a model to determine the initial phase space of a clinical electron beam from measured beam data
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
1/18
INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
Phys. Med. Biol. 46 (2001) 269286 www.iop.org/Journals/pb PII: S0031-9155(01)13960-6
A model to determine the initial phase space of aclinical electron beam from measured beam data
J J Janssen1, E W Korevaar1, L J van Battum1, P R M Storchi1,3 and
H Huizenga2
1 Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center, University Hospital Rotterdam, PO Box 5201, 3008AE Rotterdam, The Netherlands2 Joint Center for Radiation Oncology ArnhemNijmegen, University Medical Center Nijmegen,PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
E-mail: [email protected]
Received 17 May 2000
Abstract
Advanced electron beamdose calculationmodels for radiation oncology require
as input an initial phase space (IPS) that describes a clinical electron beam. The
IPS is a distribution in position, energy and direction of electrons and photons
in a plane in front of the patient. A method is presented to derive the IPS
of a clinical electron beam from a limited set of measured beam data. The
electron beam is modelled by a sum of four beam components: a main diverging
beam, applicator edge scatter, applicator transmission and a second diverging
beam. The two diverging beam components are described by weighted sums
of monoenergetic diverging electron and photon beams. The weight factors
of these monoenergetic beams are determined by the method of simulatedannealing such that a best fit is obtained with depthdose curves measured
for several field sizes at two sourcesurface distances. The resulting IPSs are
applied by the phase-space evolution electron beam dose calculation model to
calculate absolute 3D dose distributions. The accuracy of the calculated results
is in general within 1.5% or 1.5 mm; worst cases show differences of up to
3% or 3 mm. The method presented here to describe clinical electron beams
yields accurate results, requires only a limited set of measurements and might
be considered as an alternative to the use of Monte Carlo methods to generate
full initial phase spaces.
1. Introduction
Full 3D electron beam dose calculation models like the phase-space evolution model (Janssen
etal 1994, 1997) and several Monte Carlo and macro Monte Carlo models (Nelson etal 1985,
Neuenschwander et al 1995, Kawrakow etal 1996) require as input an initial phase space (IPS)
3 Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
0031-9155/01/020269+18$30.00 2001 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 269
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
2/18
270 J J Janssen et al
that describes a clinical electron beam. This IPS describes the applied clinical electron beam
in terms of a distribution in position, energy and direction of electrons and photons in a plane
perpendicular to the beam axis in front of the patient. This plane is called the IPS plane in this
paper.
A method of determining the IPS of a clinical electron beam is to simulate the electrontransport through the head of a clinical accelerator and register the electrons that enter the IPS
plane. The EGS4/BEAM Monte Carlo code system (Rogers et al 1995) is an implementation
of this method. The IPS produced by the EGS4/BEAM code can be characterized with a
multiple-source model (Ma et al 1997) that has the advantage that it requires substantially
less IPS storage capacity. Although good results have been presented with this method it
may be difficult to apply it in clinical practice. The method requires a detailed description
of the specific accelerator for the specific beams as well as Monte Carlo expertise. As the
specifications of the accelerator components are often not known adequately and the machines
are also tuned individually at the installation sites, it can be a real challenge to match calculated
dose distributions with measured beam data (Ma and Jiang 1999a). It is probably impossible
to apply this method routinely at every cancer clinic, although a reference machine can be
simulated accurately to derive beam model parameters that can then be adjusted on the basisof measured data for machines of the same type (Ma and Jiang 1999a).
As an alternative to the described Monte Carlo method the present work pursues a simple
method to derive the IPSs of clinical electron beams from a limited set of measured beam
data. Methods based on only a limited set of measured beam data have a great advantage in
clinical practice since they can be easily implemented in treatment planning systems and do
not require any specialist knowledge for configuring a specific beam (Storchi et al 1999). In
the present case, the parameters of a simple four-source model for the electron beam IPS are
determined based on depthdose curves measured for several field sizes and sourcesurface
distances. Although the method described is very simple and open to improvements, the
resulting calculated dose distributions have an accuracy that is clinically acceptable for use
with high-energy electron beams in three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy.
2. An initial phase space formed by four beam components
The IPS describes the electron and photon fluence F ( x , y , , , E , q ) in the IPS plane per
monitor unit (MU) differential in position, energy and direction in units of MeV1 rad2 cm2.
Here (x,y) is the position in Cartesian coordinates, (,) is the direction in polar coordinates,
E is the energy and q is the charge of the particle (0 = photons, 1 = electrons).
In the present paper the location of the IPS plane is chosen to coincide with the lower end
of the electron applicator or cutout. The choice of the location of the IPS plane at the lower
end of the electron applicator results in an IPS that is not fixed for a specific combination of
electron beam energy and applicator. Here the IPS takes account of the field shape of the
applied cutout. This is different from the EGS4/BEAM code system where the location of
the IPS plane is chosen to be just above the lower end of the applicator or cutout. The part
of the applicator or cutout just below this IPS plane, the part that determines the field shape,is considered to be a part of the patient. The choice of IPS plane just above the lower end of
the applicator results in one fixed IPS for a specific combination of electron beam energy and
applicator regardless of the field shape of the applied cutout.
It is assumed that the IPS can be adequately described by the sum of four simplified beam
components, each of which accounts for a part of theelectron or photonfluence in theIPS plane.
It is assumed that by adequately deriving parameter values and weights for these components,
a description of the IPS emerges that is adequate as input for electron beam dose calculations.
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
3/18
Initial phase space of clinical electron beams 271
main
diverging beam
applicator
scatter
applicator
transmission
second
diverging beam
IPS-plane
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 1. A schematic view of the directional distribution of the four beam components that are
used to model theIPS of a clinical electron beam. Thesecond divergingbeam is a rough approach to
model the particles (scattered from photon jaws, scrapers and applicator walls) that are not covered
by the other three beam components.
First we will describe these components qualitatively, then we will present the mathematical
description and finally we will explain how the parameters are derived from measured beam
data of a specific accelerator. The four beam components (figure 1) are:
(a) The first component, the main diverging beam, models the electrons and bremsstrahlung
photons that do not interact with any other part of the accelerator head besides scattering
foils, monitor chamber and air before passing through the open part of the applicator
diaphragm.
(b) The second component, the applicator scatter, models the electrons that scatter from the
edge of the lower applicator as the result of the impact of electrons on the lower applicator.
(c) Thethirdcomponent, theapplicator transmission, models thephoton transmission throughthe lower applicator as the result of the impact of electrons and photons on the lower
applicator.
(d) The fourth component, the second diverging beam, models the electrons and photons that
have interacted with various other parts of the accelerator head before passing through the
applicator diaphragm, and which are not modelled by the first three components.
The first, second and third components should closely model particles that are present in the
electron beam. The fourth component, however, is a rough approach to model the particles
that are not covered by the first three components. To model these remaining particles
with a second diverging beam is a rough approach, since these particles have scattered from
photon jaws, scrapers and applicator walls, and most certainly do not originate from one point
source.
The first component is assumed to form the prominent part of a clinical electron beam(figure 1(a)). It is assumed that the directional distribution of the electrons and photons of
the main diverging beam is adequately described by the directional distribution of a diverging
beam with an angular variance (Huizenga and Storchi 1987). It is also assumed that this
main diverging beam remains identical with respect to its direction and energy distribution for
different electron beam applicators, for a specific clinical accelerator energy. Electron beam
applicators,possibly combined with a device tomodifybeam shape,such asa cerrobendcutout,
will only affect the beam shape and the weight of the main diverging beam. The weight or
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
4/18
272 J J Janssen et al
fluence per monitor unit of the main diverging beam depends on the amount of backscattering
towards the monitor chamber from the photon jaws, whose settings are associated with the
applied applicator. Furthermore it is assumed that the most of the possible non-flatness of an
electron beam is caused by the non-flatness of the main diverging beam. This non-flatness can
be incorporated into the main diverging beam by correcting the fluence over the surface of theIPS plane.
The second component reflects the fact that the edge of the lower applicator or cutout is an
important source of scattered electrons and possibly photons (figure 1(b)). It is assumed that
the applicator scatter is adequately described by integrating a point spread kernel of electrons
and photons along the diaphragm edge. One point spread kernel describes the direction and
energy distribution of scattered particles, and is applied to simulate the scattered particles at
every position along the edge. Differences between scattered particles at different positions
along the edge are neglected.
The third component reflects the fact that the lower applicator or cutout does not stop all
electrons and photons outside the open part of the applicator diaphragm (figure 1(c)). Photon
transmission in particular can account for a few per cent of the dose in the region outside the
main beam area. It isprobablysufficientto simulate thedirectional distributionof thesephotonswith a diverging beam originating from an isotropic point source. For convenience, however,
the directional distribution of the photons of the applicator transmission is described by the
directional distribution of a diverging beam with an angular variance. This is the same type
of directional distribution that is applied by the main diverging beam, but now this directional
distribution is applied for the area outside the open part of the diaphragm. This simplification
will hardly affect the resulting calculated dose distributions.
The fourth component, the second diverging beam, is a rough approach to describe the
remaining electrons and photons that pass through the open part of the diaphragm in the IPS
plane (figure 1(d)). These electrons and photons do not originate from a single point source
but come from sources like photon jaws, scrapers, applicator walls etc. However, we attempt
to model these electrons with a second diverging beam with a directional distribution that is
identical to the directional distribution of the main diverging beam. This second diverging
beam has an adjustable beam weight that is supposed to correct for the inherent inadequacy ofthe second diverging beam to simulate the intended electrons and photons. Further, the weight
of this second diverging beam depends on the applied applicator, on the applied cutout and on
the actual sourcesurface distance (SSD).
Cutouts are applied to shape the field of a clinical electron beam. They will mainly block
the direct electrons and photons that we simulate with our main diverging beam. Cutouts will
also block the electrons that scatter from various parts of the accelerator head. We simulate
these scattered electrons in a crude way with our second diverging beam. The blocking by a
cutout of the scattered electrons from the applicator walls will result in a decrease in fluence
at the surface of the phantom (figure 2(a)). A diverging beam like our second diverging beam
cannot simulate this decrease in fluence without decreasing its weight. Therefore, we allow
the weight of the second diverging beam to be adjustable. We assume that this weight depends
on the shielding length (in centimetres) of the electron beam applicator (figure 2(b)).The shielding length is the length of the lower part of an electron beam applicator that is
blocked from sight by an applied cutout if one looks upwards from the patient surface. The
idea is that each part of the applicator wall (including photon jaws and scrapers) is a potential
source of scattered particles, and that for an increasing shielding length the number of these
scattered particles that reach the patient surface decreases because they are blocked by the
cutout. The shielding length of the electron beam applicator depends on the equivalent square
field size of the applied cutout, the size or width of the applied applicator and the actual SSD.
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
5/18
Initial phase space of clinical electron beams 273
Shielding
length (cm)
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Blocking of the scattered electrons from the applicator walls by a cutout ( a) and
correspondingshieldinglength (b). Theshielding lengthof theapplicator dependson theequivalent
square field size of the cutout and the actual SSD.
A weight factor look-up table is determined for each applicator. This weight factor look-up
table will show a decreasing weight of the second diverging beam for an increasing shielding
length. The weight factors for arbitrary cutouts and SSDs are determined from this look-up
table based on the actual shielding length of the electron beam applicator.
The four beam components form the total IPS of the electron beam denoted by:
F ( x , y , , , E , q ) = Fmain(x , y , , , E , q ) + Fscatter(x , y , , , E , q )
+Ftransmission(x , y , , , E , q ) + Fsecond(x , y , , , E , q ). (1)
Each of the four beam components is described with a functional form. The functional forms
of the main diverging beam, applicator transmission and second diverging beam are almost
identical. They are described by the product of a weight factor, an energy distribution, a
directional distribution of a diverging beam and a field shape function. The functional form ofthe main diverging beam is extended with a fluence correction function that allows correction
for not-flat beam profiles. The applicator edge scatter is described by the product of a weight
factor, a point spread kernel and a field edge function. The functional forms that describe the
four beam components for a specific electron beam energy of an accelerator are:
Fmain(x , y , , , E , q ) = w(A)em(E,q)d(x,y; ,)oin(C; x,y)c(x,y)
Fscatter(x , y , , , E , q ) = w(A)k(, + edge(C; x,y),E,q)ledge(C; x , y )
Ftransmission(x , y , , , E , q ) = w(A)et(E,q)d(x,y; ,)oout(C; x , y )
Fsecond(x , y , , , E , q ) = w2(A; C, SSD)e2(A; E,q)d(x,y; ,)oin(C; x,y). (2)
Here A is the applied applicator, C is the applied cutout and SSD is the actual sourcesurface
distance. C equals A for applicators without a cutout. The functions are as follows:
w(A) and w2(A; C, SSD) are weight factors.
em(E,q), et(E,q) and e2(A; E , q ) are energy distributions of electrons and photons in
units of MeV1.
d(x,y; , ) is a position-dependent directional distribution function in units of rad2
that describes a diverging beam with a constant energy-dependent angular variance at the
level of the IPS plane. This function is defined over an infinite plane without restricting
itself to a specific area. Field area functions restrict this function to a specific area.
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
6/18
274 J J Janssen et al
Cutout C
(a)
oin(C;x,y)
(b)
oout(C;x,y)
(c) (d)
ledge(C;x,y)
edge(C;x,y)
Figure 3. A cerrobend cutout (a) and corresponding field shape functions, the inside (b)and outside (c) field area functions, the diaphragm edge (d) (outline) and the azimuth anglesperpendicular to the diaphragm edge (d) (arrows).
oin(C; x , y ) and oout(C; x , y ) are field area functions in units of cm2 that respectivelydescribe the area inside and outside the open part of the diaphragm at the level of the IPS
plane. oin is defined by: oin(C; x , y ) = 1 (cm2) for (x,y) inside the open part of the
diaphragm, 0 otherwise. oout is defined by: oout(C; x , y ) = 1 (cm2) for (x,y) outside
the open part of the diaphragm, 0 otherwise (see figures 3(b) and 3(c)).
c(x,y) is a fluence correction function in arbitrary units that allows correction for any
non-flatness in the profiles of clinical electron beams at the IPS plane level.
k( , , E , q ) is a point spreadkernel of electronsandphotons, differential in direction and
energy in units of MeV1 rad2. This kernel is not circularly symmetric in azimuth angle.
The majority of the electrons scatter from the field edge with an azimuth angle towards
the diaphragm opening. The field edge azimuth angle function edge(C; x , y ) points this
kernel in the right direction.
edge(C; x , y ) is a field edge azimuth angle function in radians that describes the azimuthangle perpendicular to the field edge in the direction of the diaphragm opening. edgeis defined for all x and y coordinates of the field edge at the level of the IPS plane (see
figure 3(d)).
ledge(C; x , y ) is a field edge function that describes the field edge at the level of the IPS
plane in units of cm2. ledge is defined by: ledge(C; x , y ) = (x xI(u)). (y yI(u))
where xI(u) and yI(u) are the field edge coordinates (see figure 3(d)).
This functional form implies that different IPSs for different applicators or cutouts for one
specific electron beam energy have a lot in common. The functions that are independent of
the applied applicator or cutout are:
The directional distribution of the main diverging beam, applicator transmission and
second diverging beam.
The energy distribution of the main diverging beam.
The fluence correction function of the main diverging beam.
The point spread kernel of the applicator scatter.
The energy distribution of the applicator transmission.
Since these functions are oblivious to the field shape they are combined with functions that
take the shape of the cutout diaphragm into account. The functions that depend solely on the
shape of the cutout diaphragm are (figure 3):
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
7/18
Initial phase space of clinical electron beams 275
The field area functions.
The field edge function.
The field edge azimuth angle.
Only a few functions depend on the applied applicator: The weight factors for all four beam components.
The energy distribution of the second diverging beam.
2.1. Required measured beam data
When applying this model in treatment planning, the functions that depend solely on the shape
of the cutout diaphragm are determined during planning for each specific beam. The other
functionsare determined duringcommissioning of theplanning systemfrom a prescribed setof
measurements. Most of the required measurements are absolute central axis depth dose curves
in water in units of dose per monitor unit (cGy MU1). In this paper the abbreviation ADD
is applied for absolute central axis depthdose curve. A few measurements are required for
uncollimated electron beams. The uncollimated electron beam is produced by an acceleratorwithout an electron applicator and with the photon jaws in their outermost positions. The
basic beam data set that is required for the commissioning of a specific energy of a specific
accelerator consists of:
The measured ADDs in water at SSDs of 100 cm and 110 cm for each applicator without
cutout.
The measured ADDs in water at SSDs of 100 cm and 110 cm for each applicator with
three different cutouts.
The ADD in water at a SSD of 100 cm for the uncollimated electron beam.
Ion chamber readings in air, at several distances from the assumed source of the
uncollimated electron beam.
A profile measurement in air at the level of the IPS plane for the uncollimated electron
beam.
2.2. The directional distribution d(x,y; , ) of the diverging beam
The directional distribution of the diverging beam is applied in three components, i.e. the main
diverging beam, the applicator transmission and the second diverging beam. This directional
distribution is based on the directional distribution of the electrons that do not interact with
any other part of the accelerator head besides scattering foils, monitor chamber and air before
passing through theopen part of theapplicator diaphragm. These electrons form theprominent
part of a clinical electron beam. A good approximation of the directional distribution of these
electrons of a clinical electron beam at the level of the IPS plane within the diaphragm is the
directional distribution of a diverging electron beam with an angular variance originating from
scattering in air denoted by (Huizenga and Storchi 1987)
d(x,y; x , y ) =1
2 x yexp
(x x/z0)2
22x
exp
(y y/z0)2
22y
[rad2]. (3)
This directional distribution function is defined by projected angles x and y . 2x
and 2ydenote the angular variance in x and y respectively (
2x
= 2y ). z0 is the distance from
the IPS plane to the focal point of the main diverging beam. The directional distribution
d(x,y; , ) that is defined in polar and azimuth angles and is also required.
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
8/18
276 J J Janssen et al
The distribution in the polar interval k (
k < < +k ) and azimuthal interval l
(l < < +l ) can be derived by integration ofd (x , y , x , y ) (equation (3)) denoted by
d(x,y; k
, l) =
+x (k,l)
x (k,l)
+y (k,l)
y (k,l)
d(x,y; x
, y
) dy
dx
. (4)
Application ofx = arctan(tan cos ) and y = arctan(tan sin ) allows the transformation
of this integration over projected angles x and y into an integration over polar and azimuthal
angles and denoted by:
d(x,y; k, l ) =
+kk
+ll
1
2 2x
1
1 + (tan cos )21
1 + (tan sin )2tan
cos2
exp
[arctan(tan cos ) x/z0]2
22x
exp [arctan(tan sin ) y/z0]222x
d d. (5)After the determination of the values for the parameters x and z0 the directional distribution
d(x,y; , ) is solved numerically.
The angular variances can be determined from measurements of profiles in air,
perpendicular to the beam axis (Hogstrom et al 1981, Huizenga and Storchi 1987). A value
of2x = 13T(E) [rad2] is adequate for almost all accelerators (van Battum and Huizenga
1999), where T(E) is the scattering power in air in units of rad2 cm1 for an electron beam
of energy E MeV. The focal point z0 can be taken as the source of the electron beam, but it is
preferable to define a virtual source (ICRU 1984) which is determined by applying the inverse
square law to ion chamber readings made in air, at several distances from the assumed source
of the uncollimated electron beam.
The photons of the main diverging beam are produced in the scattering foils asbremsstrahlung. Forconvenience, it is assumedthatthedirectional distributionof these photons
is identicalto thedirectionaldistribution of theelectrons of themain divergingbeam (Hogstrom
et al 1981). This implies that for the angular variance in the direction of the photons the same
values are used as for the angular variance of the electrons in the main diverging beam. In
reality, it is expectedthat theangularvarianceof thesephotons is negligible. This simplification
will hardly affect the resulting dose distributions calculated by any electron beam model since
x and y are relatively small (e.g. 0.026 rad at 15 MeV), and the energy deposition by the
photons created as bremsstrahlung in an accelerator head is relatively small compared with the
energy deposition by the electrons in that beam, even at 50 MeV.
2.3. The fluence correction function c(x,y) of the main diverging beam
The dose profiles of clinical electron beams should ideally be flat at the surface. This is not
usually the case. If the non-flatness of an electron beam does not vary in time it may be
possible to incorporate this non-flatness within the IPS of the clinical electron beam. The
fluence correction function c(x,y) can be determined by in air profile measurements of the
uncollimated beam at the level of the IPS plane. The fluence correction function is normalized
such that the fluence in the beam centre in the IPS plane is 1 (cm2), thus c(0, 0) = 1. So far,
only circularly symmetric fluence correction functions c(r) are applied where r =
x2 + y2.
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
9/18
Initial phase space of clinical electron beams 277
2.4. The energy distribution em(E,q) of the main diverging beam
The main diverging beam models the electronsand bremsstrahlung photons that do not interact
with any other part of the accelerator head besides scattering foils, monitor chamber and air
before passing through open part of the applicator diaphragm in the IPS plane. Directlymeasuring dose distributions of this sole clean main diverging beam is practically impossible
since this would require the dismantling of the accelerator head except for the scattering foils
andmonitor chamber. Thenearestpossibleclean machine for whichmeasurementsarepossible
is the uncollimated electron beam, an electron beam without an electron applicator and with
the photon jaws in their outermost positions. We assume that the IPS of this uncollimated
electron beam is described by a sole diverging beam, denoted by
Fun(x , y , , , E , q ) = wuneun(E,q)d(x,y; ; )c(x, y). (6)
d(x,y; , ) and c(x,y) are the already defined directional distribution and fluence correction
functions. wun and eun(E,q) are the weight factor and energydistribution for the uncollimated
electron beam. The beam shape function is not required to describe the uncollimated beam
since oin(un; x , y ) = 1 [cm2] for all x and y. The energy distribution eun(E,q) and weight
factor wun are determined from the measured absolute central axis depthdose curve (ADD) ofthe uncollimated electron beam in water at an SSD of 100 cm. The idea is that this measured
ADD can be fitted with a weighted sum of calculated ADDs of diverging monoenergetic
electron and photon beams with a fluence in the IPS plane that is defined by the product
d(x,y; ,)c(x,y).
The phase-space evolution (PSE) model (Janssen et al 1994, 1997) is applied to calculate
the ADDs for the required set of monoenergetic electron beams. The beam energies of the
set of monoenergetic beams are 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2 .5, . . . , 30 MeV. The PSE model is also
equipped with a photon transport and dose calculation model to calculate the dose distribution
resulting from bremsstrahlung created in the patient and the accelerator head. Since the energy
deposition by photons is relatively small compared with the energy deposition by electrons, a
simple photon transport model was implemented in the PSE model. This model is based on
the linear attenuation of photon energy fluence during photon transport. The linear attenuation
coefficient that controls this photon energy fluence transport depends on the mean energyE0 of the electron beam. Consequently, the PSE model does not calculate a set of ADDs
for monoenergetic photon beams, but calculates one ADD for a photon energy fluence in the
reference plane that is defined by the product d(x,y; ,)c(x,y).
The method of simulated annealing (Metropolis et al 1953) is applied to determine the
weight factors of the monoenergetic electron beams and the weight factor of the photon beam.
The weight factors are determined such that the deviation between the measured ADD and the
weighted sum of calculated ADDs is minimized in a root mean square sense according to
=
15 cmz=0.5 cm
ADD(m, z) w(p)ADD(p,z)
30 MeVe=0.5 MeV
(w(e)ADD(e,z))
2. (7)
Here z is the depth (z = 0.5, 1, . . . , 15 cm) of measured and calculated ADDs. ADD(m, z) is
the measured dose at depth z, ADD(e,z) is the calculated dose at depth z for electron beams ofe MeV (e = 0.5, 1, . . . , 30 MeV), ADD(p,z) is the calculated dose at depth z for the photon
energy fluence, w(e) are the electron beam weight factors and w(p) is the photon beam weight
factor. Simulated annealing is applied to minimize by adapting these weight factors.
wun and eun(E,q) can be determined from these calculated weight factors ifeun(E,q) is
normalized according to
0
eun(E, 1) dE = 1. (8)
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
10/18
278 J J Janssen et al
(a)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0 5 10 15 20
Energy (MeV)
Weight(#)
scattered electrons
direct electrons
(b)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth (cm)
Dose(cGy/MU)
measured un-collimated beam
calculated photons only
calc. direct e- and photons
calc. direct+scattered e- and photons
Figure 4. Energy distributions of the main diverging beam (a) and corresponding ADDs (b) of
the uncollimated 20 MeV Varian Clinac 2300 electron beam. eun(E,q) contains the direct and
scattered electrons and the photons. The photonsare not shown in (a). em(E,q) contains the directelectrons and photons.
Thederivedenergydistributioneun(E,q) probablycontainsa small fractionofelectronand
photon contamination that has scattered from various remaining parts of the accelerator head.
The energy distribution of the main diverging beam em(E,q) is estimated by cleaning up
the possible scattered electrons from eun(E,q). Figure 4(a) shows the product wuneun(E, 1)
(wun = 0.45). In general three parts are distinguishable in eun(E,q) (figure 4(a)): (a) a large
amount of electron fluence around the nominal beam-energy (the direct electrons), (b) some
smaller amounts of electron fluence in the region with a lower energy (the scattered electrons)
and (c) a large amount of photon energy fluence (not shown in figure 4(a)). The energy
distribution of the main diverging beam em(E,q) is found by removing the scattered electrons
from eun(E,q), thus leaving the direct electrons and the photons. This cleaning up is based onthe assumption that the energy distribution of the electrons after passing through the scattering
foils and monitor chamber is still rather monoenergetic. Simulations of accelerator heads with
the BEAM Monte Carlo code system (Rogers et al 1995) support this assumption. BEAM
simulations show that there area large numberof directphotons andthat theenergy distribution
of the direct electrons is very monoenergetic. In the example shown in figure 4(a) the scattered
electrons form about 4% of the total (direct plus scattered) electron energy. The associated
photon component is such that 24% of the total (electron plus photon) energy is carried by
photons. These photons contribute only a few per cent of dose to the ADD; however, they are
the major contributors to the photon-tail (figure 4(b)). The IPS of equation (6) is applicable
for full 3D absolute (cGy MU1) dose calculations. Figure 4(b) shows the match between
measured and PSE calculated ADDs of the uncollimated electron beam. Figure 4(b) also
shows the PSE calculated ADD based on the IPS of equation (6) where eun(E,q) is replacedby the cleaned energy distribution em(E,q).
2.5. The weight factorw(A)
The weight factor w(A) represents the fluence per monitor unit of the main diverging beam.
The fluence per monitor unit depends on the amount of backscattering towards the monitor
chamber from thephoton jaws, the settings of which are associated with the applied applicator.
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
11/18
Initial phase space of clinical electron beams 279
Therefore w(A) can be different for each applied applicator. However, we assume that the
effect of this backscattering towards the monitor chamber from the photon jaws is negligible,
and that the weight factor w(A) of the main diverging beam is equal to the weight factor wunof the uncollimated electron beam as determined in the previous section for each applicator A
(see the discussion).
2.6. The edge scatter kernel k(,,E,q) of the applicator scatter
The main diverging beam models the majority of electrons and photons that pass through the
open part of the applicator or cutout diaphragm. It is assumed that the majority of electrons
and photons that are incident on the closed part of the applicator or cutout diaphragm are
similar to the electrons and photons that are modelled by the main diverging beam. The PSE
model is applied to determine the point spread kernel k(,,E,q) by calculating the impact
of the main diverging beam on the applicator or cutout edge placed in the beam centre and
registering all electrons and photons which leave the applicator via its edge. This method
has been described in the literature (Ebert and Hoban 1995, Asell and Ahnesjo 1997). In the
calculation of the point spread kernel k(,,E,q) the transport of other electrons or photonsbesides those of the main diverging beam through the applicator edge is neglected and the
effect of the divergence of the main diverging beam is ignored for off-axis applicator edges.
2.7. The energy distribution et(E,q) of the applicator transmission
The energy distribution function et(E,q) models the photon (q = 0) as well as electron
(q = 1) transmission. So far, only photon transmission has been considered and electron
transmission is ignored. Again, it is assumed that the majority of electrons and photons that
are incident on the closed part of the applicator or cutout diaphragm are similar to the electrons
and photons that are modelled by the main diverging beam. The PSE model is applied to
determine the photon energy fluence leaving the applicator by calculating the transport of the
main diverging beam through a fully closed applicator or cutout and registering all photons
which leave the applicator. In the calculation of the photon energy fluence the transport ofother electrons or photons besides those of the main diverging beam through the applicator is
neglected and the derived photon energy fluence is assumed to be constant outside the open
part of the diaphragm.
2.8. The energy distribution e2(A; E , q ) of the second diverging beam
So far, three beam components, i.e. the main diverging beam, applicator scatter and applicator
transmission, are fully determined and their contribution to any measured ADD can be
calculated. The difference between any measured ADD and the associated calculated ADD
contribution by the three known beam components shouldyield theIPS of thesecond diverging
beam (see equation (2)):
Fsecond(x , y , , , E , q ) = w2(A; C, SSD)e2(A; E,q)d(x,y,,)oin(C; x,y). (9)
The energy distribution e2(A; E , q ) is determined based on this difference between the
measured and calculated ADDs of an electron beam collimated by applicator A without cutout
in water at an SSD of 100 cm. The energy distribution e2(A; E , q ) and associated weight
factor w2(A; A, 100) are determined with a method similar to the determination of the energy
distribution eun(E,q) and weight factor wun of the uncollimated beam (see section 2.4). Now
theidea is that this difference between ADDs canbe fitted with a weightedsumof thecalculated
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
12/18
280 J J Janssen et al
(a)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0 5 10 15 20
Energy (MeV)
Weight(#)
main diverging beam
second diverging beam
(b)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth (cm)
Dose(cGy/MU)
measured 10x10transmission
edge scatt er
second diverging beam
main diverging beam
sum of 4 components
Figure 5. Energy distributions of the two diverging beam-components (a) and corresponding
ADDs of all the beam-components (b). The measured ADD is of a 10 10 cm2 20 MeV Varian
Clinac 2300 electron beam.
ADDs of diverging monoenergetic electron and photon beams with a fluence in the IPS plane
that is defined by the product d(x,y; , ) oin(A; x , y ).
The PSE model is applied to calculate the ADD contribution of the three known beam
components plus the ADDs for the required set of monoenergetic beams. The method of
simulated annealing is applied to determine the weight factors that result in the best fit of
the difference in ADDs. Again, w2(A; A, 100) and e2(A; E , q ) can be determined from
these calculated weight factors ife2(A; E , q ) is normalized in a way similar to equation (8).
Figure 5(a) shows the product w2(A; A, 100)e2(A; E, 1) for the 10 10 cm2 applicator
(A = 10 10) (w2(A; A, 100) = 0.116). In this case the associated photon component is
negligibly small. Figure 5(b) shows the corresponding contributions per beam component for
this 20 MeV 10 10 cm2 electron beam. The main diverging beam contributes about 80%
of the total electron beam. This contribution agrees well with EGS4/BEAM results (Rogers
et al 1995). The sum of the four beam components gives a perfect match with the measured
ADD.
2.9. The weight factorw2(A; C,SSD) of the second diverging beam, when using cutouts
Theweightof thesecond divergingbeam depends on theshielding length(in centimetres)of the
applicator (figure 2(b)). This shielding length depends on the equivalent squarefield sizeof the
applied cutout and on the actual SSD. w2 is a kind of look-up table that contains the shielding
lengths andassociated weight factors for a predefinedsetof cutoutandSSDcombinations. The
weight factor for an arbitrary shielding length of the applicator is determined by linear interpo-
lation between the available weight factors in the look-up table. A weight factor look-up tablethat consists of eight weight factors and associated shielding lengths of the applicator is found
to be sufficient. At the moment our look-up tables consist of weight factors for the applicator
without cutout and for the applicator with three different cutouts at SSDs of 100 and 110 cm.
The weight factors that form the look-up table are determined in a similar way to the
determination of the weight factor w2(A; A, 100) in the previous section, but now the energy
distribution e2(A; E , q ) is already known. Again, the difference between a measured ADD
and the associated calculated ADD contribution by the main diverging beam, applicator
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
13/18
Initial phase space of clinical electron beams 281
Figure 6. Weight factorlook-up tablesof seconddiverging beams (a) anda subsetof corresponding
ADDs (b). The weight factor w2(A; C, SSD) is shown as a function of the shielding length for the12 and 20 MeV 10 10 cm2 Varian Clinac 2300 electron beams. The ADDs shown are 12 MeV
beams at an SSD of 110 cm2 and 20 MeV beams at an SSD of 100 cm for field sizes 10 10, 5 5,4 4 and 3 3 cm2.
scatter and applicator transmission should yield the second diverging beam. Now, this
difference in ADDs is fitted with the weighted ADD of the second diverging beam for the
associated cutout and SSD with a fluence in the IPS plane that is defined by the product
e2(A; E , q )d (x , y; , ) oin(C; x , y ). Only the weight factor w2(A; C, SSD) needs to be
determined. Figure 6(a) shows the weight factor look-up tables for two energies of a
10 10 cm2 applicator (see the discussion). Figure 6(b) shows a comparison between a subset
of corresponding measured ADDs and PSE calculated ADDs based on the four components
and the weight factor look-up tables.
The IPS as denoted by equation (2) is now fully determined and is applicable for full 3Dabsolute (cGy MU1) dose calculations for a specific energyof a clinical electron beam shaped
by an arbitrary cutout and applicator at an arbitrary SSD.
3. Results
The described method to determine the IPS of clinical electron beams is applied for 12 and
20 MeV electron beams of a Varian Clinac 2300 accelerator. The measurements required for
the IPS configuration are provided by Anna Samuelsson and Karl-Axel Johansson from the
Department of Radiation Physics, University of Goteborg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital,
Sweden. As already shown in figure 6(b) there is a good agreement between the measured and
PSE-calculated ADDs. However, one has to bear in mind that each of the measured ADDs
shown in figure 6(b) is applied as input for the IPS configuration method.The IPS configuration method is also applied for a 14 MeV Siemens MXE accelerator.
The required measurements are provided by Bruce Faddegon from the Department of Physics,
Toronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada. The weight factor look-up
table w2(A; C, SSD) is determined based on only four measured ADDs. Figure 7 shows this
look-up table based on the measured ADDs of the 10 10 and 3 3 cm2 field sizes at SSDs
of 100 and 110 cm. The IPS configuration results are shown in figure 8. Here the measured
ADDs at SSDs of 100 and 110 cm are applied as input for the IPS con figuration method.
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
14/18
282 J J Janssen et al
Figure 7. Weight factor look-up table of the second diverging beam for the 14 MeV 10 10 cm2
Siemens MXE electron beam. The weight factor w2(A; C, SSD) is shown as a function of the
shielding length.
(a)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 2 4 6 8
Depth (cm)
Dose(cGy/MU)
(b)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 2 4 6 8
Depth (cm)
Dose(cGy/MU)
Figure 8. Measured (full curves) and PSE-calculated (crosses) ADDs of a Siemens MXE 14 MeV
electron beam for the 10 10 cm2 applicator without cutout (a) and for the 3 3 cm2 cutout (b)
at SSDs of 100, 110 and 120 cm.
The measured ADDs at the SSD of 120 cm are not applied as input for the IPS configuration
method; here the weight of the second diverging beam is determined by linear interpolationbetween the available weights in the weight factor look-up table (figure 7). The respective
shielding lengths for the1010 and 3 3 cm field sizes at SSD of 120 cmare 1.3 and 62.7 cm.
The calculated ADD of the 10 10 cm2 field at SSD 120 cm is in good agreement with the
measured ADD. For the 3 3 cm2 field size at SSD 120 cm the differences are too large.
This difference demonstrates the limitations of the IPS configuration model for its application
for shielding lengths outside the range of the weight factor look-up table. However, the range
of the weight factor look-up table can be extended to include the required shielding lengths
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
15/18
Initial phase space of clinical electron beams 283
Cerrobend cutout
Figure 9. A 4 cm off-axis 4 10 cm2 cutout for use in a 15 15 cm2 applicator.
(a)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth (cm)
Dose(cGy/MU)
(b)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 2 4 6 8
X-axis (cm)
Dose(cGy/MU)
Figure 10. Measured (full curves) and PSE-calculated (crosses) ADDs (a) and profiles at 2.1 cmdepth (b) of a 21 MeV Siemens KD2 electron beam, SSD = 100 and 110 cm. The standard
15 15 cm2 applicator with a 4 cm off-axis cerrobend cutout of 4 10 cm2.
by incorporating measurements at an SSD of 120 cm into the IPS configuration method, thus
increasing the accuracy of the results at the SSD of 120 cm.
We also applied the described method for determining the IPS of clinical electron beams
to 21 MeV electron beams of a Siemens KD2 accelerator. Again there is a good agreement
between measurementsandPSEcalculations, as there is fora 4 cm off-axiscutoutof 410cm2
in a 15 15 cm2 applicator shown in figure 9. Figure 10 shows the associated measured and
PSE calculated dose distributions. Here the measurements have not been applied as input for
the IPS configuration method. The results at the SSD of 110 cm2 of this off-axis cutout showthat for this worse case scenario the accuracy decreases to about 3% or 3 mm.
The results shown are in good agreement with the measurements except for the 3 3 cm2
field size at 120 cm SSD shown in figure 8(b). But the results for this specific case can
be improved by incorporating measurements at an SSD of 120 cm into the IPS configuration
method. In general the accuracy is within 1.5% or 1.5 mm; worst cases are within 3% or 3 mm.
These results are quite accurate if one considers the simplicity of this four-beam-component
model and the applied assumptions.
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
16/18
284 J J Janssen et al
4. Discussion and conclusions
The resulting calculated dose distributions based on the IPS configuration method are rather
good, although the derived beam components may not fully agree with the real physical beam
components of a clinical electron beam. Some aspects of this beam model may require furtherinvestigation.
4.1. The main diverging beam
The determination of the weight factor w(A) and energy distribution em(E,q) of the main
diverging beam is not very precise. The cleaning method ofeun(E,q) (figure 4(a)) is rather
arbitrary. Perhaps some of the scattered electrons should have been left in, and some of the
direct electrons should have been removed from em(E,q). Also, the weight factor w(A) is
kept constant between applicators (section 2.5) thus ignoring the effect of the position of the
photon jaws on this weight factor.
In an earlier version of the IPS configuration model the cleaning methodwas notapplied,
thus em(E,q) = eun(E,q), and the weight factor was assumed constant w(A) = wun. In this
version the weight factor of the second diverging beam was also a constant w2
(A; C, SSD) =
w2(A; A, 100). In order to test this model Bruce Faddegon (Department of Physics, Toronto-
Sunnybrook RegionalCancerCentre, Toronto, Canada) provided us with measured data from a
Siemens MXE accelerator. There wasa good agreementbetween measured andPSE calculated
dose distributions for a clinical 14 MeV 10 10 cm2 electron beam at SSDs of 100, 110 and
120 cm. But, the PSE calculation overestimated the dose by 10%, 15% and 20% for a cutout
of 3 3 cm2 at respective SSDs of 100, 110 and 120 cm. The main diverging beam alone
(without applicator scatter, applicator transmission or second diverging beam) delivered about
10% more dose in the case of an SSD of 120 cm. The first conclusion was that either the
energydistribution or the weight factor, or both, of the main diverging beam had to be reduced.
However, in the IPS configuration method, a reduction of the main diverging beam results in
an increase of the second diverging beam. Thus, the reduction of the main diverging beam
would have no effect on the PSE calculated dose distributions. The second conclusion was
that for the second diverging beam also, either the energy distribution or the weight factor, orboth, had to be reduced. The result of these two conclusions is found in this paper: the energy
distribution of the main diverging beam is cleaned, the weight factor of the main diverging
beam is still a constant, the energy distribution of the second diverging beam is not changed,
and the weight factor of the second diverging beam is determined via a look-up table that
depends on the shielding length of the applicator.
The weight factor of the main diverging beam is still kept constant. Possible effects due to
variable positions of the photon jaws as associated with different applicators are still ignored.
The change in jaw position affects the number of backscattered electrons from the photon jaws
to the monitor chamber. It also affects the volume of the air column that helps to form the main
diverging beam. The change in backscatter towards the monitor chamber may be relatively
smallandcan probablybe ignored, but thechange involume of theair columncannot be ignored
that easily (Ma and Jiang 1999b). This means that it might be better to vary the weight of themain diverging beam per applied applicator. Therefore, a simple method should be developed
to determine this change in beam weight. If possible this method should be based on some
simplemeasurements, analogously to thesimplicity of the IPS configuration modeldescribed.
4.2. The second diverging beam
Theindirectparticlesin a clinical electron beam aresimulated rathercrudelywith theapplicator
scatter, applicator transmission and second diverging beam. In particular the simulation of the
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
17/18
Initial phase space of clinical electron beams 285
remainderof indirectparticleswitha seconddivergingbeamthat originates fromonefocalpoint
is quite an approximation. Perhaps there is an alternative beam component (or a combination
of components) that is more suitable for this task. This alternative beam component would
probably have to be used with a kind of ray tracing method in order to discard the electrons
that are blocked by the cutout. This ray tracing is now performed by the variable weight factorof the second diverging beam.
The shielding-length-dependent curve that determines this weight factor is seldom a
smooth function (figure 6(a)). This non-smoothness is caused by the fact that equal shielding
lengths can be associated with several combinations of cutout diaphragms and SSDs that each
requires an alternative weight factor. It is easier to determine a set of smooth weight factor
curves for separate SSDs, also at an extended SSD of 120 cm, but this is not implemented in the
current IPS configuration method. An impression of the possible error caused by choosing the
wrong weight factor can be seen by considering that about of 20% of the total electron beam is
carried by the second diverging beam (figure 5(b)) and the weight factor alters the contribution
of the second diverging beam by somewhere between 75% and 100% (figure 6(a)). Therefore
the dose range that is controlled by the weight factor of the second diverging beam is limited
to about 0.05 cGy MU
1
or 5%.This IPS configuration method shows that a model based on four beam components is
sufficient for the calculation of the IPSs of clinical electron beams. This method also shows
that the parameter values that define such IPSs can be derived from a limited set of measured
electron beam data.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank students Lars Wittebrood, Robert-Jan Westerduin and Astrid
van der Horst for investigating topics related to the subject of this paper during their practical
year. We thank our colleagues Remco van Vliet and Hafid Akhiat for testing and commenting
on the first user friendly version of the IPS configuration program. We also thank our
colleagues Dick Bax and Philip Verlinde for helping to link the PSE and IPS software to the
CadPlan planning system. We thank Anna Samuelsson and Karl-Axel Johansson (Department
of Radiation Physics, University of Goteborg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden) for
providing the measured data from a Varian Clinac2300 accelerator. We thank Bruce Faddegon
(Department of Physics, Toronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada) for
providing us with measured data that showed us that a predecessor of the presented IPS
configuration method without an adaptable weight for the second diverging beam did not
function well for small cutouts. Further we thank Charlie Ma and Steve Jiang (Department
of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, USA) for the
discussions during the Electron and Photon Transport Theory Workshop held in Indianapolis,
USA. We thank the Dutch Cancer Society (NKB 92-94) and Varian Medical Systems Finland
for funding this research project.
References
Asell M and Ahnesjo A 1997 Calculation and application of collimator scatter kernels in electron treatment planning
Proc. 12th Int. Conf. on the use of Computers in Radiation Therapy (Salt Lake City) ed D D Leavitt and
G Starkschall (Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing) pp 479
Ebert M A and Hoban P W 1995 A model for electron-beam applicator scatter Med. Phys. 22 141929
ICRU 1984 Radiation dosimetry: electron beams with energies between 1 and 50 MeV ICRU Report35 (Bethesda,
MD: ICRU)
Hogstrom K R, Mills M D and Almond P R 1981 Electron beam dose calculations Phys. Med. Biol. 26 44559
-
7/28/2019 A Model to Determine the Initial Phase Space of a Clinical Electron Beam From Measured Beam Data
18/18
286 J J Janssen et al
Huizenga H and Storchi P R M 1987 The in-air scattering of clinical electron beams as produced by accelerators with
scanning beams and diaphragm collimators Phys. Med. Biol. 32 101129
Janssen J J, Riedeman D E J, Morawska-Kaczynska M, Storchi P R M and Huizenga H 1994 Numerical calculation
of energy deposition by high-energy electron beams: III. Three-dimensional heterogeneous media Phys. Med.
Biol. 39 135166
Janssen J J, Korevaar E W, Storchi P R M and Huizenga H 1997 Numerical calculation of energy deposition by
high-energy electron beams: III-B. Improvements to the 6D phase space evolution model Phys. Med. Biol. 42
14419
Kawrakow I, Fippel M and Friedrich K 1996 3D electron dose calculation using a Voxel based Monte Carlo algorithm
(VMC) Med. Phys. 23 44557
Ma C-M, Faddegon B A, Rogers D W O and Mackie T R 1997 Accurate characterization of Monte Carlo calculated
electron beams for radiotherapy Med. Phys. 24 40116
Ma C-M and Jiang S B 1999a Monte Carlo modelling of electron beams from medical accelerators Phys. Med. Biol.
44 15789
1999b Private communications
Metropolis N, Rosenbluth A W, Rosenbluth M N, Teller A H and Teller E 1953 Equations of state calculations by fast
computing machines J. Chem. Phys. 21 108792
Nelson W R, Hirayama H and RogersD W O 1985 The EGS4codesystem Stanford Linear AcceleratorCenter Report
256 (Stanford, CA: SLAC)
Neuenschwander H, Mackie T R and Reckwerdt P J 1995 MMCa high-performance Monte Carlo code for electron
beam treatment planning Phys. Med. Biol. 40 54374
RogersD W O,FaddegonB A,DingG X,Ma C M and We J 1995BEAM: a Monte Carlo codeto simulateradiotherapy
treatment units Med. Phys. 22 50324
Storchi P R M, van Battum L J and Woudstra E 1999 Calculation of a pencil beam kernel from measured photon beam
data Phys. Med. Biol. 44 291728
van Battum L J and Huizenga H 1999On theangular variancesof clinical electron beams Phys. Med. Biol. 44 280320