The PHENIX detector is designed to perform a broad study of A-A, p-A, and p-p collisions to investigate nuclear matter under extreme conditions. A wide variety of probes, sensitive to all timescales, are used to study systematic variations with species and energy as well as to measure the spin structure of the nucleon. Designing for the needs of the heavy-ion and polarized-proton programs has produced a detector with unparalleled capabilities. PHENIX measures electron and muon pairs, photons, and hadrons with excellent energy and momentum resolution. The detector consists of a large number of subsystems that are discussed in other papers in this volume. The overall design parameters of the detector are presented. The PHENIX detector is designed to perform a broad study of A-A, p-A, and p-p collisions to investigate nuclear matter under extreme conditions. A wide variety of probes, sensitive to all timescales, are used to study systematic variations with species and energy as well as to measure the spin structure of the nucleon. Designing for the needs of the heavy-ion and polarized-proton programs has produced a detector with unparalleled capabilities. PHENIX measures electron and muon pairs, photons, and hadrons with excellent energy and momentum resolution. The detector consists of a large number of subsystems that are discussed in other papers in this volume. The overall design parameters of the detector are presented. Disciplines Engineering Physics | Physics Comments This is a manuscript of an article from Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research

An accurate dose calculation in phantom and patient geometries requires an accurate description of the radiation source. Errors in the radiation source description are propagated through the dose calculation. With the emergence of linear accelerators whose dosimetric characteristics are similar to within measurement uncertainty, the same radiation source description can be used as the input to dose calculation for treatment planning at many institutions with the same linear accelerator model. Our goal in the current research was to determine the initial electron fluence above the linear accelerator target for such an accelerator to allow a dose calculation in water to within 1% or 1 mm of the measured data supplied by the manufacturer. The method used for both the radiation source description and the patient transport was Monte Carlo. The linac geometry was input into the Monte Carlo code using the accelerator's manufacturer's specifications. Assumptions about the initial electron source above the target were made based on previous studies. The free parameters derived for the calculations were the mean energy and radial Gaussian width of the initial electron fluence and the target density. A combination of the free parameters yielded an initial electron fluence that, when transported through the linear accelerator and into the phantom, allowed a dose-calculation agreement to the experimental ion chamber data to within the specified criteria at both 6 and 18 MV nominal beam energies, except near the surface, particularly for the 18 MV beam. To save time during Monte Carlo treatment planning, the initial electron fluence was transported through part of the treatment head to a plane between the monitor chambers and the jaws and saved as phase-space files. These files are used for clinical Monte Carlo-based treatment planning and are freely available from the authors.

No abstract

Monte Carlo based dose calculation algorithms require input data or distributions describing the phase space of the photons and secondary electrons prior to the patient-dependent part of the beam-line geometry. The accuracy of the treatment plan itself is dependent upon the accuracy of this distribution. The purpose of this work is to compare phase space distributions (PSDs) generated with the MCNP4b and EGS4 Monte Carlo codes for the 6 and 18 MV photon modes of the Varian 2100C and determine if differences relevant to Monte Carlo based patient dose calculations exist. Calculations are performed with the same energy transport cut-off values. At 6 MV, target bremsstrahlung production for MCNP4b is approximately 10% less than for EGS4, while at 18 MV the difference is about 5%. These differences are due to the different bremsstrahlung cross sections used in the codes. Although the absolute bremsstrahlung production differs between MCNP4b and EGS4, normalized PSDs agree at the end of the patient-independent geometry (prior to the jaws), resulting in similar dose distributions in a homogeneous phantom. EGS4 and MCNP4b are equally suitable for the generation of PSDs for Monte Carlo based dose computations.

No abstract