[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
IJRR Information::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
News & Events::
Web Mail::
Search in website

Advanced Search
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
Hard Copy 2322-3243
Online 2345-4229
Online Submission
Now you can send your articles to IJRR office using the article submission system.



:: Volume 20, Issue 3 (7-2022) ::
Int J Radiat Res 2022, 20(3): 709-714 Back to browse issues page
Comparisons of various water-equivalent materials with water phantom using the Geant4/GATE simulation program
T. Şahmaran , A. Kaşkaş
Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Kırıkhan Vocational School, 31000 Hatay, Turkey , tsahmaran@gmail.com
Abstract:   (1148 Views)
Background: The aim of this study was to compare the dosimetric properties of various water- equivalent phantom materials, such as solid water WT1 (WT1), solid water RMI457 (RMI457), plastic water, virtual water, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polystyrene and A150, with water phantom. Materials and Methods: Percentage depth dose values were obtained with IBA Blue Phantom2 and solid water phantom (RW3) used in clinical radiotherapy. The measurements were carried out at 6 and 18 MV photon energies with a field size of 10 x 10 cm2 and source-skin distance (SSD) at 100 cm. Simulations for the commercial solid phantoms were performed under these same conditions using Geant4 Application for Tomographic Emission (Geant4/GATE) simulation code. Results: PMMA (3.66±1.43) % and A150 (2.40±2.20)% phantom materials were determined to have a low rate of water equivalence at 6 MV photon energy while WT1 (-2.80±2.17)% and plastic water (-2.04±2.13)% phantom materials showed a low rate of water equivalence at 18 MV photon energy. Solid water WT1 (0.13±1.11)% and RMI457 (-0.29±0.91)% phantom materials were seen to be good water-equivalent materials at 6 MV photon energy, while PMMA (-0.08±1.39)% and A150 (-1.08±1.53)% were the closest equivalent materials to  water at 18 MV photon energy. Conclusion: All the materials examined in this study were found to be suitable for the daily dosimetric measurements in clinical applications. The most appropriate choice would seem to be to use water phantom for the dosimetric measurements in radiotherapy clinics depending on the possibilities and time.
Keywords: Radiotherapy, phantom materials, water-equivalence, Geant4, GATE.
Full-Text [PDF 1912 kb]   (1428 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Research | Subject: Radiation Biology
1. International Atomic Energy Agency (2000) Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: an international code of practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water. IAEA Technical Reports Series. No. 398.
2. Podgorsak EB (2005) Radiation Oncology Physics: A handbook for teachers and students. International Atomic Energy Agency. Vienna. Austria
3. Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, Hanson WF, Hug MS, Nath R, Rogers DW (1999) AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high energy photon and electron beams. Medical Physics, 26(9): 1847-1870. [DOI:10.1118/1.598691] [PMID]
4. Ramaseshan R, Kohli K, Cao F, Heaton R (2008) Dosimetric evaluation of plastic water diagnostic therapy. Journal of Applıed Clinical Medical Physics, 9(2): 98-111. [DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v9i2.2761] [PMID] []
5. Zuber SH, Yusof MFM, Hashikin NAA, Samson DO, Aziz MZA, Hashim (2021) A Rhizophora spp. as potential phantom material in medical physics applications-A review. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 189. [DOI:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109731]
6. Ramos SMO, Thomas S, Berdeguez MBT, Sa LV, Souza SAL (2017) Anthropomorphic phantoms-potential for more studies and training in radiology. Int J Radiol Radiat Ther, 2(4): 1-5. [DOI:10.15406/ijrrt.2017.02.00033]
7. American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) (1983) A protocol for the determination of absorbed dose from high-energy photon and electron beams. Task Group 21. Medical Physics, 10(6): 741-771. [DOI:10.1118/1.595446] [PMID]
8. Samson DO, Jafri MZM, Shukri A, Hashim R, Sulaiman O, Aziz MZA, Yusof FM (2020) Measurement of radiation attenuation parameters of modified defatted soy flour-soy protein isolate-based mangrove wood particleboards to be used for CT phantom production. Radiat Environ Biophys, 59: 483-501. [DOI:10.1007/s00411-020-00844-z] [PMID]
9. Dohm OS, Christ G, Nüsslin F, Schüle E, Bruggmoser G (2001) Electron dosimetry based on the absorbed dose to water concept: A comparison of the AAPM TG-51 and DIN 6800-2 protocols. Medical Physics, 28(64): 2258-64. [DOI:10.1118/1.1414008] [PMID]
10. Huq MS and Andreo P (2001) Reference dosimetry in clinical high-energy photon beams: Comparison of the AAPM TG-51 and AAPM TG-21 dosimetry protocols. Medical Physics, 28(1): 46-54. [DOI:10.1118/1.1333745] [PMID]
11. Hill RF, Brown S, Baldock C (2008) Evaluation of the water equivalence of solid phantoms using gamma ray transmission measurements. Radiation Measurements, 43(7): 1258-64. [DOI:10.1016/j.radmeas.2008.01.019]
12. Seuntjens J. Olivares M. Evans M. Podgorsak E (2005) Absorbed dose to water reference dosimetry using solid phantoms in the context of absorbed-dose protocols. Medical Physics, 32(9): 2945-33. [DOI:10.1118/1.2012807] [PMID]
13. Hong JW, Lee HK, Cho JH (2015) Comparison of the photon charge between water and solid phantom depending on depth. Int J Radiat Res, 13(3): 229-234.
14. Gargetta MA, Briggsa AR, Bootha JT (2020) Water equivalence of a solid phantom material for radiation dosimetry applications. Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology, 14: 43-47. [DOI:10.1016/j.phro.2020.05.003] [PMID] []
15. Hill R, Holloway L, Baldock CA (2005) Dosimetric evaluation of water equivalent phantoms for kilovoltage X-ray beams. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 50(21): 331-344. [DOI:10.1088/0031-9155/50/21/N06] [PMID]
16. White DR, Speller RD, Taylor PM (1981) Evaluating performance characteristics in computerized tomography. The British J Radiology, 54(639): 221-231. [DOI:10.1259/0007-1285-54-639-221] [PMID]
17. Allahverdi M, Nisbet A, Thwaites DI (1999) An evaluation of epoxy resin phantom materials for megavoltage photon dosimetry. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 44(5): 1125-32. [DOI:10.1088/0031-9155/44/5/001] [PMID]
18. Saitoh H, Myojoyama A, Tomaru T, Fukuda K, Fujisaki T, Abe S (2002) A study on properties of water substitute solid phantom using EGS code. Proceedings of the Tenth EGS4 Users Meeting in Japan. KEK Proceedings, 18: 55-64.
19. Tello VM, Tailor RC, Hanson WF (1995) How water equivalent are water-equivalent solid materials for output calibration of photon and electron beams? Medical Physics, 22(7): 1177-89. [DOI:10.1118/1.597613] [PMID]
20. Nilsson B, Montelius A, Andreo P, Johansson J (1997) Correction factors for parallel-plate chambers used in plastic phantoms in electron dosimetry. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 42(11): 2101-18. [DOI:10.1088/0031-9155/42/11/007] [PMID]
21. Hill RF, Kuncic Z, Baldock C (2010) The water equivalence of solid phantoms for low energy photon beams. Medical Physics, 37(8): 4355-63. [DOI:10.1118/1.3462558] [PMID]
22. Samson DO, Shukri A, Jafri MZM, Hashim R, Aziz MZA, Yusof MFM (2021) Development of radiation dosimetric phantoms made from SPC/NaOH/IA-PAE/Rhizophora spp. particleboards. Int J Radiat Res, 19(4): 801-811. [DOI:10.52547/ijrr.19.4.5]
23. Vahabi SM, Bahreinipour M, Zafarghandi MS (2017) Determining the mass attenuation coefficients for some polymers using MCNP code: A comparison study. Vacuum, 136: 73-76. [DOI:10.1016/j.vacuum.2016.11.011]
24. Kumer T, Kumar Das P, Khatun R, Rahman A, Akter S, Kumar Roy S (2021) Comparative Studies of Absolute Dose in Water Phantom. Solid Water Phantom and MatriXX with MULTICube Phantom. International Journal of Medical Physics. Clinic Engin and Radiat Oncol, 10: 169-17. [DOI:10.4236/ijmpcero.2021.104014]
25. Ababneh B, Tajuddin AA, Hashim R, Shuaib IL (2016) Investigation of mass attenuation coefficient of almond gum bonded Rhizophora spp. particleboard as equivalent human tissue using XRF technique in the 16.6-25.3 keV photon energy. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med, 39(4): 871-876. [DOI:10.1007/s13246-016-0482-6] [PMID]
26. Followill DS, Tailor RC, Tello VM, Hanson WF (1998) An empirical relationship for determining photon beam quality in TG-21 from a ratio of percent depth doses. Medical Physics, 25: 1202-05. [DOI:10.1118/1.598396] [PMID]
27. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (1984) Stopping Powers for Electrons and Positrons ICRU Report 37.
28. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (1989) Tissue Substitutes in Radiation Dosimetry and Measurement. ICRU Report 44.
29. International Atomic Energy Agency (1997) The Use of Plane-parallel Ionization Chambers in High-energy Electron and Photon Beams. An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry. IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 381.
30. Borcia C and Mihailescu D (2007) Are water-equivalent materials used in electron beams dosimetry really water equivalent? Rom J Phys, 53(7-8): 851-863.
31. Tuğrul T and Eroğul O (2019) Analysis of water-equivalent materials used during irradiation in the clinic with XCOM and BEAMnrc. J Radiat Res and Appli Sci, 12(1): 455-459. [DOI:10.1080/16878507.2019.1708576]
32. https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Star/compos.pl?matno=099.
33. Duran-Nava OE, Torres-Garcia ER, Oros-Pantoja R, Hernandez-Oviedo JO (2019) Monte Carlo simulation and experimental evaluation of dose distributions produced by a 6 MV medical linear accelerator. Journal of Physics Conference Series. 1221. [DOI:10.1088/1742-6596/1221/1/012079]
34. Sahmaran T and Kaskas A (2020) The effect of the trace elements concentrations on the cancerous and healthy tissues in radiotherapy. International Journal of Medical Physics. Clinic Engine and Radiat Oncol, 9: 110-124. [DOI:10.4236/ijmpcero.2020.93011]
35. Cameron M, Cornelius I, Cutajar DL, Davis JA, Rosenfeld AB (2017) Comparison of phantom materials for use in quality assurance of microbeam radiation therapy. J Synchrotron Rad, 24: 1-11. [DOI:10.1107/S1600577517005641] [PMID]
36. Tekın HO, Sayyed MI, Erguzel TT, Karahan M, Kılıcoglu O, Mesbahı A, Kara U (2018) Investigatıon of water equivalance and shieldıng properties of different solid phantoms using mcnpx code. Digest J Nanomaterials and Biostructures, 13(2): 551-62.
37. Diteko K, Mkhize TD, Mohlapholi MS (2020) Validating the percentage depth doses using two different phantom materials. Insights Med Phys, 5: 1-7.
38. Aslam A, Kakakhel MB, Shahid SA, Younas L, Zareen S (2016) Soft tissue and water substitutes for megavoltage photon beams: An EGSnrc-based evaluation. J Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 17(1): 408-15. [DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v17i1.5700] [PMID] []
39. Araki F (2017) Dosimetric properties of a solid water high equivalency (SW557) phantom for megavoltage photon beams. Physica Medica, 39: 132-136. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.06.011] [PMID]
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:


XML     Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Şahmaran T, Kaşkaş A. Comparisons of various water-equivalent materials with water phantom using the Geant4/GATE simulation program. Int J Radiat Res 2022; 20 (3) :709-714
URL: http://ijrr.com/article-1-4378-en.html

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 20, Issue 3 (7-2022) Back to browse issues page
International Journal of Radiation Research
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 50 queries by YEKTAWEB 4652