Literature DB >> 20177566

Monte Carlo modeling of Co HDR brachytherapy source in water and in different solid water phantom materials.

S Sahoo1, T Palani Selvam, R S Vishwakarma, G Chourasiya.   

Abstract

The reference medium for brachytherapy dose measurements is water. Accuracy of dose measurements of brachytherapy sources is critically dependent on precise measurement of the source-detector distance. A solid phantom can be precisely machined and hence source-detector distances can be accurately determined. In the present study, four different solid phantom materials such as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polystyrene, Solid Water, and RW1 are modeled using the Monte Carlo methods to investigate the influence of phantom material on dose rate distributions of the new model of BEBIG (60)Co brachytherapy source. The calculated dose rate constant is 1.086 +/- 0.06% cGy h(-1) U(-1) for water, PMMA, polystyrene, Solid Water, and RW1. The investigation suggests that the phantom materials RW1 and Solid Water represent water-equivalent up to 20 cm from the source. PMMA and polystyrene are water-equivalent up to 10 cm and 15 cm from the source, respectively, as the differences in the dose data obtained in these phantom materials are not significantly different from the corresponding data obtained in liquid water phantom. At a radial distance of 20 cm from the source, polystyrene overestimates the dose by 3% and PMMA underestimates it by about 8% when compared to the corresponding data obtained in water phantom.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Brachytherapy; Cobalt-60; Monte Carlo simulation; high-dose-rate; solid phantom

Year:  2010        PMID: 20177566      PMCID: PMC2824999          DOI: 10.4103/0971-6203.58779

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Phys        ISSN: 0971-6203


Introduction

A high-dose-rate (HDR) 60Co source is used for the treatment of gynecological cancers due to its longer half-life as compared with the more conventional 192Ir source.[1-3] The AAPM (American Association of Physicists in Medicine) GEANT4-based Monte Carlo dosimetric parameters have been reported in the literature for the old and new designs of BEBIG 60Co sources[12] using TG-43 protocol.[45] The accuracy in dosimetric measurement depends upon precise positioning of the detectors and maintaining correct distances between the source and detector. In order to achieve precision in the positioning of detectors, ease in machining in suitable designs, and convenience in handling, various Solid Water–equivalent phantoms are used. The accuracy in dosimetry data also depends upon the exact chemical composition of the solid materials and their radiation characteristics, i.e., attenuation and scattering in experimental measurement and cross-sectional data accuracy in Monte Carlo codes. There are many published dosimetric studies based on experimental and Monte Carlo methods for 125I and 103Pd brachytherapy sources in different phantom materials.[6-10] However, there is no such published data for the 60Co HDR brachytherapy sources. The objective of the present study is to investigate the influence of different solid phantom materials such as polymethylmethacrylate (common name: PMMA or Perspex or acrylic), polystyrene, Solid Water, and RW1 on dosimetric parameters of the new model of BEBIG 60Co HDR source. We have employed the Monte Carlo-based MCNP code for this purpose.[11]

Materials and Methods

Radioactive source

The geometry of the new BEBIG 60Co brachytherapy source[1] is slightly different from the old one.[2] The new BEBIG 60Co source is composed of a cylindrical active core made of metallic60Co, with 3.5 mm of active length and an active diameter of 0.5 mm (0.6 mm was the active diameter of the old source), covered by a 0.15-mm thick 316L stainless steel capsule. Note that there is an air gap of 0.1 mm around the active 60Co pellet. A schematic view of the new BEBIG 60Co source is shown in Figure 1. The technical details of the source were obtained from the manufacturer.
Figure 1

Schematic diagram of the new BEBIG 60Co HDR source in the Monte Carlo simulations. Dimensions shown are in millimeters (not to scale). (b) The co-ordinate system used in the Monte Carlo simulations.

The origin is chosen at the center of the active source

Schematic diagram of the new BEBIG 60Co HDR source in the Monte Carlo simulations. Dimensions shown are in millimeters (not to scale). (b) The co-ordinate system used in the Monte Carlo simulations. The origin is chosen at the center of the active source

Monte Carlo simulations

Monte Carlo-based MCNP code[11] is used for modeling of the BEBIG new 60Co source in different Solid Water phantom materials, including liquid water. The material, mass density data, and geometric details of the new BEBIG 60Co source needed for Monte Carlo modeling are taken from Granero et al.[1] Tables 1 and 2 present the material description (density, composition, etc.) for the source and the investigated phantom materials, respectively.
Table 1

Atomic composition by weight and density of the new BEBIG 60Co HDR source

ComponentSource materialAtomic composition (%)Density (g/cm3)
Active sourceCobalt100 %8.9
EncapsulationStainless steel (AISI 316L)C(0.026%), Mn(1.4%), Si(0.42%), P(0.019%), S(0.003%), Cr(16.8%), Mo(2.11%), Ni(11.01%), Fe(68.21%)7.8
Table 2

Elemental composition, mass fraction, density and Zeff. of water and water-substitute solid phantom materials. Densities are adapted from Hubbell and Seltzer (1995)

ElementZAWaterSolid WaterRW1PMMAPolystyrene
Composition and mass fraction in %H11.0080.1120.0810.1320.0810.077
C612.0110.6720.7940.6000.923
N714.0070.024
O815.9990.8880.1990.0380.320
Mg1224.3050.009
Cl1735.4570.0010.027
Ca2040.0780.023
Mass density (g/cm3)0.9981.0150.9701.1901.060
Zeff. (Calculated)7.4167.2947.2106.0965.584
Atomic composition by weight and density of the new BEBIG 60Co HDR source Elemental composition, mass fraction, density and Zeff. of water and water-substitute solid phantom materials. Densities are adapted from Hubbell and Seltzer (1995) In the Monte Carlo simulations, we have used 1.17 and 1.33 MeV gamma energy lines of 60Co emission (yield: 2 photons/disintegration) in all calculations. The cutoff energy for photon transport in all calculations was 10 keV. Figure 1 shows the cross-sectional view of the new BEBIG 60Co HDR source modeled in the Monte Carlo calculations. Also shown in this figure is the coordinate system used in the calculations. In the calculations, the origin coincided with the center of the active part of the sources [Figure 1]. In the Monte Carlo calculations, the length of the stainless steel cable considered is 2 mm.

Air-kerma strength

To estimate the value of air-kerma strength, Sk, the source was positioned at the center of a 5-m diameter air phantom. The photon fluence spectra at every 10 keV interval were scored along the transverse axis at y = 25, 50, 75, and 100 cm, using a point detector tally; this was subsequently converted into air-kerma per initial photon, kair (Gy/initial photon) using the mass-energy-absorption coefficient of air.[12] The kair (y) values were then converted to air-kerma rate per unit activity, (in cGy h−1 Bq−1). The value of SK is calculated using the linear equation fitting, i.e., where Sk/A is SK per unit source activity A (in cGy cm2 h−1 Bq−1 or U Bq−1) and b describes the build-up of scattered photons. The density of air is 1.2 × 10−3 g cm−3 and the elemental composition of air corresponds to 40% humidity. This is consistent with the updated TG-43U1 formalism.[4]

Water-kerma calculations in water and solid phantoms

Due to the high energy of the 60Co gamma source, electronic disequilibrium exists up to 1 cm from the source.[2] A significant difference in dose and kerma values (up to 20% at 2 mm), was observed at distances less than 5 mm.[3] In our calculations, we have ignored transport of secondary electrons. In our calculations, we have scored collision kerma and, in the presence of charged particle equilibrium, collision kerma may be approximated to the absorbed dose. Previous published studies suggest that spherical water phantom of 50-cm radius acts as an unbound phantom for BEBIG 60Co sources up to a distance of 20 cm.[23] In order to calculate dose rate distribution in water as well as in solid phantom materials, the source was located in the center of a cylindrical phantom of 100-cm diameter and 100-cm height to get full scatter conditions up to a distance of 20 cm from the source. The density of water was taken 0.998 g cm−3 (at 22°C) as recommended in the TG-43 update.[4] A grid system was set up with cells defined as symmetrical rings around z-axis with rectangular cross-section δy – δz (δy = δz = 0.5 mm) in the y–z plane. Initially, photon energy fluence spectra were calculated as functions of Cartesian coordinates y and z (z is distance along source axis, y is distance away from the source) for all the investigated phantom materials. We used the F4 tallying feature of the MCNP code for this purpose. The photon spectrum at each position (y,z) was subsequently converted to collision kerma by using the mass-energy-absorption coefficients of water.[12] Using the collision kerma values scored in the phantom materials, dose rate constant (λ) and radial dose function [g(r)] were calculated. We used the line source–based geometry function, G(r,θ), for calculating g(r). This is consistent with the TG-43 update.[4] Depending upon the simulation, up to 5 × 107 primary photon histories are simulated. The simulations are run on a Dual-core CPU, 3.4 GHz machine. Depending upon the scoring regions positioned with respect to the origin of the coordinate system used, the 1 σ statistical uncertainties on collision kerma values vary between 0.04% and 2%.

Results and Discussion

Photon energy spectrum

Figure 2 presents the normalized photon fluence spectra calculated for the BEBIG new HDR 60Co source at 1 cm, 5 cm, and 20 cm along the transverse axis of the source in the spherical water phantom with dimensions of 100-cm radius. Also presented in Figure 2 is the spectrum obtained at 50 cm along the transverse axis of the source in a 500-cm radius air and vacuum sphere. In the Monte Carlo calculations, the photon fluence spectra were scored in a 20 keV energy bin. The bin width at 60Co energies, 1.17 MeV and 1.33 MeV, was chosen at 2 keV. The photon fluence in each energy bin was normalized to the total photon fluence. Figure 2 demonstrates the influence of the water medium on the photon fluence spectrum. As the distance increases, the relative fluence of low-energy photons increases due to multiple scattering of photons in the water medium.
Figure 2

Energy spectra of the new BEBIG 60Co HDR source at 1, 5, and 20 cm in water and at 50 cm in air and in vacuum. The radii of the sphere considered are 500 cm for air and vacuum and 100 cm for water

Energy spectra of the new BEBIG 60Co HDR source at 1, 5, and 20 cm in water and at 50 cm in air and in vacuum. The radii of the sphere considered are 500 cm for air and vacuum and 100 cm for water Following is the analysis of the distribution of the energy spectrum of photons exiting the source capsule in a vacuum. The predominant mode of photon interaction at 60Co energies (average energy = 1.25 MeV) is through Compton scattering. In normal circumstances, all scattering angles will occur in the detector, yielding a continuum of scattered photons with energies ranging from 1.25 MeV down to the minimum possible energy, , which occurs when an incident photon is backscattered through an angle of 180°; this is given by, where hv is the energy of the incident primary photon, , and moc2 is the rest mass energy of the electron (511 keV). For a primary photon of energy 1.25 MeV, the is 212 keV, which is consistent with Figure 2, with the drop-off in the number of photons below the 210 keV energy bin.

Air-kerma strength and dose rate constant

The calculated value of SK/A for the BEBIG 60Co source is found to be 3.04 × 10−7 ± 0.05% cGy cm2 h−1 Bq−1. The source is also simulated at the center of a 5-m diameter vacuum sphere and the values of Sk obtained is found to be same as that obtained in air. The value of λ is 1.086 ± 0.06% cGy h−1 U−1 for water, PMMA, polystyrene, Solid Water, and RW1 phantom materials. This is in good agreement with GEANT Monte Carlo-based published value 1.087 ± 0.011 cGy h−1 U−1 in the water medium.[1] It has been shown by Papagiannis et al,[3] that λ, for any source design of 60Co, can be accurately determined using the corresponding point source–based dose rate constant, λpoint, (λpoint = 1.094 cGy h−1 U−1). The λ of real source is dictated by the spatial distribution of radioactivity addressed by the exact geometry factor and, at 1 cm along transverse axis from the source, the line source based geometry factor may well be approximated to the exact geometry factor. The value of λ obtained for the BEBIG 60Co source, using the equation λ = λpoint × GL (r = 1 cm, θ = 90°) is 1.083 cGy h−1 U−1.

Radial dose function, gL (r)

The Monte Carlo calculated values of gL (r) for the new BEBIG 60Co source are presented in Table 3 for water, PMMA, polystyrene, Solid Water, and RW1 phantom materials. In Figure 3, these gL(r) results are plotted vs radial distance, r. The values of gL(r) in water has been fitted to a third-order polynomial for r = 0.2 cm to 20 cm. The co-efficients obtained as a0 = 1.0118, a1 = −0.01225 cm−1, a2 = −3.39297 × 10−4 cm−2, and a3 = 3.9995 × 10−6 cm−3. The fitted values of gL(r) agree with the corresponding Monte Carlo calculated values obtained in the present work as well as with the published values.[1]
Table 3

Comparison of radial dose function gL(r) of the new BEBIG 60Co HDR source in water and four water-equivalent solid phantom materials. The dimensions of cylindrical phantom are 100 cm diameter × 100 cm height

Distance r(cm)gL(r)

WaterPMMAPolystyreneRW1Solid Water
0.21.0141.0161.0141.0141.014
0.31.0101.0121.0101.0101.010
0.41.0081.0101.0091.0081.009
0.51.0071.0081.0071.0071.007
0.61.0031.0041.0041.0041.003
0.71.0021.0031.0021.0021.002
0.81.0011.0021.0011.0011.001
0.91.0011.0021.0011.0011.001
11.0001.0001.0001.0001.000
1.20.9960.9960.9960.9970.996
1.40.9920.9920.9920.9930.992
1.50.9920.9920.9920.9930.992
1.80.9870.9850.9860.9870.987
20.9850.9830.9860.9850.985
2.50.9790.9760.9790.9790.979
30.9720.9650.9700.9720.971
3.50.9600.9570.9620.9610.961
40.9570.9460.9570.9570.957
4.50.9470.9390.9480.9490.948
50.9400.9320.9410.9400.940
60.9260.9190.9280.9260.927
70.9180.9050.9200.9180.918
80.9000.8800.9050.9000.901
90.8820.8660.8830.8830.882
100.8600.8400.8710.8620.863
110.8410.8180.8520.8450.844
120.8200.7990.8300.8220.821
130.7990.7700.8090.8020.801
140.7880.7490.7960.7890.786
150.7590.7320.7720.7630.760
180.7080.6650.7160.7050.703
200.6630.6250.6810.6580.657

The radial dose function of BEBIG new HDR 60Co source in water has been fitted to a 3rd order polynomial between r = 0.2 − 20 cm. The co-efficients obtained as a0 = 1.0118, a1 = −0.01225 cm−1, a2 = −3.39297 × 10−4 cm−2 and a3 = 3.9995 × 10−6 cm−3.

Figure 3

Radial dose function of the new BEBIG HDR 60Co source in water and in solid phantom materials such as PMMA, polystyrene, RW1, and Solid Water

Comparison of radial dose function gL(r) of the new BEBIG 60Co HDR source in water and four water-equivalent solid phantom materials. The dimensions of cylindrical phantom are 100 cm diameter × 100 cm height The radial dose function of BEBIG new HDR 60Co source in water has been fitted to a 3rd order polynomial between r = 0.2 − 20 cm. The co-efficients obtained as a0 = 1.0118, a1 = −0.01225 cm−1, a2 = −3.39297 × 10−4 cm−2 and a3 = 3.9995 × 10−6 cm−3. Radial dose function of the new BEBIG HDR 60Co source in water and in solid phantom materials such as PMMA, polystyrene, RW1, and Solid Water

Dose variation in different phantoms

Tables 4–6 present dose rate distributions in the Cartesian format (in cGy h−1 U−1) around the BEBIG new 60Co source in water, PMMA, and polystyrene phantom materials, respectively. The dosimetric data in RW1 and Solid Water is not presented because these two phantoms produced the same dose results as that of water. For radial distances up to 10 cm, PMMA is water-equivalent as PMMA underestimates dose by about only 3% at 10 cm. At radial distances 15 cm and 20 cm, PMMA underestimates the dose by about 5% and 8%, respectively. A similar comparison of dose values in the polystyrene phantom suggests that polystyrene is water-equivalent up to a radial distance of 10 cm from the source. At radial distances 15 cm and 20 cm, polystyrene overestimates the dose by less than 2% and 3%, respectively.
Table 4

Dose rate per unit air-kerma strength (in cGy h−1 U−1) in an unbounded water phantom for the new BEBIG 60Co HDR source

Away distance, y (cm)

Along distance, z(cm)00.50.7511.522.5345681015
−150.003470.003460.003460.003420.003440.003410.003410.003420.003340.003210.003050.002700.002360.00156
−100.008390.008470.008430.008550.008710.008630.008360.008290.007830.007200.006580.005350.004240.00238
−80.01370.01370.01370.01410.01400.01370.01340.01290.01180.01050.009280.007080.005340.00273
−60.02510.02530.02580.02560.02530.02450.02340.02180.01890.01590.01330.009340.006630.00311
−50.03650.03710.03790.03810.03640.03460.03200.02960.02440.01980.01590.01060.007250.00326
−40.05840.05960.05990.05920.05590.05100.04600.04100.03170.02430.01900.01190.007890.00341
−30.1040.1090.1080.1040.09270.08060.06820.05760.04100.02970.02210.01320.008480.00354
−2.50.1510.1580.1530.1460.1240.1030.08410.06860.04650.03240.02370.01380.008770.00359
−20.2390.2460.2330.2130.1710.1330.1030.08060.05160.03520.02510.01430.008950.00363
−1.50.4310.4290.3840.3330.2400.1710.1250.09370.05700.03750.02630.01470.009130.00365
−10.9950.8810.7020.5460.3330.2150.1470.1060.06140.03950.02720.01500.009200.00368
−0.751.831.370.9780.7000.3850.2350.1570.1110.06280.04020.02760.01500.009300.00368
−0.54.522.241.350.8730.4330.2530.1640.1150.06410.04050.02780.01510.009320.00368
−0.25-3.501.741.020.4680.2650.1690.1170.06500.04100.02800.01520.009350.00372
0-4.261.921.090.4820.2690.1710.1180.06530.04110.02810.01530.009390.00370
0.25-3.501.741.020.4690.2650.1690.1170.06500.04110.02790.01510.009350.00371
0.54.762.241.350.8740.4330.2530.1650.1150.06410.04070.02790.01510.009300.00372
0.751.951.370.9790.6980.3850.2350.1570.1110.06310.04020.02760.01510.009270.00368
11.060.8810.7030.5460.3330.2150.1470.1060.06120.03940.02720.01500.009240.00370
1.50.4600.4290.3850.3330.2390.1710.1250.09390.05700.03750.02630.01470.009150.00368
20.2550.2470.2330.2140.1710.1330.1030.08090.05180.03520.02510.01430.008960.00363
2.50.1620.1600.1530.1450.1240.1030.08410.06830.04630.03250.02370.01370.008780.00359
30.1110.1110.1080.1040.09300.08050.06840.05780.04100.02980.02210.01320.008470.00355
40.06150.06090.06040.05960.05630.05120.04610.04080.03160.02440.01900.01190.007940.00343
50.03870.03910.03850.03820.03660.03480.03230.02960.02440.01980.01600.01060.007260.00327
60.02650.02640.02610.02610.02540.02480.02320.02200.01890.01590.01340.009370.006640.00311
80.01440.01470.01450.01420.01420.01380.01340.01300.01170.01060.009300.007070.005350.00274
100.008820.008630.008910.008900.008840.008690.008470.008260.007830.007150.006570.005330.004240.00239
150.00350.003620.003530.003490.003550.003510.003440.003420.003360.003220.003070.002730.002350.00156
Table 6

Dose rate per unit air-kerma strength (in cGy h−1 U−1) in an unbounded polystyrene phantom for the new BEBIG 60Co HDR source

Away distance, y (cm)

Along distance, z(cm)00.50.7511.522.5345681015
−150.003490.003500.003500.003510.003520.003470.003480.003490.003410.003270.003100.002760.002410.00160
−100.008560.008540.008480.008620.008740.008720.008450.008350.007910.007270.006640.005410.004300.00243
−80.01380.01380.01380.01420.01410.01380.01340.01300.01190.01060.009350.007130.005410.00278
−60.02500.02540.02580.02570.02540.02460.02350.02190.01900.01600.01340.009420.006690.00316
−50.03650.03720.03800.03810.03650.03470.03210.02970.02440.01990.01600.01070.007330.00332
−40.05800.05970.06000.05920.05600.05100.04600.04110.03180.02440.01900.01200.007950.00347
−30.1040.1090.1080.1040.0930.0810.06830.05760.04110.02980.02210.01320.008550.00359
−2.50.1520.1580.1530.1460.1240.1030.08410.06870.04650.03240.02380.01380.008840.00365
−20.2390.2460.2330.2130.1700.1330.1030.08070.05160.03530.02520.01430.009000.00368
−1.50.4310.4290.3840.3330.2390.1710.1250.09370.05700.03760.02640.01470.009200.00371
−10.9950.8810.7020.5460.3320.2150.1470.1060.06150.03950.02730.01500.009260.00375
−0.751.8301.370.9780.6990.3850.2350.1570.1110.06290.04020.02760.01510.009370.00375
−0.54.522.241.350.8730.4330.2530.1640.1150.06410.04060.02790.01520.009390.00373
−0.25-3.501.741.020.4680.2650.1690.1170.06510.04100.02800.01520.009410.00377
0-4.261.921.090.4820.2690.1710.1180.06540.04120.02820.01530.009460.00377
0.25-3.501.741.020.4690.2650.1690.1170.06510.04110.02800.01520.009420.00377
0.54.762.241.350.8740.4330.2530.1650.1150.06410.04070.02790.01520.009370.00377
0.751.951.370.9790.6980.3850.2350.1570.1110.06320.04020.02770.01520.009340.00374
11.060.8810.7030.5460.3330.2150.1470.1060.06130.03940.02720.01500.009320.00375
1.50.4600.4290.3850.3330.2390.1710.1250.09390.05710.03760.02630.01470.009220.00373
20.2550.2480.2330.2140.1710.1330.1030.08090.05180.03530.02520.01430.009010.00370
2.50.1620.1600.1530.1450.1240.1030.0840.06840.04630.03260.02380.01380.008840.00365
30.1110.1110.1080.1040.09310.08050.06840.05780.04100.02980.02220.01330.008550.00361
40.06180.06100.06050.05970.05640.05130.04620.04090.03170.02450.01910.01200.008010.00348
50.03870.03910.03870.03820.03660.03490.03230.02970.02450.01990.01610.01070.007330.00332
60.02650.02660.02630.02610.02550.02480.02330.02200.01890.01600.01340.009430.006700.00317
80.01440.01470.01460.01430.01430.01390.01340.01310.01180.01070.00940.007150.005410.00280
100.008890.008670.009010.009010.008930.008750.008530.008340.007900.007240.006640.005390.004310.00244
150.003660.003660.003580.003600.003620.003570.003500.003500.003420.003280.003120.002790.002410.00160
Dose rate per unit air-kerma strength (in cGy h−1 U−1) in an unbounded water phantom for the new BEBIG 60Co HDR source Dose rate per unit air-kerma strength (in cGy h−1 U−1) in an unbounded PMMA phantom for the new BEBIG 60Co HDR source Dose rate per unit air-kerma strength (in cGy h−1 U−1) in an unbounded polystyrene phantom for the new BEBIG 60Co HDR source

Conclusions

The dose rate per unit air-kerma strength around the new BEBIG HDR 60Co source in water, PMMA, and polystyrene materials are calculated using the Monte Carlo methods. The investigation suggests that the phantom materials RW1 and Solid Water represent water-equivalent at all distances from the source. PMMA and polystyrene are water-equivalent up to 10 cm and 15 cm from the source, respectively, as the differences in the dose data obtained in these phantom materials are not significant when compared to the corresponding data in water. In general, all the investigated phantom materials are water-equivalent up to 10 cm from the source.
Table 5

Dose rate per unit air-kerma strength (in cGy h−1 U−1) in an unbounded PMMA phantom for the new BEBIG 60Co HDR source

Away distance, y (cm)

Along distance, z(cm)00.50.7511.522.5345681015
−150.003290.003280.003300.003310.003300.003290.003270.003280.003210.003040.002900.002560.002230.00144
−100.008210.008300.008260.008330.008470.008440.008160.008080.007610.006980.006380.005150.004060.00224
−80.01350.01350.01360.01380.01370.01340.01310.01270.01160.01030.009030.006860.005160.00258
−60.02490.02510.02550.02540.02500.02420.02310.02150.01860.01560.01310.009100.006420.00295
−50.03630.03690.03760.03770.03610.03420.03160.02920.02400.01940.01560.01040.007050.00310
−40.05750.05920.05950.05870.05540.05060.04560.04050.03130.02400.01860.01160.007670.00326
−30.1040.1080.1070.1030.09200.07990.06770.05700.04050.02930.02170.01290.008270.00337
−2.50.1510.1580.1520.1450.1240.1020.08330.06810.04590.03200.02330.01340.008520.00342
−20.2390.2450.2320.2120.1700.1320.1020.08000.05110.03470.02470.01400.008700.00346
−1.50.4320.4280.3830.3310.2380.1710.1240.09300.05650.03710.02590.01440.008890.00349
−10.9970.8800.7000.5440.3310.2140.1460.1050.06080.03910.02680.01470.008970.00352
−0.751.831.370.9770.6970.3840.2340.1560.1100.06230.03970.02720.01470.009060.00352
−0.54.522.231.350.8710.4320.2520.1630.1140.06350.04000.02750.01490.009080.00351
−0.25-3.501.741.020.4660.2640.1680.1160.06440.04050.02760.01490.009090.00355
0-4.251.921.090.4800.2680.1700.1170.06470.04060.02770.01500.009120.00354
0.25-3.501.741.020.4680.2640.1680.1160.06450.04060.02760.01490.009120.00354
0.54.762.241.350.8720.4320.2520.1640.1140.06350.04020.02750.01480.009100.00355
0.751.951.370.9770.6960.3840.2340.1560.1100.06260.03970.02720.01480.009040.00353
11.0600.8790.7020.5440.3310.2140.1460.1050.06060.03900.02680.01470.009020.00352
1.50.4590.4280.3840.3310.2380.1700.1240.0930.05640.03710.02590.01440.008920.00349
20.2550.2470.2320.2130.1700.1320.1030.08000.05130.03480.02470.01400.008720.00346
2.50.1610.1590.1530.1440.1240.1020.08300.06800.04580.03210.02330.01350.008510.00342
30.1110.1100.1070.1040.09240.07980.06780.05730.04050.02930.02180.01300.008250.00337
40.06100.06040.06000.05920.05580.05070.04560.04040.03130.02410.01870.01170.007730.00326
50.03880.03880.03830.03780.03620.03440.03190.02920.02400.01950.01570.01040.007070.00311
60.02690.02620.02590.02580.02500.02450.02290.02160.01850.01570.01310.009130.006430.00296
80.01640.01440.01420.01390.01390.01350.01310.01270.01150.01030.009060.006870.005150.00259
100.008630.008470.008710.008720.008630.008470.008230.008050.007610.006950.006370.005130.004080.00225
150.003350.003520.003360.003360.003370.003380.003310.003290.003220.003070.002910.002590.002210.00145
  10 in total

1.  The radial dose function of low-energy brachytherapy seeds in different solid phantoms: comparison between calculations with the EGSnrc and MCNP4C Monte Carlo codes and measurements.

Authors:  B Reniers; F Verhaegen; S Vynckier
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2004-04-21       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Update of AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: A revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations.

Authors:  Mark J Rivard; Bert M Coursey; Larry A DeWerd; William F Hanson; M Saiful Huq; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Michael G Mitch; Ravinder Nath; Jeffrey F Williamson
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Monte Carlo dosimetric study of the BEBIG Co-60 HDR source.

Authors:  F Ballester; D Granero; J Pérez-Calatayud; E Casal; S Agramunt; R Cases
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2005-10-12       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Technical note: Dosimetric study of a new Co-60 source used in brachytherapy.

Authors:  D Granero; J Pérez-Calatayud; F Ballester
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  On the choice of phantom material for the dosimetry of 192Ir sources.

Authors:  J A Meli; A S Meigooni; R Nath
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 43. American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Authors:  R Nath; L L Anderson; G Luxton; K A Weaver; J F Williamson; A S Meigooni
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Updated Solid Water to water conversion factors for 125I and l03Pd brachytherapy sources.

Authors:  Ali S Meigooni; Shahid B Awan; Nathan S Thompson; Sharifeh A Dini
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Monte Carlo dosimetry of 60Co HDR brachytherapy sources.

Authors:  P Papagiannis; A Angelopoulos; E Pantelis; L Sakelliou; P Karaiskos; Y Shimizu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  A comparison of solid phantoms with water for dosimetry of 125I brachytherapy sources.

Authors:  A S Meigooni; J A Meli; R Nath
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1988 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Comparison of radiation dosimetry in water and in solid phantom materials for I-125 and Pd-103 brachytherapy sources: EGS4 Monte Carlo study.

Authors:  G Luxton
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 4.071

  10 in total
  6 in total

1.  Dosimetric comparison between the microSelectron HDR (192)Ir v2 source and the BEBIG (60)Co source for HDR brachytherapy using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo transport code.

Authors:  M Anwarul Islam; M M Akramuzzaman; G A Zakaria
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2012-10

2.  Monte Carlo-based investigation of water-equivalence of solid phantoms at (137)Cs energy.

Authors:  Ramkrushna S Vishwakarma; T Palani Selvam; Sridhar Sahoo; Subhalaxmi Mishra; Ghanshyam Chourasiya
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2013-10

3.  Effect of tissue composition on dose distribution in brachytherapy with various photon emitting sources.

Authors:  Mahdi Ghorbani; Fateme Salahshour; Abbas Haghparast; Toktam Ahmadi Moghaddas; Courtney Knaup
Journal:  J Contemp Brachytherapy       Date:  2014-04-03

4.  Experimental Determination of Radial Dose Function and Anisotropy Function of GammaMed Plus 192Ir High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy Source in a Bounded Water Phantom and its Comparison with egs_brachy Monte Carlo Simulation.

Authors:  Rekha Reddy Buchapudi; Ravikumar Manickam; Varatharaj Chandaraj
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2019-12-11

5.  Evaluation of BEBIG HDR (60)Co system for non-invasive image-guided breast brachytherapy.

Authors:  Mehdi Zehtabian; Sedigheh Sina; Mark J Rivard; Ali S Meigooni
Journal:  J Contemp Brachytherapy       Date:  2015-12-30

6.  Measurements and Monte Carlo calculation of radial dose and anisotropy functions of BEBIG 60Co high-dose-rate brachytherapy source in a bounded water phantom.

Authors:  Buchapudi Rekha Reddy; Marc J P Chamberland; Manickam Ravikumar; Chandraraj Varatharaj
Journal:  J Contemp Brachytherapy       Date:  2019-12-25
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.