title: Monte Carlo simulations of electron beams collimated with a dual electron multileaf collimator: a feasibility study.
abstract: Electron applicators and cut-outs have been used for some time in the delivery of electron beam therapy. A dual electron multileaf collimator (eMLC) consisting of upper and lower eMLCs was designed, and dose distributions of electron beams delivered by it were evaluated by Monte Carlo simulations by use of the EGSnrc Monte Carlo code. The percentage depth dose (PDD), dose profiles, dose gradient falloff (G), depth of maximum dose (R(100)), surface dose, bremsstrahlung background, beam flatness, and penumbra of the dual eMLC were evaluated and compared with those simulated and measured with the standard applicators inserted into the treatment head of the medical linear accelerator (linac). The results showed good agreement in most cases. Specifically, the flatness and penumbra obtained with the dual eMLC were better than those obtained with standard applicators. It is therefore possible to use the proposed dual eMLC in the delivery of electron beam therapy without the need for applicators and cut-outs. This will minimize the inconvenience of placing cut-outs on the patients; also, changes in the required field can be effected without the therapist going into the accelerator room when the dual eMLC is finally automated. The absence of a helium bag between the upper and lower eMLCs did not offer significant changes in the dosimetry parameters compared to the eMLC fitted with the helium bag.
authors.affiliation: Department of Medical Physics, University of Limpopo, Medunsa Campus, Medunsa, South Africa. inyangso@yahoo.com
authors.forename: S O
authors.initials: SO
authors.lastname: Inyang
authors.forename: A C
authors.initials: AC
authors.lastname: Chamberlain
mesh_terms: D004583:Electrons / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D009010:Monte Carlo Method; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D011874:Radiometry; D011878:Radiotherapy / Q000295:instrumentation*
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2005 Mar 7;50(5):741-53
references.pmid: 15798251
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2005 Mar 21;50(6):1191-203
references.pmid: 15798316
references.citation: Med Phys. 2001 Jun;28(6):938-49
references.pmid: 11439490
references.citation: Med Phys. 2003 Jun;30(6):1076-85
references.pmid: 12852531
references.citation: Med Phys. 1999 May;26(5):743-50
references.pmid: 10360536
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2005 Mar 7;50(5):769-78
references.pmid: 15798253
references.citation: Med Phys. 2000 Dec;27(12):2708-18
references.pmid: 11190954
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2006 Apr 21;51(8):2113-29
references.pmid: 16585849
references.citation: Med Phys. 1999 Oct;26(10):2133-43
references.pmid: 10535630
references.citation: Med Phys. 1996 Mar;23(3):383-8
references.pmid: 8815381
references.citation: Med Phys. 2004 Mar;31(3):443-62
references.pmid: 15070241
references.citation: Med Phys. 1995 May;22(5):503-24
references.pmid: 7643786
references.citation: Med Phys. 2003 Apr;30(4):574-82
references.pmid: 12722809
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Aug 1;59(5):1548-59
references.pmid: 15275743
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 1996 Nov;41(2):189-96
references.pmid: 9004363
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2002 Apr 7;47(7):1013-24
references.pmid: 11996052
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 1998 Dec;43(12):3479-94
references.pmid: 9869026
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2002 Nov 21;47(22):4019-41
references.pmid: 12476980
references.citation: Med Phys. 2002 Apr;29(4):631-7
references.pmid: 11991135
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2002 Dec 21;47(24):4389-96
references.pmid: 12539979
references.citation: Med Phys. 1999 Oct;26(10):2161-7
references.pmid: 10535633
references.citation: Med Phys. 2003 Oct;30(10):2706-14
references.pmid: 14596309