Evaluation of the Monte Carlo method (KTMAN-2) in fluoroscopic dosimetry and comparison with experiment

被引:0
作者
Minho Kim
Hyounggun Lee
Hyosim Kim
Hongmin Park
Wonho Lee
Sungho Park
机构
[1] Korea University,Department of Health Science, Bio
[2] ASAN Medical Center,convergence Engineering
来源
Journal of the Korean Physical Society | 2014年 / 64卷
关键词
MCNPX; KTMAN-2; Fluoroscopy; TLD;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This study evaluated the Monte Carlo method for determining the dose calculation in fluoroscopy by using a realistic human phantom. The dose was calculated by using Monte Carlo N-particle extended (MCNPX) in simulations and was measured by using Korean Typical Man-2 (KTMAN-2) phantom in the experiments. MCNPX is a widely-used simulation tool based on the Monte-Carlo method and uses random sampling. KTMAN-2 is a virtual phantom written in MCNPX language and is based on the typical Korean man. This study was divided into two parts: simulations and experiments. In the former, the spectrum generation program (SRS-78) was used to obtain the output energy spectrum for fluoroscopy; then, each dose to the target organ was calculated using KTMAN-2 with MCNPX. In the latter part, the output of the fluoroscope was calibrated first and TLDs (Thermoluminescent dosimeter) were inserted in the ART (Alderson Radiation Therapy) phantom at the same places as in the simulation. Thus, the phantom was exposed to radiation, and the simulated and the experimental doses were compared. In order to change the simulation unit to the dose unit, we set the normalization factor (NF) for unit conversion. Comparing the simulated with the experimental results, we found most of the values to be similar, which proved the effectiveness of the Monte Carlo method in fluoroscopic dose evaluation. The equipment used in this study included a TLD, a TLD reader, an ART phantom, an ionization chamber and a fluoroscope.
引用
收藏
页码:936 / 940
页数:4
相关论文
共 47 条
[1]  
Verdun F R(1998)undefined Rad. Prot. Dosim. 80 139-undefined
[2]  
Capasso P(1998)undefined Rad. Prot. Dosim. 80 135-undefined
[3]  
Valley J F(2006)undefined Rad. Prot. Dosim. 33 380-undefined
[4]  
Schnyder P(2010)undefined Rad. Prot. Dosim. 141 299-undefined
[5]  
Geleijins J(2011)undefined Rad. Prot. Dosim. 147 287-undefined
[6]  
Broerse J J(2009)undefined Rad. Prot. Dosim. 138 382-undefined
[7]  
Hummel W A(2005)undefined Rad. Prot. Dosim. 116 461-undefined
[8]  
Schalij M J(2006)undefined Rad. Prot. Dosim. 119 430-undefined
[9]  
Kool L J S(2010)undefined Rad. Prot. Dosim. 141 18-undefined
[10]  
Teeuwisse W(2008)undefined Rad. Prot. Dosim. 128 351-undefined