Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T23:35:58.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EGSnrc computer modelling of megavoltage x-rays transmission through some shielding materials used in radiotherapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2010

Fayez H.H. Al-Ghorabie ,
Saud S.H. Al-Lyhiani  and
Sameer S.A. Natto
Fayez H.H. Al-Ghorabie*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia
Saud S.H. Al-Lyhiani
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia
Sameer S.A. Natto
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia
*
Correspondence to: Fayez H.H. Al-Ghorabie, Department of Physics, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, P.O. Box 10130, Makkah 21955, Saudi Arabia. Email: alghorabie@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A computer user-code (TRANSMIT), based on the use of the EGSnrc Monte Carlo system, was developed to simulate the transmission of megavoltage x-rays through three different materials used for shielding purposes in radiotherapy. These materials are Lipowitz’s metal, lead and Rad-block. The simulations were performed for 4, 6 and 10 MV x-rays using narrow beam geometry in air. The linear attenuation coefficients, in cm–1, obtained from the simulated transmission curves for Lipowitz’s metal were 0.494, 0.470 and 0.452 for 4, 6 and 10 MV, respectively. For lead, the linear attenuation coefficients were 0.532, 0.507 and 0.483 for 4, 6 and 10 MV, respectively. For Rad-block, the linear attenuation coefficients were 0.561, 0.537 and 0.518 for 4, 6 and 10 MV, respectively. Comparison of the simulation results with experimental results reported in the literature gave a percent deviation <5% which indicates the validity of the simulation results. In addition, broad beam geometry calculations were performed for a variety of field sizes (10 × 10 cm2, 20 × 20 cm2 and 40 × 40 cm2) using the three different attenuators. The results showed that broad beam attenuation coefficients decreased with increased field size and photon energy. For Lipowitz’s metal, the difference in the linear attenuation coefficient data between the broad beam attenuation coefficient and the narrow beam value lies between 3.6% and 20% depending on x-ray energy and field size. Similarly, the difference between the broad beam attenuation coefficient and the narrow beam value for lead lies between 1.5% and 10.4%. For the Rad-block material, the difference lies between 0.53% and 6.8%.

Keywords

X-raysMonte Carlo SimulationEGSnrcRadiotherapyShielding Materials
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 223 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Powers, WE, Kinzie, JJ, Demidecki, AJ, Bradfield, JS, Feldman, A. A new system of field shaping for external-beam radiation therapy. Radiology 1973; 108: 407–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, FM. The Physics of Radiation Therapy, 2nd edn. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1985, pp. 317–319.Google Scholar
el-Khatib, EE, Podgorsak, EB, Pla, C. Broad beam and narrow beam attenuation in Lipowitz’s metal. Med Phys 1987; 14: 135–139.Google Scholar
Tajiri, M, Sunaoka, M, Fukumura, A, Endo, M. A new radiation shielding block material for radiation therapy. Med Phys 2004; 31: 3022–3023.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawrakow, I, Rogers, DWO. The EGSnrc Code System: Monte Carlo simulation of electron and photon transport. Technical Report PIRS–701, Ottawa. National Research Council of Canada, 2000.Google Scholar
Kawrakow, I. Accurate condensed history Monte Carlo simulation of electron transport. I. EGSnrc, the new EGS4 version. Med Phys 2000; 27: 485–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ford, RL, Nelson, WR. The EGS4 Code System: computer programs for the Monte Carlo simulation of electromagnetic cascade showers. Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre, Report SLAC-210, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, WR, Hirayama, H, Rogers, DW. The EGS4 Code System. Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre, Report SLAC-265, 1985.Google Scholar
Nelson, WR, Rogers, DW. Structure and operation of the EGS4 code system. In: Jenkins, T M, Nelson, WR, Rindi, A (eds). Monte Carlo Transport of Electrons and Photons. New York: Plenum, 1988, pp. 287–310.Google Scholar
Kawrakow, I, Mainegra-Hing, E, Rogers, DWO. EGSnrcMP: the multi-platform environment for EGSnrc. Technical Report PIRS–877, Ottawa. National Research Council of Canada, 2003.Google Scholar
Kilic, A. A Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of Polarized X-rays for the In Vivo Measurements of Heavy Metals. PhD thesis, University of Wales (Swansea), UK, 1995.Google Scholar
Lewis, DG, Kilic, A, Ogg, CA. Adaptation of the EGS4 Monte Carlo code for the design of a polarized source for x-ray fluorescence analysis of platinum and other heavy metals in vivo. In: Predecki, P K, Keith Bowen, D, Gilfrich, J V et al. (eds), Advances in X-ray Analysis. New York: Plenum, 1995, pp. 579–583.Google Scholar
Al-Ghorabie, FHH. EGS4 Monte Carlo simulation of a 90° geometry polarized x-ray fluorescence system. Radiat Phys Chem 1999; 55: 377–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeraj, R, Keall, PJ, Ostwald, PM. Comparisons between MCNP, EGS4 and experiment for clinical electron beams. Phys Med Biol 1999; 44: 705–717.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siebers, JV, Keall, PJ, Libby, B, Mohan, R. Comparison of EGS4 and MCNP4b Monte Carlo codes for generation of photon phase space distributions for a Varian 2100C. Phys Med Biol 1999; 44: 3009–3026.Google Scholar
Zaidi, H. Relevance of accurate Monte Carlo modeling in nuclear medical imaging. Med Phys 1999; 26: 574–608.Google Scholar
Al-Ghorabie, FH, Natto, SS, Al-Lyhiani, SH. A comparison between EGS4 and MCNP computer modeling of an in vivo X-ray fluorescence system. Comput Biol Med 2001; 31: 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, R, Li, XA. Monte Carlo dose calculations of beta-emitting sources for intravascular brachytherapy: a comparison between EGS4, EGSnrc, and MCNP. Med Phys 2001; 28: 134–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vincze, L, Janssens, K, Vekemans, B, Adams, F. New computerization methods. In: Tsuji, K, Injuk, J, Van Grieken, R (eds), X-ray Spectrometry: Recent Technological Advances, NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, 2004, pp. 435–461.Google Scholar
Ali, ES, Rogers, DW. Benchmarking EGSnrc in the kilovoltage energy range against experimental measurements of charged particle backscatter coefficients. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53: 1527–1543.Google Scholar
Taylor, RE, Rogers, DW. An EGSnrc Monte Carlo-calculated database of TG-43 parameters. Med Phys 2008; 35: 4228–4241.Google Scholar
Rogers, DWO, Ma, CM, Walters, B, Ding, GX, Sheikh-Bagheri, D, Zhang, G. BEAM99 Users Manual. Report PIRS-0509, Ottawa. National Research Council of Canada, 1999.Google Scholar
Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM). The design of radiotherapy treatment room facilities. IPEM Report 75. New York, 1997.Google Scholar
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Structural Shielding Design and Evaluation for Megavoltage X- and Gamma-ray Radiotherapy Facilities. NCRP Report 151. Bethesda, 2006.Google Scholar
Attix, FH. Introduction to Radiological Physics and Radiation Dosimetry. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1986.Google Scholar