What are the Best Energies for Neutron Production for NCT?

Crawford, J. F.; Suwannakachorn, D.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-1285-1_50

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other authors have proffered answers to this question based on consideration of empty neutron therapy beam parameters, using concepts such as ''useful'' neutron fluence rate, mean neutron energy and neutron dose rate per unit ''useful'' epithermal neutron fluence. [2][3][4] However, empty beam parameters are of limited value in describing an accelerator-based BNCT neutron beam, since the close proximity of the patient or phantom to the moderator/ filter assembly results in a very high degree of neutronic coupling. This means that any derived empty beam fluence rate, dose rate or spectrum is immediately altered once a patient or phantom is introduced to the therapy position.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the best proton energy for accelerator‐based BNCT using the reaction?

Allen

Beynon

2000

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With a growing interest in the use of accelerator-based epithermal neutron sources for BNCT programs, in particular those based upon the 7Li(p,n)7Be reaction, there is a need to address the question of "what is the best proton energy to use?" This paper considers this question by using radiation transport calculations to investigate a range of proton energies from 2.15 to 3.5 MeV and a range of moderator sizes. This study has moved away completely from the use of empty therapy beam parameters and instead defines the beam quality and optimizes the moderator design using widely accepted in-phantom treatment planning figures of merit. It is concluded that up to a proton energy of about 2.8 MeV there is no observed variation in the achievable therapy beam quality, but a price is paid in terms of treatment time for not choosing the upper limit of this range. For higher proton energies, the beam quality falls, but with no improvement in treatment time for optimum configurations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%