open access

Vol 26, No 1 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-01-22
Submitted: 2021-01-12
Get Citation

Comparison of dosimetric characteristics of physical wedge and enhanced dynamic wedge in inhomogeneous medium using Monte Carlo simulations

Seied Rabi Mahdavi, Atefeh Mahmoudi, Ghazale Geraily, Ahmad Mostaar, Golbarg Esmaili
DOI: 10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0012
·
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2021;26(1):59-65.

open access

Vol 26, No 1 (2021)
Original research articles
Published online: 2021-01-22
Submitted: 2021-01-12

Abstract

Background: Widely used physical wedges in clinical radiotherapy lead to beam intensity attenuation as well as the beam hardening effect, which must be considered. Dynamic wedges devised to overcome the physical wedges (PWs) problems result in dosimetry complications due to jaw movement while the beam is on.

This study was aimed to investigate the usability of physical wedge data instead of enhanced dynamic wedge due to the enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) dosimetry measurement hardships of Varian 2100CD in inhomogeneous phantom by Monte Carlo code as a reliable method in radiation dosimetry.

Materials and methods: A PW and EDW-equipped-linac head was simulated using BEAMnrc code. DOSXYZnrc was used for three-dimensional dosimetry calculation in the CIRS phantom.

Results: Based on the isodose curves, EDW generated a less scattered as well as lower penumbra width compared to the PW. The depth dose variations of PWs and EDWs were more in soft tissue than the lung tissue. Beam profiles of PW and EDW indicated good coincidence in all points, except for the heel area.

Conclusion: Results demonstrated that it is possible to apply PW data instead of EDW due to the dosimetry and commissioning hardships caused by EDW in inhomogeneous media.

Abstract

Background: Widely used physical wedges in clinical radiotherapy lead to beam intensity attenuation as well as the beam hardening effect, which must be considered. Dynamic wedges devised to overcome the physical wedges (PWs) problems result in dosimetry complications due to jaw movement while the beam is on.

This study was aimed to investigate the usability of physical wedge data instead of enhanced dynamic wedge due to the enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) dosimetry measurement hardships of Varian 2100CD in inhomogeneous phantom by Monte Carlo code as a reliable method in radiation dosimetry.

Materials and methods: A PW and EDW-equipped-linac head was simulated using BEAMnrc code. DOSXYZnrc was used for three-dimensional dosimetry calculation in the CIRS phantom.

Results: Based on the isodose curves, EDW generated a less scattered as well as lower penumbra width compared to the PW. The depth dose variations of PWs and EDWs were more in soft tissue than the lung tissue. Beam profiles of PW and EDW indicated good coincidence in all points, except for the heel area.

Conclusion: Results demonstrated that it is possible to apply PW data instead of EDW due to the dosimetry and commissioning hardships caused by EDW in inhomogeneous media.

Get Citation

Keywords

physical wedge; enhanced dynamic wedge; Monte Carlo code; inhomogeneous medium

About this article
Title

Comparison of dosimetric characteristics of physical wedge and enhanced dynamic wedge in inhomogeneous medium using Monte Carlo simulations

Journal

Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy

Issue

Vol 26, No 1 (2021)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

59-65

Published online

2021-01-22

DOI

10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0012

Bibliographic record

Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2021;26(1):59-65.

Keywords

physical wedge
enhanced dynamic wedge
Monte Carlo code
inhomogeneous medium

Authors

Seied Rabi Mahdavi
Atefeh Mahmoudi
Ghazale Geraily
Ahmad Mostaar
Golbarg Esmaili

References (29)
  1. Saminathan S, Manickam R, Supe SS. Comparison of dosimetric characteristics of physical and enhanced dynamic wedges. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2011; 17(1): 4–12.
  2. Dawod T, Abdelrazek EM, Elnaggar M, et al. Dose Validation of Physical Wedged Asymmetric Fields in Artiste Linear Accelerator. Int J Med Phys Clin Engineer Radiat Oncol. 2014; 03(04): 201–209.
  3. Zabihzadeh M, Birgani MJ, Hoseini-Ghahfarokhi M, et al. Dosimetric Characteristics of 6 MV Modified Beams by Physical Wedges of a Siemens Linear Accelerator. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016; 17(4): 1685–1689.
  4. Shahnawaz A, Subrat SK, Vinod GK, et al. Comprehensive Study of Varian's Enhanced Dynamic Wedge and Physical Wedge. J. Appl Phys. 2017; 9(5): 1–8.
  5. Geraily G, Mirzapour M, Mahdavi SR, et al. Monte Carlo study on beam hardening effect of physical wedges. Int J Radiat Res. 2014; 12(3): 249–256.
  6. Clinac CS. Enhanced dynamic wedge implementation guide. Varian Oncology Systems 1996.
  7. Chang SX, Gibbons JP Clinical implementation of non-physical wedges. 1999 AAPM Refresher Course. https://www.aapm.org/meetings/99AM/pdf/2803-83010.pdf.
  8. SA SK, P A, J SJ, et al. Comparison of Beam Profiles and Wedge Factors for Physical And Enhanced Dynamic Wedge. Int J Radiol Radiat Ther. 2018; 5(1).
  9. Elder PJ, Coveney FM, Welsh AD. An investigation into the comparison between different dosimetric methods of measuring profiles and depth doses for dynamic wedges on a Varian 600C linear accelerator. Phys Med Biol. 1995; 40(4): 683–689.
  10. Verhaegen F, Liu HH. Incorporating dynamic collimator motion in Monte Carlo simulations: an application in modelling a dynamic wedge. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 46, p. 2001; 46(2): 287–296.
  11. Verhaegen F, Das IJ. Monte Carlo modelling of a virtual wedge. Phys Med Biol. 1999; 44(12): N251–N259.
  12. Shih R, Li XA, Chu JC. Dynamic wedge versus physical wedge: a Monte Carlo study. Med Phys. 2001; 28(4): 612–619.
  13. Ahmad M, Deng J, Lund MW, et al. Clinical implementation of enhanced dynamic wedges into the Pinnacle treatment planning system: Monte Carlo validation and patient-specific QA. Phys Med Biol. 2009; 54(2): 447–465.
  14. Kakakhel MB, Baveas ES, Fielding AL, et al. Validation and automation of the DYNJAWS component module of the BEAMnrc Monte Carlo code. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2011; 34(1): 83–90.
  15. Bidmead AM, Garton AJ, Childs PJ. Beam data measurements for dynamic wedges on Varian 600C (6 MV) and 2100C (6 and 10 MV) linear accelerators. Phys Med Biol. 1995; 40(3): 393–411.
  16. Lee JW, Hong S, Choi KS, et al. Comparison of Enhanced Dynamic Wedge with Physical Metal Wedge based on the Basic Dosimetric Parameters. Korean J Med Phys. 2005; 16: 70–75.
  17. Ahmad M, Hussain A, Muhammad W, et al. Studying wedge factors and beam profiles for physical and enhanced dynamic wedges. J Med Phys. 2010; 35(1): 33–41.
  18. Lahooti A, Takavar A, Nedaei HA. 1101 poster Comparision of surface and peripheral radiotherapy dose using enhanved dynamic and physical wedges. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2011; 99: S410.
  19. Saminathan S, Manickam R, Supe SS. Comparison of dosimetric characteristics of physical and enhanced dynamic wedges. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2011; 17(1): 4–12.
  20. Akram M, Iqbal K, Isa M, et al. Optimum reckoning of contra lateral breast dose using physical wedge and enhanced dynamic wedge in radiotherapy treatment planning system. Int J Radiat Res. 2014; 12(4): 295–302.
  21. Geraily G, Sharafi N, Shirazi A, et al. Comparison of beam hardening effect of physical and enhanced dynamic wedges at bladder inhomogeneity using EBT3 film dosimeter. J Cancer Res Ther. 2017; 13(1): 97–101.
  22. Rogers D, Walters B, Kawrakow I. BEAMnrc users manual. Nrc Report Pirs. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada 2017.
  23. Kakakhel MB. Monte Carlo simulations of dynamic radiotherapy treatments. Doctoral dissertation (Queensland University of Technology 2017). https://eprints.qut.edu.au/50903/1/Muhammad_Kakakhel_Thesis.pdf.
  24. Pham TM. Simulation of the transmitted dose in an EPID using a Monte Carlo method. Doctoral dissertation (University of Adelaide 2009). https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/52448/1/Pham2009_MSc.pdf.
  25. Konefał A, Bakoniak M, Orlef A, et al. Energy spectra in water for the 6 MV X-ray therapeutic beam generated by Clinac-2300 linac. Radiat Measure. 2015; 72: 12–22.
  26. Sheikh-Bagheri D, Kawrakow I, Walters B, Rogers DW. Monte Carlo simulations: efficiency improvement techniques and statistical considerations Integrating new technologies into the clinic: Monte Carlo and image-guided radiation therapy, Proceedings of the 2006 AAPM Summer School. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, WI 2006: 71–91.
  27. Rogers D, Walters B, Kawrakow I. 2011 DOSXYZnrc users manual. Nrc Report Pirs. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada 2017.
  28. Chow J, Leung M. A graphical user interface for calculation of 3D dose distribution using Monte Carlo simulations. J Phys: Conference Series. 2008; 102: 012003.
  29. Mahdavi SR, Geraily G, Mostaar A, et al. Dosimetric characteristic of physical wedge versus enhanced dynamic wedge based on Monte Carlo simulations. J Cancer Res Ther. 2017; 13(2): 313–317.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: journals@viamedica.pl