Journal of Medical Physics
 Home | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Subscription | Login  The official journal of Association of Medical Physicists of India      
 Users online: 365  Home  EMail this page Print this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2010  |  Volume : 35  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 15-22

Monte Carlo modeling of 60 Co HDR brachytherapy source in water and in different solid water phantom materials


Radiological Physics and Advisory Division, Health Safety, and Environment Group, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai - 400 094, India

Correspondence Address:
S Sahoo
Room-204, CTCRS Building, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai-400 094
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0971-6203.58779

Rights and Permissions

The reference medium for brachytherapy dose measurements is water. Accuracy of dose measurements of brachytherapy sources is critically dependent on precise measurement of the source-detector distance. A solid phantom can be precisely machined and hence source-detector distances can be accurately determined. In the present study, four different solid phantom materials such as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polystyrene, Solid Water, and RW1 are modeled using the Monte Carlo methods to investigate the influence of phantom material on dose rate distributions of the new model of BEBIG 60 Co brachytherapy source. The calculated dose rate constant is 1.086 ± 0.06% cGy h−1 U−1 for water, PMMA, polystyrene, Solid Water, and RW1. The investigation suggests that the phantom materials RW1 and Solid Water represent water-equivalent up to 20 cm from the source. PMMA and polystyrene are water-equivalent up to 10 cm and 15 cm from the source, respectively, as the differences in the dose data obtained in these phantom materials are not significantly different from the corresponding data obtained in liquid water phantom. At a radial distance of 20 cm from the source, polystyrene overestimates the dose by 3% and PMMA underestimates it by about 8% when compared to the corresponding data obtained in water phantom.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4897    
    Printed196    
    Emailed3    
    PDF Downloaded310    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal