Paper detail

Evaluation of plastic materials for range shifting, range compensation, and solid-phantom dosimetry in carbon-ion radiotherapy

Purpose: Beam range control is the essence of radiotherapy with heavy charged particles. In conventional broad-beam delivery, fine range adjustment is achieved by insertion of range shifting and compensating materials. In dosimetry, solid phantoms are often used for convenience. These materials should ideally be equivalent to water. In this study, we evaluated dosimetric water equivalence of four common plastics, HDPE, PMMA, PET, and POM. Methods: Using the Bethe formula for energy loss, the Gottschalk formula for multiple scattering, and the Sihver formula for nuclear interactions, we calculated the effective densities of the plastics for these interactions. We experimentally measured variation of the Bragg peak of carbon-ion beams by insertion of HDPE, PMMA, and POM, which were compared with analytical model calculations. Results: The theoretical calculation resulted in slightly reduced multiple scattering and severely increased nuclear interactions for HDPE, compared to water and the other plastics. The increase in attenuation of carbon ions for 20-cm range shift was experimentally measured to be 8.9\% for HDPE, 2.5\% for PMMA, and 0.0\% for POM while PET was theoretically estimated to be in between PMMA and POM. The agreement between the measurements and the calculations was about 1\% or better. Conclusions: For carbon-ion beams, POM was dosimetrically indistinguishable from water and the best of the plastics examined in this study. The poorest was HDPE, which would reduce the Bragg peak by 0.45\% per 1-cm range shift, although with marginal superiority for reduced multiple scattering. Between the two clear plastics, PET would be superior to PMMA in dosimetric water equivalence.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.