Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Comparing two methods for calculating phantom scatter.

J McDonough1, Y Xiao, B E Bjärngard

  • 1Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104-4283, USA.

Physics in Medicine and Biology
|March 10, 1999
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A novel aqueous dimethyl trisulfide formulation is effective at low doses against cyanide toxicity in non-anesthetized mice and rats.

Clinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.)·2021
Same author

Erythropoietin Upregulates Brain Hemoglobin Expression and Supports Neuronal Mitochondrial Activity.

Molecular neurobiology·2018
Same author

Dysregulation of methionine metabolism in multiple sclerosis.

Neurochemistry international·2017
Same author

SU-E-T-299: Proton Pencil Beam Spot Scanning Phase Space in the IBA System and the Clinical Implications for Superficial Targets.

Medical physics·2017
Same author

SU-E-T-266: Shielding Measurements for a Proton Therapy Facility.

Medical physics·2017
Same author

SU-E-J-13: A Study to Establish the Effect of CBCT Image Rotational Displacement on IGRT and ART Lung SBRT Treatments.

Medical physics·2017
Same journal

Effective contrast-enhanced preprocessing for intracranial artery segmentation in digital subtraction angiography.

Physics in medicine and biology·2026
Same journal

Improving Plan Quality in Adaptive Proton Therapy Using an Interactive Dose Modification Tool.

Physics in medicine and biology·2026
Same journal

Technical Note: Real-Time MLC Control and Latency Measurement Optimization with External Verification.

Physics in medicine and biology·2026
Same journal

Fetus-Specific Hematopoietic Stem Cell Dosimetry Framework for Leukemia-Relevant Target Cells During Prenatal Development.

Physics in medicine and biology·2026
Same journal

Deep learning-based dose prediction to enhance planning efficiency in cervical brachytherapy with hybrid applicators.

Physics in medicine and biology·2026
Same journal

Corrigendum: Referenceless MR thermometry-a comparison of five methods (2017<i>Phys. Med. Biol</i>.<b>62</b>1-16).

Physics in medicine and biology·2026
See all related articles

Two methods for calculating x-ray beam phantom scatter were compared. The two-parameter model offers better accuracy for absolute scatter across depths and field sizes, especially for small fields, compared to the Gaussian model.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Physics
  • Radiotherapy Physics
  • Radiation Dosimetry

Background:

  • Accurate calculation of phantom scatter is crucial for radiotherapy dose determination.
  • Existing models for phantom scatter have limitations in characterizing field-size dependence.
  • Comparing different models is essential for improving dose calculation accuracy.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare two methods for calculating the field-size dependence of phantom scatter for x-ray beams.
  • To evaluate the accuracy and applicability of a Gaussian model versus a two-parameter model.
  • To assess model performance across various beam energies and field sizes.

Main Methods:

  • A three-Gaussian distribution model was compared with a two-parameter function model.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Model parameters were determined using beam quality measurements.
  • Model outputs were compared against each other and with Monte Carlo calculations.

    • Main Results:

    • Both models accurately reproduced relative phantom scatter.
    • The two-parameter model characterized absolute scatter as a function of depth and field size for all energies.
    • The Gaussian model characterized relative scatter at a single depth (10 cm).
    • The two-parameter model showed better agreement with Monte Carlo calculations for small field sizes.

    Conclusions:

    • The two-parameter model provides a more comprehensive characterization of phantom scatter, particularly for small fields.
    • Parameter determination methods for both models are feasible using beam quality measurements.
    • The two-parameter model is advantageous for absolute dose calculations in radiotherapy planning.