Monte Carlo-based determination of radiation leakage dose around a dedicated IOERT accelerator
- 1 Downloads
Evaluating the stray radiation around medical electron accelerators is a mandatory issue. Surveying the radiation leakage dose is important for patients, technicians, and health physicists, due to radiation protection aspects. Consequently, radiation leakage dose around the head of a mobile-dedicated intraoperative radiotherapy accelerator (LIAC), at different electron energies and field sizes have been evaluated in this study. More specifically, the MCNPX Monte Carlo code was used to model the LIAC head, connected applicator, and employed water phantom. Radiation leakage dose around the LIAC head was calculated for different energy and field sizes through tuning the Monte Carlo results to the practically measured doses. These measurements were performed using an Advance Markus ionization chamber inside an automated MP3-XS water phantom. The good agreement between the calculated dose distributions within the water tank and corresponding dose measurements show that the simulation model of the LIAC head is appropriate for radiation leakage assessment. The obtained radiation leakage dose distribution highly depends on the electron energy and applicator diameter. With increasing the electron energy, the leakage dose decreased, while increasing the field size increased the leakage dose. It is concluded that the rate of stray radiation and leakage dose around the LIAC head in both vertical and horizontal planes were acceptable according to the recommended radiation protection criteria. To meet the recommended dose limit (100 µSv/week for controlled areas), the maximum number of patients should be kept to four patients per week inside a standard and unshielded operating room.
KeywordsIntraoperative electron radiotherapy Radiation leakage Monte Carlo simulation Dosimetry
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study.
- Biggs P, Willett CG, Rutten H, Ciocca M, Gunderson LL, Calvo FA (2011) Intraoperative electron beam irradiation: physics and techniques. In: Gunderson LL, Willett CG, Calvo FA, Harrison LB (eds) Intraoperative irradiation: techniques and results. Humana Press, New York, pp 53–56Google Scholar
- Chadwick MB, Oblozinsky P, Blokhin A, Fukahori T, Han U, Lee YO, Martins MN, Varlamov VV, Yu B, Zhang J (2000) Handbook on photonuclear data for applications: cross sections and spectra, IAEA TECH-DOC 1178. IAEA, Vienna, pp 93–264Google Scholar
- Di Venanzio C, Marinelli M, Tonnetti A, Verona-Rinati G, Falco MD, Pimpinella M, Ciccotelli A, De Stefano S, Felici G, Marangoni F (2015) Characterization of a microDiamond detector in high-dose-per-pulse electron beams for intra operative radiation therapy. Phys Med 31:897–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- IAEA (2000) Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: an international code of practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water. TRS 398, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- IAEA (2006) Radiation protection in the design of radiotherapy facilities. SRS 47, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- ICRP (2007) The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 37:2–4Google Scholar
- LIAC technical report (2014) The mobile electron accelerator for intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT). http://www.sordina.com/download/Catalogo_IORT.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2018
- NCRP (2005) Structural shielding design and evaluation for megavoltage X- and gamma-ray radiotherapy facilities: recommendations of the national council on radiation protection and measurements. NCRP 151, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
- Strigari L, Soriani A, Landoni V, Teodoli S, Bruzzaniti V, Benassi M (2004) Radiation exposure of personnel during intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT): radiation protection aspects. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 23:489–494Google Scholar