Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2010), Vol. 140, No. 3, pp.

242249
Advance Access publication 18 January 2010

doi:10.1093/rpd/ncp303

PHOTONEUTRON AND CAPTURE GAMMA DOSE EQUIVALENT

FOR DIFFERENT ROOM AND MAZE LAYOUTS
IN RADIATION THERAPY

*Corresponding author: asgharmesbahi@yahoo.com

Received September 2 2009, revised December 7 2009, accepted December 18 2009
In this paper the effect of treatment room and maze layout on the photoneutron and capture gamma dose equivalent in the
maze was studied. MCNPX Monte Carlo (MC) code was used to simulate the Varian 2100 C/D Clinac 18 MV and four
different room layouts. Two analytical methods, Wu McGinley and McGinley, were used for dose calculations. The analytical methods overestimated the photoneutron dose (1343 %) and gamma capture dose (16 95 %) comparing with the MC
method at the maze entrance door. The results of MC method revealed that additional bend can cause a great reduction in
photoneutron (5000 times) and capture gamma dose (50 times) in the maze entrance door.

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, high-energy medical accelerators
have been the main tools in radiation therapy
centres. Higher beam penetration, low scattering of
beam to normal tissues and skin sparing effect are
the advantages of high-energy photon beams. But,
the use of high-energy photons may lead to the production of secondary photoneutrons which require
extra radiation protection measures in terms of
room shielding and possible patient whole body
dose(1 4). When photon energy becomes higher than
the threshold energy required for photonuclear ( g,n)
interactions, photoneutrons are produced in
materials which are in the path of photons, such as
target, primary collimator, flattening filter, jaws and
lead shielding of head as well as materials found in
the walls of treatment room(5 8). Shielding against
these highly penetrating radiations has been a challenging concern for radiation protection scientists(9,10). Otherwise, although room concrete is used
as a shielding for photons and photoneutrons, concrete walls in high-energy X-ray rooms also act as
photoneutron sources(11).
According to International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA)(12), total photoneutron fluence,
wA, at the inner maze per gray X-ray at the isocentre
(n m22 Gy21) is given by the following equation:

wA

QN
5:4QN 1:26QN

2
4pd
2pS
2pS

where d is distance from isocentre to point A in inner

maze (in m), S is the inner surface area of the

treatment room (in m2) and QN is the photoneutron

source strength (n Gy21). The first, second and third
terms are, respectively, representing direct neutron
fluence arising from linac, scattering photoneutron
and thermal photoneutron that produced by two
main processes: interaction of photons with concrete
and photoneutron room-return effect that reduce the
energy of photoneutrons to the range of thermal
photoneutrons energies.
Photoneutron source strength, QN, is defined as
total photoneutron produced by linac when a
medium at the isocentre absorbs 1 Gy photon dose.
QN for different models of accelerators has been
published in the literature(13). From equation (1) it is
obvious that total photoneutron fluence depends
directly on QN and inversely room surface area.
Facure et al. studied photoneutron spectra in a treatment room and found that increase of 33 and 140 %
in room surface area can lead to 25 and 55 %
decrease in total photoneutron fluence, respectively(5). Hence, it can be concluded that the design
of treatment room can influence the photoneutron
fluence and subsequently received photoneutron
dose. The generated photoneutron spectra are composed of two components: the evaporation and
direct spectrum, which can be explained differentially by the following formula(12):


dN
0:8929En
En

exp
dEn
T2
T
0:1071 LnEmax =En 7:34
Emax 7:34
LnEmax =En 7:34 dEn
0

# The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Downloaded from rpd.oxfordjournals.org at TABRIZ University of Medical Sciences on September 17, 2010

Asghar Mesbahi1,2,*, Hosein Ghiasi1 and Seyed Rabee Mahdavi3

1
Medical Physics Department, Medical School, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. Tabriz, Iran
2
Radiation Therapy Department, Imam Hospital, Tabriz, Iran
3
Medical Physics Department, Medical School, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

PHOTONEUTRON AND CAPTURE GAMMA DOSE EQUIVALENT

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MC simulation
The MCNPX MC code (2.4.0) was used to simulate
the 18 MV photon beam of Varian 2100 C/D linac
and four treatment rooms(21). The MCNPX is a
general purpose MC code that can transport
electron, photon and photoneutron or coupled
electron photon photoneutron. Additionally, it is
possible to simulate the photoneutron generation
from photon interactions and capture gamma from
photoneutron interactions with materials found in
linac head and treatment room. The LA150U
library file of MCNPX code was used for photoneutron production through the entire simulation
process(21). Main parts of linacs head including
target, primary collimator, flattening filter and secondary collimator jaws were simulated using data
provided by linac manufacturer (Figure 1). The radiation beam was pointing downward for all simulations. The model was validated by comparing the
calculated and measured percent depth dose and
beam profiles. The modelling procedure was in
accordance with other published works on linac MC
modelling(6,22 26).

Figure 1. The schematic representation of the simulated

head of Varian 2100 C/D Clinac. Dark grey (tungsten)
and mid-grey (lead).

Application of full MC model of linac to perform

photoneutron calculations for different points in a
treatment room and maze requires a long run time
and the results are associated with unacceptable statistical uncertainty (more than 10 %). To speed up
the MC calculations for point dose calculations
within the maze, the full model was run and QN
value (n Gy21) and photoneutron spectra around the
head were calculated. Then, the MC-calculated QN
was used for other MC calculations which will be
explained later. Using these data, an isotropic photoneutron source was defined at the target position
and linac head was removed from treatment room
geometry. Using isotropic photoneutron source, the
photoneutron dose was calculated at three points
which can be seen in Figure 2. In each point, a
sphere with the diameter of 10 cm was defined and
the filled with water. The photoneutrons deposited
energy was calculated in terms of million electronvolt per gram per initial neutron. By multiplying the
MC-calculated photoneutron dose by QN value, the
photoneutron dose at different points in terms of
dose per gray X-ray at the isocentre was calculated.
For QN value calculation, photon-absorbed dose
was calculated in a 505050 cm3 water phantom
at the dmax of 3.3 cm and source to axis distance of
100 cm. The jaws were set to produce field size of
1010 cm at the isocentre. Then, for photoneutron
fluence calculation, a sphere with the radius of 100
cm was defined around the linac head and the
number of photoneutron crossed the sphere was calculated using F2 tally (scores the flux across a
surface) for photoneutrons in terms of number of
photoneutrons per square centimetre(21). For photoneutron fluence calculation, collimator jaws were
fully closed. It was adopted from the methods
used for QN value measurements(13). By multiplying

243

Downloaded from rpd.oxfordjournals.org at TABRIZ University of Medical Sciences on September 17, 2010

First part of equation (2) denotes the evaporation

component of spectra which dominates in low energies,
and second part is the direct photoneutron spectrum.
In this equation, T is the nuclear temperature (in MeV)
and Emax is the maximum energy of photons (MeV).
Low-energy photoneutrons produce capture gamma
rays by (n,g) interactions and increase the undesirable
dose received by both patients and staff(4,14,15). Monte
Carlo (MC) methods have been used as a valuable tool
for calculations of photon and photoneutron shielding
in radiation therapy(5,9,16 19). Zabihzadeh et al. found
that a simplified MC model can be used as a substitute
for Kersey analytical method for photoneutron dose
equivalent at the maze(19). A recent study proposed a
new empirical formula for photoneutron dose at the
maze entrance and found that the proposed formula
works better than IAEA-recommended formula of
WuMcGinley(20). But the practical use of the proposed formula showed discrepancies for other linac
models. However, it can be concluded from previous
studies that analytical methods for the photoneutron
dose calculations do not provide very accurate results
in comparison with measurements and MC methods
and in most cases the overestimation of the results has
been reported(12).
In the current work, the effect of room and maze
geometry on the photoneutron and capture gamma
ray dose equivalent were studied using MC methods,
and the results were compared with the recommended analytical methods of IAEA report
no.47.

A. MESBAHI ET AL.

the photoneutron fluence by surface of scoring

surface, the number of photoneutrons per initial
electron (n/e) was calculated. The n/e value was
multiplied by the number of initial electrons needed
to produce 1 Gy photon dose and the QN value was
obtained. The same method was used for capture
gamma dose calculations except that the F6 tally
(energy deposition in terms of million electronvolt)
of photons were defined in tally card(21). The statistical uncertainty of MC results was ,10 % in its
worst case for points 3 in rooms 3 and 4 and it
reduced to ,5 % for rooms 1 and 2.
In full MC runs for QN calculations, biased
photonuclear production was enabled by setting
forth entry of PHYS:P card (which controls the
energy and physical aspect of simulated photons) to
1 to speed up the calculation of photoneutron
spectra(6,21,27,28). Additionally, because the threshold
energy of photoneutron reactions for the main components of linac is higher than 7 MeV(2,7,29), for
photoneutron simulations the energy cut-off of 7
MeV was used for both electrons and photons. For
photon-absorbed dose calculations at dmax, the
photon and electron energy cut-offs were set to be
10 and 500 keV, respectively. Capture gamma dose
calculations was performed in a separate run and
the energy cut-off for photons and electrons was
inactivated to score full energy range of capture

gammas produced in different radiotherapy rooms

(Figure 3).

Rooms layouts
To study the effect of room geometry on photoneutron fluence and photoneutron dose, four different
room layouts with ordinary concrete with the density
of 2.35 g cm23 and the dimensions of 673.5 m3
were simulated. The height and width of maze for
all layouts was 3.65 and 2 m, respectively, except
layout 4. The width of the maze was considered 4 m
for layout 4. Figure 2 shows the layout of rooms and
locations for which calculations were performed.
Three spherical cells with 10 cm radius and the
material of water were simulated so that one of them
located at the maze entrance door (cell 3) and the
others was positioned at the distances of 350 cm (cell
2) and 700 cm (cell 1) from the maze entrance door
(Figure 2).

Analytical methods
We used two analytical methods, which were proposed by two studies(15,30) and also recommended
by IAEA 47 for photoneutron dose calculations in
four layouts.

244

Downloaded from rpd.oxfordjournals.org at TABRIZ University of Medical Sciences on September 17, 2010

Figure 2. Treatment rooms layouts used in the current study.

PHOTONEUTRON AND CAPTURE GAMMA DOSE EQUIVALENT

(1) Wu and McGinley method for a single-bend

maze(15) expresses exponential attenuation of
photoneutrons and was applied for rooms 1 and 2:

Dn 2:4  1015  wA 

r
Ar
 1:64
S1

 10d2 =1:9 10d2 =TN

H 5:7  1016  w1  10d2 =6:2

3

where Dn is the photoneutron equivalent dose at the

maze entrance (in Sv/Gy) and A and S are cross-sectional areas (in m2) of inner maze entrance and the
maze, respectively. d1 and d2 are distance from isocentre to the point 1 in and distance from point 1 to the
outer entrance of maze (Figure 1). In the current calculations, The wA was derived from formula (1) with
QN value of 1.21012 (n/Gy X-ray), which was recommended for Varian 2100 linac.(13,31)
(2) McGinley method for maze with an additional
bend(32): for a maze with additional bend,
McGinley et al. proposed a method which is as
follows:
   2
A
1

10d2 =5
S
d2
 
1
 10d3 =5 
3

(3) To determine the dose of capture gamma rays,

the proposed method by Wu McGinley was
used(12):

Dn H1  103 

where d2 and d3 are length of first and second

bending (in m). This method was used in calculations for rooms 3 and 4.

where w1 is total photoneutron fluence in location

1 and d2 is the maze length (in m) and H is in terms
of Gy per photon dose (Gy) at the isocentre.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Photoneutron dose
The MC-calculated QN was 1.31012 n Gy21 for
our linac model and used for other MC calculation
in the current study. This value is close to previously
reported value of 1.21012 n Gy21 by Mao et al.(33)
for the same linac. However, a recent study by
Followill et al.(13) has reported the value of
0.961012 (n Gy21). The differences can be attributed to several influencing factors such as uncertainties of the measurement methods as well as
differences in used MC codes and simulated
geometries.
Photoneutron dose equivalent in three locations in
four rooms was calculated by MC and analytical
methods and were shown in Table 1. The equivalent
dose from capture gamma rays at these locations
was calculated by both MC and equation (5) and
the results were tabulated in Table 2.
For single-bend rooms, 1 and 2, it is seen that
analytical method was not sensitive to the primary
barriers configuration but the MC results differed

245

Downloaded from rpd.oxfordjournals.org at TABRIZ University of Medical Sciences on September 17, 2010

Figure 3. Photoneutron spectra at the distance of 1 m from the target derived from full simulated linac without room.

A. MESBAHI ET AL.
Table 1. Photoneutron dose equivalent in different layouts for three points including a point at the maze entrance door,
a point in the middle of the maze and a point at the inner maze entrance.
Location

Photoneutron dose equivalent (mSv/Gy)

Wu and
McGinely

MCNPX

Difference (%)

2.45E202
1.69E203
2.54E204

2.20E202+2.71E204
1.26E203+5.34E205
2.20E204+1.55E206

10
34
13

2.45E202
1.69E203
2.54E204

2.23E202+2.71E204
1.01E203+9.16E205
2.20E204+1.55E206

7
40
13

9.78E203
1.69E203
1.79E207

8.16E203+1.03E205
5.51E204+4.96E206
1.34E207+3.57E209

16
67
25

9.78E203
1.69E203
1.79E207

8.64E203+2.38E205
7.86E204+1.02E205
1.02E207+1.02E208

11
53
43

Table 2. Capture gamma dose equivalent different layouts

for three points including a point at the maze entrance door,
a point in the middle of the maze and a point at the inner
maze entrance.
Location

Capture gamma dose equivalent (mSv/Gy)

Wu and
McGinley

Room 1
1
2
3
Room 2
1
2
3
Room 3
1
2
3
Room 4
1
2
3

MCNPX

Difference
(%)

2.78E203 2.01E203+2.3E205
4.40E204 4.24E204+5.01E205
1.17E204 9.81E205+9.95E207

27
22
16

2.78E203 1.81E203+2.01E205
4.40E204 4.34E204+5.21E205
1.17E204 9.98E205+9.95E207

34
13
17

2.78E203 2.01E203+2.3E205
4.40E204 3.59E204+5.61E206
1.17E204 8.59E206+8.90E208

27
18
86

2.78E203 2.01E203+2.3E205
4.40E204 3.02E204+3.85E206
1.17E204 5.62E206+5.96E208

27
31
95

slightly for two rooms due to the location of

primary walls. On the other hand, difference
between analytical methods and MC method was
higher for point 2 in the middle of maze for both
rooms and reached to the maximum of 40 %.
Comparing rooms 3 and 4, the results of analytical
method are similar but the MC results are different

for both rooms which note the capability of MC

method in taking into account the geometric
differences.
For all rooms, the values estimated by the MC
method were higher than the analytical methods at
point 1, but for points 2 and 3 the analytical
methods overestimated the photoneutron dose equivalent in the maze when compared with the MC
method.
According to the Table 1, photoneutron dose
equivalent at point 3 in the rooms 3 and 4 is significantly lower than others due to additional bending.
One 908 bending at the outer end of maze can
increase photoneutron collisions in the maze and
reduce the photoneutron dose in the maze entrance
door. It is seen from Table 1 that the existence of
one additional bend can reduce the photoneutron
dose equivalent at the maze entrance door by a
factor of 5000. For comparison purpose, the MC
data were depicted in Figure 4 which shows the
MC-calculated photoneutron and capture gamma
dose equivalent for all treatment rooms. Figure 4a
shows that photoneutron dose is the lowest for room
4 at the maze entrance door.
Capture gamma dose equivalent was also calculated using Wu McGinley and MC methods and
the results were tabulated in Table 2. For rooms 1
and 2, the analytical method overestimated the
capture gamma dose up to 34 % when compared
with MC calculations. For rooms 3 and 4 with
additional bend, the amount of overestimation does
not change for points 1 and 2, but reaches to 95 %
at the maze entrance door ( point 3). The formula
proposed by Wu McGinley was derived from

246

Downloaded from rpd.oxfordjournals.org at TABRIZ University of Medical Sciences on September 17, 2010

Room 1
1
2
3
Room 2
1
2
3
Room 3
1
2
3
Room 4
1
2
3

McGinley

PHOTONEUTRON AND CAPTURE GAMMA DOSE EQUIVALENT

measurements that were carried out on seven vaults

and photon beams from 15 to 25 MeV(15). A significant overestimation of their formula was observed
for one case, a 20 MeV Varian 2300 C/D linac.
However, they did not mentioned to that case in
their article.
Layout of treatment room and maze can considerably influence the production of photoneutrons and
capture gamma rays at the maze entrance door by
increasing in multiple scattering of photoneutrons
and reduction of photoneutrons energy. Figure 4b
shows that the additional bend causes considerable
attenuation for capture gamma rays and reduces its
dose almost 50 times. Considering the layouts 1 and
2, the obtained MC results revealed that the location
of primary walls can cause a slight variation in
photoneutron and capture gamma dose at the maze
for single-bend geometries. For layout 3 and 4,
additional bend resulted in significant photoneutron
and capture gamma reduction which has also not

CONCLUSION
In the current study the photoneutron and capture
gamma dose were calculated by MC and recommended analytical methods in four different
room layouts. Our results showed that the analytical
methods either for single- or double-bend mazes
overestimate the dose at the maze entrance door significantly for both photoneutrons and capture
gamma rays. Moreover, additional bend caused a
significant reduction in both photoneutron and
capture gamma dose equivalents. It can be concluded that room and maze layouts have significant
effects on maze received photoneutrons and capture
gamma rays. This should be considered in

247

Downloaded from rpd.oxfordjournals.org at TABRIZ University of Medical Sciences on September 17, 2010

Figure 4. MCNPX calculated photoneutron and capture

gamma dose equivalent for three points in the maze of four
studied layouts. (a) Photoneutron dose equivalent. (b)
Capture gamma dose equivalent.

been taken into account in the proposed analytical

method.
Our results showed that MC calculations were sensitive to the layout variations in all studied rooms
and can be used as a reliable method for photoneutron dose calculations in complex radiotherapy room
layouts. The authors believe that the proposed
analytical methods used in the current study were
originated from experimental measurement, or MC
simulations do not consider intrinsically the location
of primary and secondary barrier positions and also
thickness in different layouts as well as layout of the
maze such as single- or double-bend types. While,
the MC method considers all geometrical details of
layouts and the more accurate results can be
acquired by transport of all particles through the
proposed geometries. It is noteworthy to mention
that the accuracy of the MC should be benchmarked
through the measurements. However, in the current
study, based on the previous studies(9,16 18,20) on the
MC method and accepting our MC model to be
reliable for calculation, it is anticipated that the MC
results are more accurate than the analytical
methods.
In an MC study using MCNP5 code, photoneutron dose was calculated at the maze for 14 singlebend rooms with different linacs. Falcao et al.(17)
found great discrepancy between MC results and
semi-empirical method of Kersey. Additionally, their
results indicated that the Kersey method underestimates the photoneutron dose at the maze entrance
door irrespective of photon beam energy and linac
model.
At last, it should be noted that for all our simulations and calculations, the radiation beam was
pointed downward. So, if the primary beam direction was changed, for example, towards the maze
wall, the accuracy of analytical methods might be
different when compared with the current study.
However, this issue can be considered as a potential
for future study on photoneutron dose calculations
in radiotherapy rooms.

A. MESBAHI ET AL.

14.

FUNDING

16.

This study was supported financially by research

affairs of Tabriz University of Medical sciences as a
part of MSc thesis for Medical Physics No.87/2-1/5.

17.

15.

REFERENCES
1. Allen, P. D. and Chaudhri, M. A. The dose contribution due to photonuclear reactions during radiotherapy. Med. Phys. 9(6), 904 906 (1982).
2. Vanhavere, F., Huyskens, D. and Struelens, L.
Peripheral neutron and gamma doses in radiotherapy
with an 18 MV linear accelerator. Radiat. Prot. Dosim.
110(1 4), 607612 (2004).
3. Zanini, A. et al. Monte Carlo simulation of the photoneutron field in linac radiotherapy treatments with different collimation systems. Phys. Med. Biol. 49(4),
571 582 (2004).
4. Attix, F. H., Rank, E. X., August, L. S., Miller, G. E.
and Shapiro, P. A shielding maze at a neutron radiotherapy facility. Health Phys. 31(1), 78 80 (1976).
5. Facure, A., da Silva, A. X. and Falcao, R. C. Monte
Carlo simulation of scattered and thermal photoneutron
fluences inside a radiotherapy room. Radiat. Prot.
Dosim. 123(1), 5661 (2007).
6. Mesbahi, A. A Monte Carlo study on neutron and electron contamination of an unflattened 18-MV photon
beam. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 67(1), 5560 (2009).
7. Waller, E. J., Jamieson, T. J., Cole, D., Cousins, T. and
Jammal, R. B. Experimental and computational determination of neutron dose equivalent around radiotherapy
accelerators. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 107(4), 225232
(2003).
8. Zanini, A., Durisi, E., Fasolo, F., Visca, L., Ongaro,
C., Nastasi, U., Burn, K. W. and Annand, J. R.
Neutron spectra in a tissue equivalent phantom during
photon radiotherapy treatment by LINACS. Radiat.
Prot. Dosim. 110(1 4), 157160 (2004).
9. Facure, A. and Silva, A. X. The use of high-density
concretes in radiotherapy treatment room design. Appl.
Radiat. Isot. (2007).
10. Waller, E. J., Jamieson, T. J., Cole, D., Cousins, T. and
Jammal, R. B. Effectiveness of customised neutron
shielding in the maze of radiotherapy accelerators.
Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 107(4), 233 238 (2003).
11. McCall, R. C. Shielding for thermal neutrons. Med
Phys. 24(1), 135136 (1997).
12. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Radiation protection in the design of radiotherapy facilities. Safety Reports series No. 47 (IAEA, Vienna)
2006.
13. Followill, D. S., Stovall, M. S., Kry, S. F. and Ibbott,
G. S. Neutron source strength measurements for

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.
27.

28.

248

Varian, Siemens, Elekta, and General Electric linear

accelerators. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 4(3), 189194
(2003).
McGinley, P. H., Miner, M. S. and Mitchum, M. L. A
method for calculating the dose due to capture gamma
rays in accelerator mazes. Phys. Med Biol. 40(9),
14671473 (1995).
Wu, R. K. and McGinley, P. H. Neutron and capture
gamma along the mazes of linear accelerator vaults.
J. Appl. Clin. Med Phys. 4(2), 162 171 (2003).
Carinou, E., Kamenopoulou, V. and Stamatelatos,
I. E. Evaluation of neutron dose in the maze of medical
electron accelerators. Med. Phys. 26(12), 25202525
(1999).
Falcao, R. C., Facure, A. and Silva, A. X. Neutron
dose calculation at the maze entrance of medical linear
accelerator rooms. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 123(3),
283 287 (2007).
Kim, H. S., Park, Y. H., Koo, B. C., Kwon, J. W., Lee,
J. S. and Choi, H. S. Evaluation of the photoneutron
field produced in a medical linear accelerator. Radiat.
Prot. Dosim. 123(3), 323328 (2007).
Zabihzadeh, M., Ay, M. R., Allahverdi, M., Mesbahi,
A., Mahdavi, S. R. and Shahriari, M. Monte Carlo
estimation of photoneutrons contamination from highenergy X-ray medical accelerators in treatment room
and maze: a simplified model. Radiat. Prot. Dosim.
135(1), 2132 (2009).
Kim, H. S., Jang, K. W., Park, Y. H., Kwon, J. W.,
Choi, H. S., Lee, J. K. and Kim, J. K. New empirical
formula for neutron dose level at the maze entrance of
15 MV medical accelerator facilities. Med. Phys. 36(5),
15121520 (2009).
Walter, L. S. Monte Carlo N-particle transport code
system for multiparticle and high energy applications,
version 2.40 (Los Alamos: Los Alamos National
Laboratory) (2002).
Mesbahi, A., Fix, M., Allahverdi, M., Grein, E. and
Garaati, H. Monte Carlo calculation of Varian 2300C/D
Linac photon beam characteristics: a comparison between
MCNP4C, GEANT3 and measurements. Appl. Radiat.
Isot. 62(3), 469477 (2005).
Mesbahi, A., Reilly, A.J. and Thwaites, D.I.
Development and commissioning of a Monte Carlo
photon beam model for Varian Clinac 2100EX linear
accelerator. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 64(6), 656 662 (2006).
Mesbahi, A. Dosimetric characteristics of unflattened 6
MV photon beams of a clinical linear accelerator: a
Monte Carlo study. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 65(9),
10291036 (2007).
Mesbahi, A., Mehnati, P., Keshtkar, A. and
Farajollahi, A. Dosimetric properties of a flattening
filter-free 6-MV photon beam: a Monte Carlo study.
Radiat. Med. 25(7), 315 324 (2007).
Mesbahi, A. and Nejad, F. S. Monte Carlo study on a
flattening filter-free 18-MV photon beam of a medical
linear accelerator. Radiat. Med. 26(6), 331 336 (2008).
Ghavami, S.-M., Mesbahi, A. and Mohammadi, E.
The impact of automatic wedge filter on photoneutron
and photon spectra of an 18-MV photon beam. Radiat.
Prot. Dosim. 138(2), 123128 (2010).
Mesbahi, A., Keshtkar, A., Mohammadi, E. and
Mohammadzadeh, M. Effect of wedge filter and field
size on photoneutron dose equivalent for an 18MV

Downloaded from rpd.oxfordjournals.org at TABRIZ University of Medical Sciences on September 17, 2010

developing and optimising new analytical methods.

Despite the analytical methods, the MC method
showed its sensitivity to the geometric variations in
the studied geometries. Consequently, it is suggested
that the studied analytical methods can be used as
approximate estimators for photoneutron and
capture gamma dose calculations.

PHOTONEUTRON AND CAPTURE GAMMA DOSE EQUIVALENT

Neutron production from a mobile linear accelerator
operating in electron mode for intraoperative
radiation therapy. Phys. Med Biol. 51(3), 695 702
(2006).
32. McGinley, P. H. Shielding techniques for radiation
oncology facilities (Madison, WI: Medical Physics
Publishing) (1998).
33. Mao, X. S., Kase, K. R., Liu, J. C., Nelson, W. R.,
Kleck, J. H. and Johnsen, S. Neutron sources in
the Varian Clinac *C/*C medical accelerator calculated
by the EGS4 code. Health Phys. 72(4), 524 529
(1997).

249

Downloaded from rpd.oxfordjournals.org at TABRIZ University of Medical Sciences on September 17, 2010

photon beam of a medical linear accelerator. Appl.

Radiat. Isot. 68(1), 8489 (2010).
29. Rivera, J. C., Falcao, R. C. and Dealmeida, C. E. The
measurement of photoneutron dose in the vicinity of
clinical linear accelerators. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 130(4),
403 409 (2008).
30. McGinley, P. H. and Butker, E. K. Evaluation of
neutron dose equivalent levels at the maze entrance of
medical accelerator treatment rooms. Med. Phys. 18(2),
279 281 (1991).
31. Loi, G., Dominietto, M., Cannillo, B., Ciocca, M.,
Krengli, M., Mones, E., Negri, E. and Brambilla, M.