{"title":"蒙特卡洛计算得出的 EBT3 和 EBT4 薄膜对 5-200 MeV 电子和 100 keV-15 MeV 光子的吸收剂量能量依赖关系","authors":"Nathan Clements, Magdalena Bazalova-Carter","doi":"10.1002/acm2.14529","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>To use Monte Carlo simulations to study the absorbed-dose energy dependence of GAFChromic EBT3 and EBT4 films for 5–200 MeV electron beams and 100 keV–15 MeV photon beams considering two film compositions: a previous EBT3 composition (Bekerat et al.) and the final composition of EBT3/current composition of EBT4 (Palmer et al.).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A water phantom was simulated with films at 5–50 mm depth in 5 mm intervals. The water phantom was irradiated with flat, monoenergetic 5–200 MeV electron beams and 100 and 150 keV kilovoltage and 1–15 MeV megavoltage photon beams and the dose to the active layer of the films was scored. Simulations were rerun with the films defined as water to compare the absorbed-dose response of film to water, <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msup>\n <mi>f</mi>\n <mrow>\n <mo>−</mo>\n <mn>1</mn>\n </mrow>\n </msup>\n <mrow>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <mi>Q</mi>\n <mo>)</mo>\n </mrow>\n <mo>=</mo>\n <mfrac>\n <msub>\n <mi>D</mi>\n <mrow>\n <mi>f</mi>\n <mi>i</mi>\n <mi>l</mi>\n <mi>m</mi>\n </mrow>\n </msub>\n <msub>\n <mi>D</mi>\n <mrow>\n <mi>w</mi>\n <mi>a</mi>\n <mi>t</mi>\n <mi>e</mi>\n <mi>r</mi>\n </mrow>\n </msub>\n </mfrac>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$f^{-1}(Q)=\\frac{D_{film}}{D_{water}}$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>For electrons, the Bekerat et al. composition had variations in <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msup>\n <mi>f</mi>\n <mrow>\n <mo>−</mo>\n <mn>1</mn>\n </mrow>\n </msup>\n <mrow>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <mi>Q</mi>\n <mo>)</mo>\n </mrow>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$f^{-1}(Q)$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> of up to <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <mn>1.9</mn>\n <mspace></mspace>\n <mo>±</mo>\n <mspace></mspace>\n <mn>0.1</mn>\n <mo>)</mo>\n <mo>%</mo>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$(1.9\\,\\pm \\,0.1)\\%$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> from 5 to 200 MeV. Similarly, the Palmer et al. composition had differences in <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msup>\n <mi>f</mi>\n <mrow>\n <mo>−</mo>\n <mn>1</mn>\n </mrow>\n </msup>\n <mrow>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <mi>Q</mi>\n <mo>)</mo>\n </mrow>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$f^{-1}(Q)$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> up to <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <mn>2.5</mn>\n <mo>±</mo>\n <mn>0.2</mn>\n <mo>)</mo>\n <mo>%</mo>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$(2.5 \\pm 0.2)\\%$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> from 5 to 200 MeV. For photons, <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msup>\n <mi>f</mi>\n <mrow>\n <mo>−</mo>\n <mn>1</mn>\n </mrow>\n </msup>\n <mrow>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <mi>Q</mi>\n <mo>)</mo>\n </mrow>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$f^{-1}(Q)$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> varied up to <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <mn>2.4</mn>\n <mo>±</mo>\n <mn>0.3</mn>\n <mo>)</mo>\n <mo>%</mo>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$(2.4 \\pm 0.3)\\%$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> and <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <mn>4.5</mn>\n <mo>±</mo>\n <mn>0.7</mn>\n <mo>)</mo>\n <mo>%</mo>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$(4.5 \\pm 0.7)\\%$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> from 100 keV to 15 MeV for the Bekerat et al. and Palmer et al. compositions, respectively. The depth of films did not appear to significantly affect <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msup>\n <mi>f</mi>\n <mrow>\n <mo>−</mo>\n <mn>1</mn>\n </mrow>\n </msup>\n <mrow>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <mi>Q</mi>\n <mo>)</mo>\n </mrow>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$f^{-1}(Q)$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> for photons at any energy and for electrons at energies <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mo>></mo>\n <annotation>$>$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> 50 MeV. However, for 5 and 10 MeV electrons, decreases of up to <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <mn>10.2</mn>\n <mo>±</mo>\n <mn>1.1</mn>\n <mo>)</mo>\n <mo>%</mo>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$(10.2 \\pm 1.1)\\%$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> in <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msup>\n <mi>f</mi>\n <mrow>\n <mo>−</mo>\n <mn>1</mn>\n </mrow>\n </msup>\n <mrow>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <mi>Q</mi>\n <mo>)</mo>\n </mrow>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$f^{-1}(Q)$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> were seen due to stacked films and increased beam attenuation in films compared to water.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The up to <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <mn>2.5</mn>\n <mo>±</mo>\n <mn>0.2</mn>\n <mo>)</mo>\n <mo>%</mo>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$(2.5 \\pm 0.2)\\%$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> and <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <mn>4.5</mn>\n <mo>±</mo>\n <mn>0.7</mn>\n <mo>)</mo>\n <mo>%</mo>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$(4.5 \\pm 0.7)\\%$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> variations in <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msup>\n <mi>f</mi>\n <mrow>\n <mo>−</mo>\n <mn>1</mn>\n </mrow>\n </msup>\n <mrow>\n <mo>(</mo>\n <mi>Q</mi>\n <mo>)</mo>\n </mrow>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$f^{-1}(Q)$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> for electrons and photons, respectively, across the energies considered in this study indicate the importance of calibrating films with the energy intended for measurement. Additionally, this work emphasizes potential issues with stacking films to measure depth dose curves, particularly for electron beams with energies <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mo>≤</mo>\n <annotation>$\\le$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>10 MeV.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"25 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.14529","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Monte Carlo calculated absorbed-dose energy dependence of EBT3 and EBT4 films for 5–200 MeV electrons and 100 keV–15 MeV photons\",\"authors\":\"Nathan Clements, Magdalena Bazalova-Carter\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.14529\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>To use Monte Carlo simulations to study the absorbed-dose energy dependence of GAFChromic EBT3 and EBT4 films for 5–200 MeV electron beams and 100 keV–15 MeV photon beams considering two film compositions: a previous EBT3 composition (Bekerat et al.) and the final composition of EBT3/current composition of EBT4 (Palmer et al.).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A water phantom was simulated with films at 5–50 mm depth in 5 mm intervals. The water phantom was irradiated with flat, monoenergetic 5–200 MeV electron beams and 100 and 150 keV kilovoltage and 1–15 MeV megavoltage photon beams and the dose to the active layer of the films was scored. Simulations were rerun with the films defined as water to compare the absorbed-dose response of film to water, <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <msup>\\n <mi>f</mi>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>−</mo>\\n <mn>1</mn>\\n </mrow>\\n </msup>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>(</mo>\\n <mi>Q</mi>\\n <mo>)</mo>\\n </mrow>\\n <mo>=</mo>\\n <mfrac>\\n <msub>\\n <mi>D</mi>\\n <mrow>\\n <mi>f</mi>\\n <mi>i</mi>\\n <mi>l</mi>\\n <mi>m</mi>\\n </mrow>\\n </msub>\\n <msub>\\n <mi>D</mi>\\n <mrow>\\n <mi>w</mi>\\n <mi>a</mi>\\n <mi>t</mi>\\n <mi>e</mi>\\n <mi>r</mi>\\n </mrow>\\n </msub>\\n </mfrac>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$f^{-1}(Q)=\\\\frac{D_{film}}{D_{water}}$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math>.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>For electrons, the Bekerat et al. composition had variations in <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <msup>\\n <mi>f</mi>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>−</mo>\\n <mn>1</mn>\\n </mrow>\\n </msup>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>(</mo>\\n <mi>Q</mi>\\n <mo>)</mo>\\n </mrow>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$f^{-1}(Q)$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> of up to <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>(</mo>\\n <mn>1.9</mn>\\n <mspace></mspace>\\n <mo>±</mo>\\n <mspace></mspace>\\n <mn>0.1</mn>\\n <mo>)</mo>\\n <mo>%</mo>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$(1.9\\\\,\\\\pm \\\\,0.1)\\\\%$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> from 5 to 200 MeV. Similarly, the Palmer et al. composition had differences in <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <msup>\\n <mi>f</mi>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>−</mo>\\n <mn>1</mn>\\n </mrow>\\n </msup>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>(</mo>\\n <mi>Q</mi>\\n <mo>)</mo>\\n </mrow>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$f^{-1}(Q)$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> up to <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>(</mo>\\n <mn>2.5</mn>\\n <mo>±</mo>\\n <mn>0.2</mn>\\n <mo>)</mo>\\n <mo>%</mo>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$(2.5 \\\\pm 0.2)\\\\%$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> from 5 to 200 MeV. For photons, <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <msup>\\n <mi>f</mi>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>−</mo>\\n <mn>1</mn>\\n </mrow>\\n </msup>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>(</mo>\\n <mi>Q</mi>\\n <mo>)</mo>\\n </mrow>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$f^{-1}(Q)$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> varied up to <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>(</mo>\\n <mn>2.4</mn>\\n <mo>±</mo>\\n <mn>0.3</mn>\\n <mo>)</mo>\\n <mo>%</mo>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$(2.4 \\\\pm 0.3)\\\\%$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> and <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>(</mo>\\n <mn>4.5</mn>\\n <mo>±</mo>\\n <mn>0.7</mn>\\n <mo>)</mo>\\n <mo>%</mo>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$(4.5 \\\\pm 0.7)\\\\%$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> from 100 keV to 15 MeV for the Bekerat et al. and Palmer et al. compositions, respectively. The depth of films did not appear to significantly affect <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <msup>\\n <mi>f</mi>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>−</mo>\\n <mn>1</mn>\\n </mrow>\\n </msup>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>(</mo>\\n <mi>Q</mi>\\n <mo>)</mo>\\n </mrow>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$f^{-1}(Q)$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> for photons at any energy and for electrons at energies <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mo>></mo>\\n <annotation>$>$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> 50 MeV. However, for 5 and 10 MeV electrons, decreases of up to <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>(</mo>\\n <mn>10.2</mn>\\n <mo>±</mo>\\n <mn>1.1</mn>\\n <mo>)</mo>\\n <mo>%</mo>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$(10.2 \\\\pm 1.1)\\\\%$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> in <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <msup>\\n <mi>f</mi>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>−</mo>\\n <mn>1</mn>\\n </mrow>\\n </msup>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>(</mo>\\n <mi>Q</mi>\\n <mo>)</mo>\\n </mrow>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$f^{-1}(Q)$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> were seen due to stacked films and increased beam attenuation in films compared to water.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The up to <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>(</mo>\\n <mn>2.5</mn>\\n <mo>±</mo>\\n <mn>0.2</mn>\\n <mo>)</mo>\\n <mo>%</mo>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$(2.5 \\\\pm 0.2)\\\\%$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> and <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>(</mo>\\n <mn>4.5</mn>\\n <mo>±</mo>\\n <mn>0.7</mn>\\n <mo>)</mo>\\n <mo>%</mo>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$(4.5 \\\\pm 0.7)\\\\%$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> variations in <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mrow>\\n <msup>\\n <mi>f</mi>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>−</mo>\\n <mn>1</mn>\\n </mrow>\\n </msup>\\n <mrow>\\n <mo>(</mo>\\n <mi>Q</mi>\\n <mo>)</mo>\\n </mrow>\\n </mrow>\\n <annotation>$f^{-1}(Q)$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> for electrons and photons, respectively, across the energies considered in this study indicate the importance of calibrating films with the energy intended for measurement. Additionally, this work emphasizes potential issues with stacking films to measure depth dose curves, particularly for electron beams with energies <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mo>≤</mo>\\n <annotation>$\\\\le$</annotation>\\n </semantics></math>10 MeV.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"25 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.14529\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.14529\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.14529","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Monte Carlo calculated absorbed-dose energy dependence of EBT3 and EBT4 films for 5–200 MeV electrons and 100 keV–15 MeV photons
Purpose
To use Monte Carlo simulations to study the absorbed-dose energy dependence of GAFChromic EBT3 and EBT4 films for 5–200 MeV electron beams and 100 keV–15 MeV photon beams considering two film compositions: a previous EBT3 composition (Bekerat et al.) and the final composition of EBT3/current composition of EBT4 (Palmer et al.).
Methods
A water phantom was simulated with films at 5–50 mm depth in 5 mm intervals. The water phantom was irradiated with flat, monoenergetic 5–200 MeV electron beams and 100 and 150 keV kilovoltage and 1–15 MeV megavoltage photon beams and the dose to the active layer of the films was scored. Simulations were rerun with the films defined as water to compare the absorbed-dose response of film to water, .
Results
For electrons, the Bekerat et al. composition had variations in of up to from 5 to 200 MeV. Similarly, the Palmer et al. composition had differences in up to from 5 to 200 MeV. For photons, varied up to and from 100 keV to 15 MeV for the Bekerat et al. and Palmer et al. compositions, respectively. The depth of films did not appear to significantly affect for photons at any energy and for electrons at energies 50 MeV. However, for 5 and 10 MeV electrons, decreases of up to in were seen due to stacked films and increased beam attenuation in films compared to water.
Conclusions
The up to and variations in for electrons and photons, respectively, across the energies considered in this study indicate the importance of calibrating films with the energy intended for measurement. Additionally, this work emphasizes potential issues with stacking films to measure depth dose curves, particularly for electron beams with energies 10 MeV.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
