Calculation of the ratio of absorbed dose to different tissues to water for medical accelerators of Electa 25MV and Siemens 6MV

Authors

10.22052/5.4.43

Abstract

In this paper, the ratio of adsorbed dose to the tissues of muscle, blood and bone to water for medical accelerators of Electa 25MV and Siemens 6MV is calculated using an analytical method based on cavity theory and Monte Carlo simulation. To confirm the validation of these methods, the ratio of absorbed dose to air to water was determined experimentally for radiation field of 60Co in Secondary Standard Dosimetry Laboratory (SSDL). The relative difference between the measured value and calculated values was less than 10% which confirms the validation of analytical and simulation methods.
The ratio of absorbed dose to muscle and blood to water is close to unity due to their atomic composition and density similar to water. The ratio of absorbed dose to bone to absorbed dose to water is calculated 0.96 and 0.91 for radiation fields of Electa 25MV and Siemens 6MV, respectively due to the discrepancy between atomic composition and density of bone and water. Further, the obtained results reveals that the ratio of absorbed dose to different tissues to absorbed dose to water is depended on radiation field energy. The results of this paper can be useful to determine the absorbed dose delivered to an organ in a treatment planning systems. 
 
 

Keywords


[1] J.V. Siebers, P.J. Keall, A.E. Nahum and R. Mohan. Converting absorbed dose to medium to absorbed dose to water for Monte Carlo based photon beam dose calculations., Phys. in Med and Biol. 45 (2000) 983–995. [2] N. Dogan, J.V. Siebers and P.J. Keall. Clinical comparison of head and neck and prostate IMRT plans using absorbed dose to medium and absorbed dose to water., Phys. in Med and Biol. 51 (2006) 4967–4980. [3] S. Rana and S. Pokharel. Dose-to-medium vs. dose-to-water: Dosimetric evaluation of dose reporting modes in Acuros XB for prostate, lung and breast cancer. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2 (2014) 1–7. [4] M.N. Usmani, N. Masai, R. Oh, H. Shiomi, D. Tatsumi, H. Miura, T. Inoue and M. Koizumi. Comparison of absorbed dose to medium and absorbed dose to water for spine IMRT plans using a commercial Monte Carlo treatment planning system. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology. 3 (2014) 60–66. [5] S.K. Gopal and P.C. Dash. Dose-to-medium vs. dose-to-water: Dosimetric evaluation of head and neck VMAT cases using Monaco treatment planning system. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 4 (2016) 1–7. [6] J.F. Briesmeister. MCNP4C Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code System. MCNP-4C. Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code System, (2000). [7] D. Sheikh‐Bagheri and D.W.O. Rogers. Monte Carlo calculation of nine megavoltage photon beam spectra using the BEAM code. Medical Physics. 29 (2002) 391–402. [8] J. Hubbell and S. Seltzer. Tables of X-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass energy-absorption coefficients (version 1.4). National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, (2004). [9] C. Suplee. Stopping-Power & Range Tables for Electrons, Protons, and Helium Ions (2009). [10] RJ. McConn, CG. Gesh, RT. Pagh, RA. Rucker and RG. Williams III. Compendium of material composition data for radiation transport modeling, Pacific northwest national laboratory, PIET-43741- 963, PNNL-15870 Rev. 1 (2011).