Neutron measurements around an 18 MV linac

Different Methods of Measuring Neutron Dose/Fluence Generated During Radiation Therapy with Megavoltage Beams

Medical linear accelerators (linacs) are the most frequently applied radiation therapy machines in the locoregional treatment of cancers by producing either high-energy electron or photon beams. However, with high-energy photons (>8 MeV), interaction of these photons with different high-Z nuclei of materials in components of the linac head unavoidably generates neutrons. On the other hand, the average energy of these generated neutrons has almost the highest radiation-weighting factor. Therefore, the produced neutrons should not be neglected. There are various tools for the measurement of neutron dose/fluence generated in a megavoltage linac, including thermoluminescent dosimeters, solid-state nuclear track detectors, bubble detectors, activation foils, Bonner sphere systems, and ionization chamber pairs. In this review article, each of the above-mentioned dosimetric methods will be described in detail.

Neutron spectra and dosimetric features around an 18 mv linac accelerator

Using the difference between responses to neutrons of TLD-600 and TLD-700, three experimental devices were constructed and arranged to measure thermal neutron fluences, neutron spectra, and neutron doses inside the treatment room of a radiotherapy 18 MV Linear electron accelerator (Linac). Thermal neutron fluences were measured with TLD-600/TLD-700 pairs arranged in both a bare and a cadmium (Cd) foil covered methacrylate box. Neutron spectra were measured in 26 energy bins by introducing pairs of TLD-600/TLD-700 in air and into the middle of five polyethylene spheres with diameters of 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12 inches. A PC version of the BUNKI code was used to unfold the six measurements in each sphere to obtain the 26 energy bins. Neutron and photon doses were measured by introducing pairs of TLD-600/TLD-700 into the middle of a single 25-cm-diameter paraffin sphere. The three required neutron calibrations were carried out at the Nuclear Technology Laboratory of the Polytechnique University of Madrid (UPM), using an 241Am-Be neutron source with an alpha activity of 111 GBq and a yield of 6.6 x 10(6) neutrons s(-1). Three devices were needed for the necessary calibrations: a BF3 counter for the thermal neutron fluence calibration, a LUDLUM 42-5 Bonner spectrometer with five 0.95 g cm(-3) polyethylene spheres with a LiI(Eu) 4 x 4 mm2 scintillation counter for the neutron spectrometer calibration and a NEMO 9140 remmeter for the paraffin remmeter calibration. The Monte Carlo code MCNP 4C has been used in two ways: to calculate the neutron kerma contribution to two TLDs (type 600 and 700) both in air and inside the paraffin sphere, and to determine the neutron spectra at those Linac room zones where the neutron spectra were measured. Thermal neutron fluences of 2.9 x 10(4) +/- 8.6 x 10(3) cm(-2) s(-1), measured around the Linac head plane, and 2.3 x 10(4) +/- 2.3 x 10(3) cm(-2) s(-1), measured at the patient couch plane, are in agreement with previous independent measurements from other authors. The calculated and measured neutron spectra obtained in the treatment room showed three distinct regions: a peak around 0.1 MeV, a flat epithermal region and a thermal region with values similar to those mentioned above. Patient dose equivalents of 0.5 mSv and 5 mSv from neutrons and photons, respectively, were obtained per treatment Gray.

Secondary neutron and photon dose in proton therapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The dose due to secondary neutrons and photons in proton therapy was estimated with Monte Carlo simulations. Three existing facilities treating eye and deep-seated tumours were taken into account. The results of the calculations related to eye proton therapy were verified with measurements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The simulations were performed with the FLUKA code. Neutron fluence was measured inside an Alderson phantom (type ART) with activation techniques.

RESULTS

The maximum dose due to secondaries produced in a passive beam delivery system was estimated to be of the order of 10(-4) and 10(-2) Gy per therapy Gy for eye and deep tumour treatments, respectively. In the case of irradiations of deep-seated tumours carried out with an active system, the dose was of the order of 10(-3) Gy per therapy Gy.

CONCLUSIONS

The dose due to secondaries depends on the geometry of the beam delivery system and on the energy of the primary beam and is lower in the healthy tissues distant from the target volume.