COMPARISON OF ELECTRON BEAM TRANSMISSION OF DIFFERENT ENERGIES WITH TWO DIFFERENT BLOCK MATERIALS AT DIFFERENT PLACEMENT POSITIONS WITHIN THE APPLICATOR

  • M Navitha Medical Physicist, Department of Radiotherapy, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh
  • N Jitendra Lecturer cum RSO, Department of Radiotherapy, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh
  • N S Silambarasan Medical Physicist, Department of Radiotherapy, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh
  • P Kumar Professor and Head, Department of Radiotherapy, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh
  • P Kumar Assistant Professor, Department of Radiotherapy, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

Abstract

Introduction: Superficial tumors are treated with electron beams. Shielding blocks are used to
conform to the shape of the tumor. These shielding blocks are usually kept at lower level of the
applicator which is near the skin surface. The scattering property of electron may increase the
surface dose which will increase with increasing electron energies. The purpose of this study is
to compare electron beam transmissionof different energies with two different block materials
at different placement positions within the applicator.
Material and Methods: Cerrobend alloy (50%bismuth, 26.7%lead, 13.3%tin and
10%cadmium) and 1mm thick lead sheets (94%lead, 6%alloy) inVarian Clinac2300C/D linear
accelerator with electron energies 6,9,12,16 and 20MeVs using 10x10 applicator at 3 different
holding levels was used. Measurements with RW3 Slab phantom(Water equivalent),PPC05
Parallel Plane Chamber, dose 1 electrometer was done. The slab phantom 30x30x10 cm3
aligned with PPC05 Parallel Plane Chamber (at R85 of respective energies). Readings
measured for open and block fields, for different thickness of shielding material, at different
placement positions within the applicator. The percentage transmission calculated manually.
Results: Using electron energies 6,9,12,16, and 20MeVs respectively the transmission%
were: with lead sheet 1mm thickness-2.48%,8.69%,16.05%, 28.03% and 39.50% at lower
placement position, 1.19%,3.76%,7.75%,15% and 23.99% at center placement and
0.96%,3.02%,6.15% and 20.27% for upper placement; with 2mm thickness-
0.89%,1.62%,3.66%, 8.95% and 16.35% at lower level, 0.60%,1.28%,2.54%,5.74% and
10.72% at center level and 0.57%,0.94%, 2.12%,4.85% and 9.22% at upper level; with 3mm
t h i c k n e s s-0.8 0 %, 1 . 5 3 % , 2 . 8 8 % , 5 . 2 9 % a n d 9 . 4 2 % a t l o w e r p o s i t i o n ,
0.52%,1.25%,2.06%,4.03% and 7.36% at center position and 0.51%, 0.90%,1.78%,3.66%
and 6.43% at upper position; with 4mm thickness- 0.75%,1.40%,2.71%,4.81% and 7.76% at
lower level, 0.50%,1.18%,1.95%,3.68% and 6.31% at center level and 0.51%,0.80%,
1.70%,3.34% and 5.65% at upper level; with 5mm thickness-0.73%,1.30%,2.57%,4.56% and
7.20% at lower level, 0.45%,1.06%,1.81%,3.48% and 5.68% at center level and
0.47%,0.79%,1.61%,3.13% and 5.24% at upper level. For Cerrobend material 5mm thickness,
the transmission at lower level are 0.79%,1.50%,2.98%,5.58% and 10.39%, at center level are
0.52%,0.99%,2.09%,4.12% and 7.67% and at upper level are 0.49%,0.91%,1.82%,3.75% and
6.90% for the energies 6,9,12,16 and 20 MeV's respectively.
Conclusion: There is not much difference in the transmission values at centre and upper levels
so as to keep nearer the skin, the centre position in electron applicator may be optimum. Lead
sheets can be used since easy to prepare especially for rectangular or square shapes.
Keywords: Electron beam transmission, cerrobend alloy, lead.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Statistics
1050 Views | 871 Downloads
How to Cite
[1]
M. Navitha, N. Jitendra, N. Silambarasan, P. Kumar, and P. Kumar, “COMPARISON OF ELECTRON BEAM TRANSMISSION OF DIFFERENT ENERGIES WITH TWO DIFFERENT BLOCK MATERIALS AT DIFFERENT PLACEMENT POSITIONS WITHIN THE APPLICATOR”, SRMsJMS, vol. 1, no. 02, pp. 73-76, Dec. 2016.