Electron contamination of a high-energy X-ray beam

Padikal, Thomas N.; Deye, James A.

doi:10.1088/0031-9155/23/6/004

Cited by 37 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This method suffers from a number of problems, like detector response difference for electrons and photons, 8,9 absence of unique value of d max for different field sizes and source-to-surface (SSD) distance. [10][11][12] To solve the above problem, AAPM therapy physics committee Task Group 74 (TG74) 13 recommends the build-up caps in cylindrical shapes along with long axis parallel with the beam central axis and the ion chamber placed at 10 g/cm 2 water equivalent depth for Sc measurements. These build-up caps are generally called columnar mini phantoms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement and comparison of head scatter factor for 7 MV unflattened (FFF) and 6 MV flattened photon beam using indigenously designed columnar mini phantom

Sigamani

Nambiraj

Sinha

et al. 2015

Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement and comparison of head scatter factor for 7 MV unflattened (FFF) and 6 MV flattened photon beam using indigenously designed columnar mini phantom

Sigamani

Nambiraj

Sinha

et al. 2015

Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These physical properties can occur due to the multiple scattering of the incident electrons, the lost energy in leading, or the displacement of the original motion direction while interacting with the atomic nucleus of the material or orbital electron when the electron beam passes through the material [5,6]. In addition, the incident angle of radiation can be affected by whether or not the filter is used [7,8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study on Effective Source-Skin Distance using Phantom in Electron Beam Therapy

Kim¹,

Lee²,

Heo³

et al. 2014

Journal of Magnetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, for 6-20 MeV electron beam energy occurring in a linear accelerator, the authors attempted to investigate the relation between the effective source-skin distance and the relation between the radiation field and the effective source-skin distance. The equipment used included a 6-20 MeV electron beam from a linear accelerator, and the distance was measured by a ionization chamber targeting the solid phantom. The measurement method for the effective source-skin distance according to the size of the radiation field changes the source-skin distance (100, 105, 110, 115 cm) for the electron beam energy (6,9,12, 16, 20 MeV). The effective source-skin distance was measured using the method proposed by Faiz Khan, measuring the dose according to each radiation field (6 × 6, 10 × 10, 15 × 15, 20 × 20 cm 2 ) at the maximum dose depth (1.3, 2.05, 2.7, 2.45, 1.8 cm, respectively) of each energy. In addition, the effective source-skin distance when cut-out blocks (6 × 6, 10 × 10, 15 × 15 cm 2 ) were used and the effective source-skin distance when they were not used, was measured and compared. The research results showed that the effective source-skin distance was increased according to the increase of the radiation field at the same amount of energy. In addition, the minimum distance was 60.4 cm when the 6 MeV electron beams were used with 6 × 6 cut-out blocks and the maximum distance was 87.2 cm when the 6 MeV electron beams were used with 20 × 20 cut-out blocks; thus, the largest difference between both of these was 26.8 cm. When comparing the before and after the using the 6 × 6 cut-out block, the difference between both was 8.2 cm in 6 MeV electron beam energy and was 2.1 cm in 20 MeV. Thus, the results showed that the difference was reduced according to an increase in the energy. In addition, in the comparative experiments performed by changing the size of the cut-out block at 6 MeV, the results showed that the source-skin distance was 8.2 cm when the size of the cut-out block was 6 × 6, 2.5 cm when the size of the cut-out block was 10 × 10, and 21.4 cm when the size of the cut-out block 15 × 15. In conclusion, it is recommended that the actual measurement is used for each energy and radiation field in the clinical dose measurement and for the measurement of the effective source-skin distance using cut-out blocks.

show abstract

“…This phenomenon is similar to electron contamination from trays or wedges in the beam that have shown to be a significant source of dose to the surface from multiple energies. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Studies have also been done measuring the skin dose from oblique uniform and IMRT fields, 17,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Several studies have described the problems with measuring surfaces doses with parallel plate chambers, primarily because they tend to over-respond to surface measurements. 20,29 -33 However, this over-response is easily corrected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased Skin Dose With the Use of a Custom Mattress for Prone Breast Radiotherapy

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electron contamination of a high-energy X-ray beam

Cited by 37 publications

References 2 publications

Measurement and comparison of head scatter factor for 7 MV unflattened (FFF) and 6 MV flattened photon beam using indigenously designed columnar mini phantom

Measurement and comparison of head scatter factor for 7 MV unflattened (FFF) and 6 MV flattened photon beam using indigenously designed columnar mini phantom

A Study on Effective Source-Skin Distance using Phantom in Electron Beam Therapy

Increased Skin Dose With the Use of a Custom Mattress for Prone Breast Radiotherapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About