Characterization of the radiation beam of a tomotherapy equipment with MCNP.

This work aims to model and characterize the radiation beam of one Accuray tomotherapy equipment using the Monte Carlo Code MCNP5 (Monte Carlo N-Particle). This tomotherapy equipment is used for delivering high doses of radiation in tumor regions to kill cancer cells and shrink the tumor during radiation therapy of cancer patients, however, the radiation can damage surrounding areas and nearby organs at risk (OAR) if the radiation field is not well delimited. In particular, intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatments (IMRT) with tomotherapy equipment offer great benefits to patients allowing treatment of tumor regions without affecting surrounding areas and OAR. Nowadays, it is well known that a correct simulation of transport of radiation in tomotherapy equipment facilitates considerably the estimation of ideal doses in the tumor, surrounding regions, and OAR. For that reason, in this work, we simulated the geometry of the 6 MV ACCURAY Tomotherapy equipment of the CECAN using the MCNP5. The model includes a TomoLINAC consisting of an electron source that emits Gaussian distribution particles with an average energy of 5.7 MeV and width of 0.3 MeV. The emitted particles impact the tungsten target and pass through primary collimators and jaws that define the irradiation field in the isocenter. To validate the geometry and radiation transport in the TomoLINAC the curves of depth dose percentage (PDD) estimated by simulation and the curves measured experimentally were tuned. In the same way, the simulated transverse and longitudinal profiles were compared with the experimental results. In addition, a comparison between the qualities of the radiation beam characterized with MCNP and measured experimentally in CECAN showed a deviation of 1%. For the simulations, cylindrical detectors located inside a water phantom were considered and it was employed the tally *F8. A good agreement was observed between the PDD's curves obtained from the simulation and those measured experimentally for a field of 5 × 10 cm2 in the isocenter and SSD (distance from the source to the surface) of 85 cm. Also, the comparison between the simulated and experimental transverse profiles obtained at 1.5 cm, 10 cm and 15 cm depth with a radiation field of 5 × 40 cm2 showed very good agreement. The longitudinal profiles were estimated with the same depths as the transverse ones, but for each of them, the openings of the jaws were 5.0 cm, 2.5 cm and 1.0 cm in the longitudinal direction, which corresponds to the direction in which the patient's table moves. The comparison between the simulated and experimental longitudinal profiles showed good concordance too. Once the radiation beam of the ACCURAY tomotherapy equipment had been characterized, experimental dose measurements were made using a Cheese phantom and two A1SL ionization chambers. These results obtained experimentally were compared with those estimated with MCNP for a field of 5 × 40 cm2 at the isocenter and SAD of 85 cm and, it was concluded that both results were similar considering the regions of uncertainty. Finally, we must highlight that the modeling and characterization of the radiation beam of CECAN's ACCURAY tomotherapy equipment can be a key tool for dose estimations in different cancer treatment plans and future research.

Design and implementation of a "cheese" phantom-based Tomotherapy TLD dose intercomparison.

BACKGROUND: The unique beam-delivery technique of Tomotherapy machines (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif.) necessitates tailored quality assurance. This requirement also applies to external dose intercomparisons. Therefore, the aim of the 2014 SSRMP (Swiss Society of Radiobiology and Medical Physics) dosimetry intercomparison was to compare two set-ups with different phantoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A small cylindrical Perspex phantom, which is similar to the IROC phantom (Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Houston, Tex.), and the "cheese" phantom, which is provided by the Tomotherapy manufacturer to all institutions, were used. The standard calibration plans for the TomoHelical and TomoDirect irradiation techniques were applied. These plans are routinely used for dose output calibration in Tomotherapy institutions. We tested 20 Tomotherapy machines in Germany and Switzerland. The ratio of the measured (Dm) to the calculated (Dc) dose was assessed for both phantoms and irradiation techniques. The Dm/Dc distributions were determined to compare the suitability of the measurement set-ups investigated. RESULTS: The standard deviations of the TLD-measured (thermoluminescent dosimetry) Dm/Dc ratios for the "cheese" phantom were 1.9 % for the TomoHelical (19 measurements) and 1.2 % (11 measurements) for the TomoDirect irradiation techniques. The corresponding ratios for the Perspex phantom were 2.8 % (18 measurements) and 1.8 % (11 measurements). CONCLUSION: Compared with the Perspex phantom-based set-up, the "cheese" phantom-based set-up without individual planning was demonstrated to be more suitable for Tomotherapy dose checks. Future SSRMP dosimetry intercomparisons for Tomotherapy machines will therefore be based on the "cheese" phantom set-up.

Superficial Dosimetry for Helical Tomotherapy / 대한방사선종양학회지

PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of helical tomotherapy on a wide curved area of the skin, and its accuracy in calculating the absorbed dose in the superficial region. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of treatment plans were made with the cylinder-shaped 'cheese phantom'. In the first trial, 2 Gy was prescribed to a 1-cm depth from the surface. For the other trial, 2 Gy was prescribed to a 1-cm depth from the external side of the surface by 5 mm. The inner part of the phantom was completely blocked. To measure the surface dose and the depth dose profile, an EDR2 film was inserted into the phantom, while 6 TLD chips were attached to the surface. RESULTS: The film indicated that the surface dose of the former case was 118.7 cGy and the latter case was 130.9 cGy. The TLD chips indicated that the surface dose was higher than these, but it was due to the finite thickness of the TLD chips. In the former case, 95% of the prescribed dose was obtained at a 2.1 mm depth, while the prescribed does was at 2.2 mm in the latter case. The maximum dose was about 110% of the prescribed dose. As the depth became deeper, the dose decreased rapidly. Accordingly, at a 2-cm depth, the dose was 20% of the prescribed dose. CONCLUSION: Helical tomotherapy could be a useful application in the treatment of a wide area of the skin with curvature. However, for depths up to 2 mm, the planning system overestimated the superficial dose. For shallower targets, the use of a compensator such as a bolus is required.