MCNPX’S Water Equivalent Thickness Simulation of Material with Different Density via Proton Beam Irradiation

  • Authors

    • M.A Khattak
    • Abdoulhdi. A. Borhana
    • Lailatul Fitriyah A. Shafii
    • Rustam Khan
    2018-11-30
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.35.23088
  • Water equivalent thickness, MCNPX, proton therapy, Bragg peak

  • Abstract

    The radiological thickness of materials and beam penetration range is often referred as the water equivalent thickness (WET). In the clinical application of radiotherapy it is mandatory to obtain a WET calculation with high accuracies to ensure the beam that penetrated the human tissues is capable to deliver high dose of radiation into the deep-rooted tumors and kill the malignant cancerous cell without any major damages to the healthy tissues. Nevertheless, the present method of calculation that is available needs either intensive numerical method or approximation techniques with unknown precision. Hence, the purpose of this research is to study the depth of proton beam irradiation penetration range of materials with arbitrary density & elemental composition and modeled the water equivalent thickness (WET) calculation by using the Monte Carlo N Particle Transport Code Extension (MCNPX). There are several type of material with different density that are utilize in this project which are water phantom (Ï =1.0 g cm-3), PMMA (Ï =1.19 g cm-3) aluminum (Ï = 2.70 g cm-3 lead (Ï =11.3g cm-3). The water phantom represent reference material whilst PMMA, Aluminum and Lead each represent low, medium and high density respectively. Based from the result produced in output file, Bragg curves for each material were reproduced, analyzed and compared with the Bragg curve of water phantom. The WET of water phantom was successfully modelled by using MCNPX. Apart from the short computing time, modelling WET via MCNPX was more efficient compare to analytical calculation

  • References

    1. [1] W. D. Newhauser and R. Zhang, “The physics of proton therapy,†Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 60, no. 8. pp. R155–R209, 2015.

      [2] W. P. Levin, H. Kooy, J. S. Loeffler, and T. F. DeLaney, “Proton beam therapy,†Br. J. Cancer, vol. 93, no. 8, pp. 849–854, 2005.

      [3] T. Rietzel, Eike; Geiß, Oliver; Schardt, Dieter; Voss, Bernd; Krämer, Michael; Haberer, “Correlation between CT number and WEPL for heavy charged particles,†pp. 362–363, 2000.

      [4] A. Kacperek, “Clinical Proton Dosimetry Part I: Beam Production, Beam Delivery and Measurement of Absorbed Dose (ICRU Report 59),†Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 3123–3124, 2000.

      [5] R. Zhang and W. D. Newhauser, “Calculation of water equivalent thickness of materials of arbitrary density, elemental composition and thickness in proton beam irradiation,†vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 339–351, 2009.

      [6] F. Fellin, R. Righetto, G. Fava, D. Trevisan, D. Amelio, and P. Farace, “Water equivalent thickness of immobilization devices in proton therapy planning – Modelling at treatment planning and validation by measurements with a multi-layer ionization chamber,†Phys. Medica, vol. 35, pp. 31–38, 2017.

      [7] A. J. Wroe, A. Ghebremedhin, I. R. Gordon, R. W. Schulte, and J. D. Slater, “Water equivalent thickness analysis of immobilization devices for clinical implementation in proton therapy.,†Technol. Cancer Res. Treat., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 415–420, 2014.

      [8] International Atomic Energy Agency, “Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy,†2000.

      [9] W. Newhauser et al., “Monte Carlo simulations of the dosimetric impact of radiopaque fiducial markers for proton radiotherapy of the prostate,†Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 2937–2952, 2007.

      [10] P. De Vera, I. Abril, and R. Garcia-Molina, “Water equivalent properties of materials commonly used in proton dosimetry,†Appl. Radiat. Isot., vol. 83, pp. 122–127, 2014.

      [11] R. Zhang, P. J. Taddel, M. M. Fitzek, and W. D. Newhauser, “Water equivalent thickness values of materials used in beams of protons, helium, carbon and iron ions,†Phys Med Biol., vol. 49, no. 18, pp. 1841–1850, 2009.

      [12] J. D. Fontenot, W. D. Newhauser, and U. Titt, “Design tools for proton therapy nozzles based on the double-scattering foil technique,†Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, vol. 116, no. 1–4, pp. 211–215, 2005.

      [13] C. C. Lee, Y. J. Lee, C. J. Tung, H. W. Cheng, and T. C. Chao, “MCNPX simulation of proton dose distribution in homogeneous and CT phantoms,†Radiat. Phys. Chem., vol. 95, pp. 302–304, 2014.

      [14] T.-C. Chao, C.-C. Lee, Y.-J. Lee, S.-K. Chen, B.-H. Chiang, and C.-J. Tung, “MCNPX simulation of proton dose distributions in a water phantom,†Biomed. J., vol. 38, no. 5, p. 414, 2015.

      [15] [15] J. S. Hendricks et al., “MCNPX extensions version 2.5.0,†Work, p. 73, 2008.

      [16] Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “MCNPX User’s Manual Version 2.4.0,†La-Cp-02-408, 2002.

      [17] Y. Choi and Y. Kim, “Characteristics of neutrons and proton beams arising from two different beam nozzles,†2010.

      [18] D. B. Pelowitz, “MCNPX user’s manual,†Los Alamos Natl. Lab., no. April, 2005.

      [19] R. February, A. L. Schwarz, R. A. Schwarz, and L. L. Carter, “MCNP / MCNPX visual editor computer code manual,†Los Alamos Natl. Lab., vol. 2008, 2008.

      [20] F. B. Brown, “Fundamentals of Monte Carlo particle transport,†Los Alamos Natl. Lab., vol. 836.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Khattak, M., A. Borhana, A., A. Shafii, L. F., & Khan, R. (2018). MCNPX’S Water Equivalent Thickness Simulation of Material with Different Density via Proton Beam Irradiation. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4.35), 678-682. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.35.23088

    Received date: 2018-12-03

    Accepted date: 2018-12-03

    Published date: 2018-11-30