2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2020.03.021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monte carlo model and output factors of elekta infinity™ 6 and 10 MV photon beam

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Both energy levels show the difference between local dose of PDDs to be less than 2%. The output factors measured with different detectors are in good agreement with simulation within less than 2% for field sizes (40).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…Both energy levels show the difference between local dose of PDDs to be less than 2%. The output factors measured with different detectors are in good agreement with simulation within less than 2% for field sizes (40).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…That said, the correlation between out-of-field doses with distance, depth, and energy beam levels in our study was largely consistent with previous reports [ 9 , 21 , 27 , 31 ]. Crucially, higher beam energy leads to higher electron contamination [ 32 ]. Although out-of-field electron doses may appear to be less significant than those observed with photon beams, the deposition of radiation in sensitive volumes is evident and may cause unwanted damage to healthy tissues, just as occurs with photon beam energy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…found that the calculated S cp in the EGSnrc MC simulation for field size 3 cm × 3 cm, 5 cm × 5 cm, and 10 cm × 10 cm was in the range between 0.86 and 1.00 and the percentage difference between the measured and calculated S cp were within 2%. [ 22 ] The S cp measurement and calculation were done at 10 cm water depth in this study to avoid the effect of electron contamination from the Elekta linac treatment head, and the results had proved a good agreement between the measured and calculated S cp . [ 22 23 ] Thus, the measured S cp using the IC avoided the issue of electron contamination when the IC was placed at 10 cm depth.…”
Section: R Esults and Discussionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[ 22 ] The S cp measurement and calculation were done at 10 cm water depth in this study to avoid the effect of electron contamination from the Elekta linac treatment head, and the results had proved a good agreement between the measured and calculated S cp . [ 22 23 ] Thus, the measured S cp using the IC avoided the issue of electron contamination when the IC was placed at 10 cm depth. Apart from that, the MC simulation acted as an alternative method to calculate the S cp as it can overcome the issue of electron contamination during the simulation process.…”
Section: R Esults and Discussionsmentioning
confidence: 99%