Sensitivity analysis of an asymmetric Monte Carlo beam model of a Siemens Primus accelerator.

The assumption of cylindrical symmetry in radiotherapy accelerator models can pose a challenge for precise Monte Carlo modeling. This assumption makes it difficult to account for measured asymmetries in clinical dose distributions. We have performed a sensitivity study examining the effect of varying symmetric and asymmetric beam and geometric parameters of a Monte Carlo model for a Siemens PRIMUS accelerator. The accelerator and dose output were simulated using modified versions of BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc that allow lateral offsets of accelerator components and lateral and angular offsets for the incident electron beam. Dose distributions were studied for 40 × 40 cm² fields. The resulting dose distributions were analyzed for changes in flatness, symmetry, and off-axis ratio (OAR). The electron beam parameters having the greatest effect on the resulting dose distributions were found to be electron energy and angle of incidence, as high as 5% for a 0.25° deflection. Electron spot size and lateral offset of the electron beam were found to have a smaller impact. Variations in photon target thickness were found to have a small effect. Small lateral offsets of the flattening filter caused significant variation to the OAR. In general, the greatest sensitivity to accelerator parameters could be observed for higher energies and off-axis ratios closer to the central axis. Lateral and angular offsets of beam and accelerator components have strong effects on dose distributions, and should be included in any high-accuracy beam model.

Monte Carlo commissioning of clinical electron beams using large field measurements.

Monte Carlo simulation can accurately calculate electron fluence at the patient surface and the resultant dose deposition if the initial source electron beam and linear accelerator treatment head geometry parameters are well characterized. A recent approach used large electron fields to extract these simulation parameters. This method took advantage of the absence of lower energy, widely scattered electrons from the applicator resulting in more accurate data. It is important to validate these simulation parameters for clinically relevant fields. In the current study, these simulation parameters are applied to fields collimated by applicators and inserts to perform a comprehensive validation. Measurements were performed on a Siemens Oncor linear accelerator for 6 MeV, 9 MeV, 12 MeV, 15 MeV, 18 MeV and 21 MeV electron beams and collimators ranging from an open 25 x 25 cm(2) applicator to a 10 x 10 cm(2) applicator with a 1 cm diameter cerrobend insert. Data were collected for inserts placed in four square applicators. Monte Carlo simulations were performed using EGSnrc/BEAMnrc. Source and geometry parameters were obtained from previous measurements and simulations with the maximum field size (40 x 40 cm(2)). The applicators were modelled using manufacturer specifications, confirmed by direct measurements. Cerrobend inserts were modelled based on calliper measurements. Monte Carlo-calculated percentage depth dose and off-axis profiles agreed with measurements to within the least restrictive of 2%/1 mm in most cases. For the largest applicator (25 x 25 cm(2)), and 18 MeV and 21 MeV beams, differences in dose profiles of 3% were observed. Calculated relative output factors were within 2% of those measured with an electron diode for fields 1.5 cm in diameter or larger. The disagreement for 1 cm diameter fields was up to 5%. For open applicators, simulations agreed with parallel plate chamber-measured relative output factors to 1%. This work has validated a recent methodology used to extract data on the electron source and treatment head from large electron fields, resulting in a reduction in the number of unknown parameters in treatment head simulation. Applicator and insert collimated electron fields were accurately simulated without adjusting these parameters. Results demonstrate that commissioning of electron beams based on large electron field measurements is a viable option.