2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnucene.2018.09.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monte Carlo simulation of Novalis Classic 6 MV accelerator using phase space generation in GATE/Geant4 code

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To adequately validate the photon beam’s quality taken by the simulation GATE against the accurate measured data and according to international recommendations (IAEA TRS398) [ 15 , 16 ], the index of quality tissue phantom ratio (TPR) in water for the square field 10 × 10 cm 2 the D 10 (%) , d max (cm) and d 80 (cm) are reported and compared as shown in Table 2 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To adequately validate the photon beam’s quality taken by the simulation GATE against the accurate measured data and according to international recommendations (IAEA TRS398) [ 15 , 16 ], the index of quality tissue phantom ratio (TPR) in water for the square field 10 × 10 cm 2 the D 10 (%) , d max (cm) and d 80 (cm) are reported and compared as shown in Table 2 .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Teixeira et al [38] created the phase space of the Novalis Classic linear accelerator at 6 MV energy performed the GATE simulation program and compared PDD and dose profiles with experimental data for 10 × 10 cm 2 and 3 × 3 cm 2 radiation field. They found that the TPR 20/10 difference between simulation and measurement was about 1.5% for 6 MV.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The brute-force search method (reference) was used to select the diameters and thicknesses of these plates. In order to determine the optimal average beam energy, depth dose distributions were calculated in a region of the nominal energy with 0.1 MeV step (the typical standard deviation equals 3%, according to the previously published data [10]). The best agreement between the simulated data and the experimental data for the dose maximum depth (D 100 ) and the half-value depth (D 50 ) was considered to be the criterion for selecting the optimal value of the average beam energy for further simulations.…”
Section: Parameter Nominal Electron Beam Energy 6 Mev 12 Mev 15 Mevmentioning
confidence: 99%