C. Effect of applicators
In Fig. 5, the relative dose fall-off from the Intrabeam
source for a 50 kV beam is shown for a variety of applica-
tors. Measured curves supplied by the manufacturer are com-
pared with curves calculated using the Monte Carlo model.
The curves have been normalized at a distance of 10 mm
radially from the outside surface of the applicator surface in
each case. The effect of applicators on actual device dose
output was examined by considering the relative dose-rate at
a distance of 30 mm from the x-ray source. The result is
shown in Fig. 6 which compares the dose-rate at 30 mm
from the source for a variety of applicator sizes relative to
the bare probe
共i.e., no applicator attached兲.
D. Effect of inhomogeneities
Figure 7 shows calculated values for the dose to the first 1
mm of bone in a water/bone interface. The modeled treat-
F
IG
. 2. Variation in the ratio (
¯
en
/
)
w/air
with distance in water for the three
relevant beam energies. Calculations using spectra derived from the primary
beam model are compared with those derived using the Monte Carlo model
共which includes the scatter component兲.
F
IG
. 3. Relative dose distributions
共dose with distance in water兲 for the three
beam energies comparing calculated and measured distributions. Normaliza-
tion is at 10 mm from the source to a value of 10.0 for 50 kV, 1.0 for 40 kV
and 0.1 for 30 kV.
F
IG
. 4. Dosimetric equivalence of breast/water expressed as the ratio of the
distance from the source in breast to the distance in water giving the equiva-
lent dose fall-off.
共Results show some statistical fluctuation.兲
F
IG
. 5. The relative dose fall-off from the Intrabeam for the 50 kV beam for
a variety of applicator sizes. Results of Monte Carlo simulations are shown
with manufacturer’s measured data. Curves are normalized at a distance of
10 mm from the applicator surface in each case.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |