Generalized eMC implementation for Monte Carlo dose calculation of electron beams from different machine types

The electron Monte Carlo (eMC) dose calculation algorithm available in the Eclipse treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems) is based on the macro MC method and uses a beam model applicable to Varian linear accelerators. This leads to limitations in accuracy if eMC is applied to non-Varian machines. In this work eMC is generalized to also allow accurate dose calculations for electron beams from Elekta and Siemens accelerators. First, changes made in the previous study to use eMC for low electron beam energies of Varian accelerators are applied. Then, a generalized beam model is developed using a main electron source and a main photon source representing electrons and photons from the scattering foil, respectively, an edge source of electrons, a transmission source of photons and a line source of electrons and photons representing the particles from the scrapers or inserts and head scatter radiation. Regarding the macro MC dose calculation algorithm, the transport code of the secondary particles is improved. The macro MC dose calculations are validated with corresponding dose calculations using EGSnrc in homogeneous and inhomogeneous phantoms. The validation of the generalized eMC is carried out by comparing calculated and measured dose distributions in water for Varian, Elekta and Siemens machines for a variety of beam energies, applicator sizes and SSDs. The comparisons are performed in units of cGy per MU. Overall, a general agreement between calculated and measured dose distributions for all machine types and all combinations of parameters investigated is found to be within 2% or 2 mm. The results of the dose comparisons suggest that the generalized eMC is now suitable to calculate dose distributions for Varian, Elekta and Siemens linear accelerators with sufficient accuracy in the range of the investigated combinations of beam energies, applicator sizes and SSDs.

Macro Monte Carlo for dose calculation of proton beams

Although the Monte Carlo (MC) method allows accurate dose calculation for proton radiotherapy, its usage is limited due to long computing time. In order to gain efficiency, a new macro MC (MMC) technique for proton dose calculations has been developed. The basic principle of the MMC transport is a local to global MC approach. The local simulations using GEANT4 consist of mono-energetic proton pencil beams impinging perpendicularly on slabs of different thicknesses and different materials (water, air, lung, adipose, muscle, spongiosa, cortical bone). During the local simulation multiple scattering, ionization as well as elastic and inelastic interactions have been taken into account and the physical characteristics such as lateral displacement, direction distributions and energy loss have been scored for primary and secondary particles. The scored data from appropriate slabs is then used for the stepwise transport of the protons in the MMC simulation while calculating the energy loss along the path between entrance and exit position. Additionally, based on local simulations the radiation transport of neutrons and the generated ions are included into the MMC simulations for the dose calculations. In order to validate the MMC transport, calculated dose distributions using the MMC transport and GEANT4 have been compared for different mono-energetic proton pencil beams impinging on different phantoms including homogeneous and inhomogeneous situations as well as on a patient CT scan. The agreement of calculated integral depth dose curves is better than 1% or 1 mm for all pencil beams and phantoms considered. For the dose profiles the agreement is within 1% or 1 mm in all phantoms for all energies and depths. The comparison of the dose distribution calculated using either GEANT4 or MMC in the patient also shows an agreement of within 1% or 1 mm. The efficiency of MMC is up to 200 times higher than for GEANT4. The very good level of agreement in the dose comparisons demonstrate that the newly developed MMC transport results in very accurate and efficient dose calculations for proton beams.

A modified calculation of ankle-brachial pressure index is far more sensitive in the detection of peripheral arterial disease

BACKGROUND: Ankle-brachial pressure index (ABI) is a simple, inexpensive, and useful tool in the detection of peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAD). The current guidelines published by the American Heart Association define ABI as the quotient of the higher of the systolic blood pressures (SBPs) of the two ankle arteries of that limb (either the anterior tibial artery or the posterior tibial artery) and the higher of the two brachial SBPs of the upper limbs. We hypothesized that considering the lower of the two ankle arterial SBPs of a side as the numerator and the higher of the brachial SBPs as the denominator would increase its diagnostic yield. METHODS: The former method of eliciting ABI was termed as high ankle pressure (HAP) and the latter low ankle pressure (LAP). ABI was assessed in 216 subjects and calculated according to the HAP and the LAP method. ABI findings were confirmed by arterial duplex ultrasonography. A significant arterial stenosis was assumed if ABI was <0.9. RESULTS: LAP had a sensitivity of 0.89 and a specificity of 0.93. The HAP method had a sensitivity of 0.68 and a specificity of 0.99. McNemar's test to compare the results of both methods demonstrated a two-tailed P < .0001, indicating a highly significant difference between both measurement methods. CONCLUSIONS: LAP is the superior method of calculating ABI to identify PAD. This result is of great interest for epidemiologic studies applying ABI measurements to detect PAD and assessing patients' cardiovascular risk.

Monte Carlo calculation of Varian 2300C/D Linac photon beam characteristics: a comparison between MCNP4C, GEANT3 and measurements

Different codes are used for Monte Carlo (MC) calculations in radiation therapy. In this research, MCNP4C and GEANT3 codes have been compared in calculations of dosimetric characteristics of Varian Clinac 2300C/D. The parameters of influence in the differences seen in dosimetric features were discussed. This study emphasizes that both MCNP4C and GEANT3 MC can be used in radiation therapy computations and their differences in photon spectra calculations have a negligible effect on percentage depth dose computations in radiation therapy.

Estimation of the flammability zone boundaries with thermodynamic and empirical equations

The flammability zone boundaries are very important properties to prevent explosions in the process industries. Within the boundaries, a flame or explosion can occur so it is important to understand these boundaries to prevent fires and explosions. Very little work has been reported in the literature to model the flammability zone boundaries. Two boundaries are defined and studied: the upper flammability zone boundary and the lower flammability zone boundary. Three methods are presented to predict the upper and lower flammability zone boundaries: The linear model The extended linear model, and An empirical model The linear model is a thermodynamic model that uses the upper flammability limit (UFL) and lower flammability limit (LFL) to calculate two adiabatic flame temperatures. When the proper assumptions are applied, the linear model can be reduced to the well-known equation yLOC = zyLFL for estimation of the limiting oxygen concentration. The extended linear model attempts to account for the changes in the reactions along the UFL boundary. Finally, the empirical method fits the boundaries with linear equations between the UFL or LFL and the intercept with the oxygen axis. xx Comparison of the models to experimental data of the flammability zone shows that the best model for estimating the flammability zone boundaries is the empirical method. It is shown that is fits the limiting oxygen concentration (LOC), upper oxygen limit (UOL), and the lower oxygen limit (LOL) quite well. The regression coefficient values for the fits to the LOC, UOL, and LOL are 0.672, 0.968, and 0.959, respectively. This is better than the fit of the "zyLFL" method for the LOC in which the regression coefficient’s value is 0.416.