Monte Carlo calculations of an Elekta Precise SL-25 photon beam model

• Published in: Journal of radiotherapy in practice Vol. 14; no. 3; pp. 311 - 322
• Main Authors: Padilla-Cabal, Fátima, Pérez-Liva, Mailyn, Lara, Elier, Alfonso, Rodolfo, Lopez-Pino, Neivy
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press 01.09.2015
• Subjects: Technical Note; photon beam model; Elekta-linac; Monte Carlo (MC) simulations
• ISSN: 1460-3969; 1467-1131
• DOI: 10.1017/S146039691500014X

Abstract Background Monte Carlo (MC) simulations have been used extensively for benchmarking photon dose calculations in modern radiotherapy using linear accelerators (linacs). Moreover, a major barrier to widespread clinical implementation of MC dose calculation is the difficulty in characterising the radiation source using data reported from manufacturers. Purpose This work aims to develop a generalised full MC histogram source model of an Elekta Precise SL-25 linac (electron exit window, target, flattening filter, monitor chambers and collimators) for 6 MV photon beams used in standard therapies. The inclusion of many different probability processes such as scatter, nuclear reactions, decay, capture cross-sections and more led to more realistic dose calculations in treatment planning and quality assurance. Materials and methods Two different codes, MCNPX 2·6 and EGSr-BEAM, were used for the calculation of particle transport, first in the geometry of the internal/external accelerator source, and then followed by tracking the transport and energy deposition in phantom-equivalent tissues. A full phase space file was scored directly above the upper multilayer collimator’s jaws to derive the beam characteristics such as planar fluence, angular distribution and energy spectrum. To check the quality of the generated photon beam, its depth dose curves and cross-beam profiles were calculated and compared with measured data. Results In-field dose distributions calculated using the accelerator models were tuned to match measurement data with preliminary calculations performed using the accelerator information provided by the manufacturer. Field sizes of 3×3, 5×5, 10×10, 15×15 and 20×20 cm 2 were analysed. Local differences between calculated and measured curve doses beneath 2% were obtained for all the studied field sizes. Higher discrepancies were obtained in the air–water interface, where measurements of dose distributions with the ionisation chamber need to be shifted for the effective point of measurement. Conclusion The agreements between MC-calculated and measured dose distributions were excellent for both codes, showing the strength and stability of the proposed model. Beam reconstruction methods as direct input to dose-calculation codes using the recorded histograms can be implemented for more accurate patient dose estimation.