1990
DOI: 10.1118/1.596471
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Small‐field electron dosimetry for the Philips SL25 linear accelerator

Abstract: Electron-beam characteristics of a Philips SL25 linear accelerator have been studied. Central-axis percentage depth doses, cross-beam profiles and beam output factors of 6-, 10-, and 20-MeV beams, selected from the available energy range of 4 to 22 MeV, are reported in this paper. The main thrust of this work is to determine the systematic variation of beam characteristics, especially the output factor, with standard cone sizes and cerrobend beam-shaping cutouts down to a field size of 2 X 2 cm Output factors … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
17
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Output factors for clinical electron beams are known to depend in a fairly unpredictable way on the electron energy and the geometry of the jaws, applicator, and the final fielddefining cutout. 6,7 This therefore makes analytical calcula-tion of output factors difficult, 8,9 especially for irregular and small fields. This was recently discussed by Kapur et al 10 Furthermore, measurement of output factors for the smallest fields used in clinical practice is beset with practical difficulties.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Output factors for clinical electron beams are known to depend in a fairly unpredictable way on the electron energy and the geometry of the jaws, applicator, and the final fielddefining cutout. 6,7 This therefore makes analytical calcula-tion of output factors difficult, 8,9 especially for irregular and small fields. This was recently discussed by Kapur et al 10 Furthermore, measurement of output factors for the smallest fields used in clinical practice is beset with practical difficulties.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…12 By comparing measured and calculated dose distributions in a water phantom, the MC simulation parameters were adjusted to give a reasonable match between measurements and calculation. For the [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] MeV energy range and a selection of square, rectangular, and circular fields, output factors were calculated and compared to measurements. A similar work, limited to square fields and three electron energies ͑6, 12, and 20 MeV͒ was recently presented by Kapur et al 10 It would be particularly useful if an MC model developed for a specific linac could also be used to model other similar linacs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10 In addition, outputs of rectangular fields have been predicted from square-field data, using the squareroot method and the one-dimensional method. 3,6,7,9,11,12 The use of polynomial equations to fit square and rectangular field outputs have also been described. 6,9,13 The equivalent-square and square-root methods do not accurately predict output factors for irregularly shaped fields.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Results are not fully comparable due to the dissimilar geometries and materials of applicators, however it is worth to mention that a large component of collimator-scattered electrons in the useful beam has been reported for those collimators as well as results of Monte Carlo simulations. On the contrary, the phenomenon of OFs larger than unity generally does not take place for similar electron energies and analogous small-size fields obtained by blocking the open fields using lead or Cerrobend cut-outs placed at the end of standard applicators (blocked fields), minimizing the wall-scattered electron component (Rashid et al 1990, Björk et al 2004, Amin et al 2011. In such cases OFs monotonically decrease below unity for field size below 10 × 10 cm 2 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 75%