 Measurement of primary bremsstrahlung spectrum from an 8 MeV
linear accelerator Med. Phys. 3 173–5
1046 G X Ding
Liu H H, Mackie T R and McCullough E C 1997a Calculating dose and output factors for wedged photon radiotherapy
fields using a convolution/superposition method Med. Phys. 24 1714–28
Liu H H, Mackie T R and McCullough E C 1997b Calculating output factors for photon beam radiotherapy using a
convolution/superposition method based on a dual source photon beam model Med. Phys. 24 1975–85
Ma C M, Faddegon B A, Rogers D W and Mackie T R 1997 Accurate characterization of Monte Carlo calculated
electron beams for radiotherapy Med. Phys. 24 401–16
Mohan R, Chui C and Lidofsky L 1985 Energy and angular distributions of photons from medical linear accelerators
Med. Phys. 12 592–7
Mora G M, Maio A and Rogers D W 1999 Monte Carlo simulation of a typical 60Co therapy source Med. Phys. 26
2494–502
Nath R, Meigooni A S, King C R, Smolen S and d’Errico F 1993 Superheated drop detector for determination of
neutron dose equivalent to patients undergoing high-energy x-ray and electron radiotherapy Med. Phys. 20
781–7
Nath R and Schulz R J 1976 Determination of high-energy x-ray spectra by photoactivation Med. Phys. 3 133–41
Reft C S and Kuchnir F T 1999 Measured overall perturbation factors at depths greater than dmax for ionization
chambers in electron beams Med. Phys. 26 208–13
Rogers D W 1998 A new approach to electron-beam reference dosimetry Med. Phys. 25 310–20
Rogers D W, Faddegon B A, Ding G X, Ma C M, We J and Mackie T R 1995 BEAM: a Monte Carlo code to simulate
radiotherapy treatment units Med. Phys. 22 503–24
Rogers D W, Kawrakow I, Seuntjens J P and Walters B R 2001 NRC user codes for EGSnrc National Research
Council of Canada Report No PIRS-702
Rogers D W, Ma C, Ding G X, Walters B R, Sheikh-Bagheri D and Zhang G G 2000 BEAM users manual National
Research Council of Canada, Ottawa Report PIRS-0509(a)revE
Schach von Wittenau A E, Bergstrom P M Jr and Cox L J 2000 Patient-dependent beam-modifier physics in Monte
Carlo photon dose calculations Med. Phys. 27 935–47
Schach von Wittenau A E, Cox L J, Bergstrom P M, Jr Chandler W P, Hartmann Siantar C L and Mohan R 1999
Correlated histogram representation of Monte Carlo derived medical accelerator photon-output phase space
Med. Phys. 26 1196–211
Sheikh-Bagheri D, Rogers D W, Ross C K and Seuntjens J P 2000 Comparison of measured and Monte Carlo
calculated dose distributions from the NRC linac (in process citation) Med. Phys. 27 2256–66
Siebers J V, Keall P J, Libby B and Mohan R 1999 Comparison of EGS4 and MCNP4b Monte Carlo codes for
generation of photon phase space distributions for a Varian 2100C Phys. Med. Biol. 44 3009–26
Swindell W 1983 A 4 MV CT scanner for radiation therapy: spectral properties of the therapy beam Med. Phys. 10
347–51
TG-21 1983 A protocol for the determination of absorbed dose from high-energy photon and electron beams
Med. Phys. 10 741–71
Van der Plaetsen A, Seuntjens J, Thierens H and Vynckier S 1994 Verification of absorbed doses determined with
thimble and parallel-plate ionization chambers in clinical electron beams using ferrous sulphate dosimetry Med.
Phys. 21 37–44
van der Zee W and Welleweerd J 1999 Calculating photon beam characteristics with Monte Carlo techniques Med.
Phys. 26 1883–92
Zhang G G, Rogers D W, Cygler J E and Mackie T R 1998 Effects of changes in stopping-power ratios with field
size on electron beam relative output factors Med. Phys. 25 1711–6
Zhang G G, Rogers D W, Cygler J E and Mackie T R 1999 Monte Carlo investigation of electron beam output factors
versus size of square cutout Med. Phys. 26 743–50