Determination of Initial Beam Parameters of Varian 2100 CD Linac for Various Therapeutic Electrons Using PRIMO

  • Maskani, Reza (Student Research Committee, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Tahmasebibirgani, Mohammad Javad (Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Hoseini-Ghahfarokhi, Mojtaba (Student Research Committee, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Fatahiasl, Jafar (Student Research Committee, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences)
  • Published : 2015.12.03


The aim of the present research was to establish primary characteristics of electron beams for a Varian 2100C/D linear accelerator with recently developed PRIMO Monte Carlo software and to verify relations between electron energy and dose distribution. To maintain conformity of simulated and measured dose curves within 1%/1mm, mean energy, Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) of energy and focal spot FWHM of initial beam were changed iteratively. Mean and most probable energies were extracted from validated phase spaces and compared with related empirical equation results. To explain the importance of correct estimation of primary energy on a clinical case, computed tomography images of a thorax phantom were imported in PRIMO. Dose distributions and dose volume histogram (DVH) curves were compared between validated and artificial cases with overestimated energy. Initial mean energies were obtained of 6.68, 9.73, 13.2 and 16.4 MeV for 6, 9, 12 and 15 nominal energies, respectively. Energy FWHM reduced with increase in energy. Three mm focal spot FWHM for 9 MeV and 4 mm for other energies made proper matches of simulated and measured profiles. In addition, the maximum difference of calculated mean electrons energy at the phantom surface with empirical equation was 2.2 percent. Finally, clear differences in DVH curves of validated and artificial energy were observed as heterogeneity indexes were 0.15 for 7.21 MeV and 0.25 for 6.68 MeV. The Monte Carlo model presented in PRIMO for Varian 2100 CD was precisely validated. IAEA polynomial equations estimated mean energy more accurately than a known linear one. Small displacement of R50 changed DVH curves and homogeneity indexes. PRIMO is a user-friendly software which has suitable capabilities to calculate dose distribution in water phantoms or computerized tomographic volumes accurately.


PRIMO;Monte Carlo simulation;validation;electron beam;energy FWHM


Supported by : Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences


  1. ICRU (2010). Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon- Beam Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT). Journal of the ICRU, 10, NP.
  2. IAEA (2000). Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: an international code of practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water, Internat. Atomic Energy Agency.
  3. Aubry J-F, Bouchard H, Bessieres I, et al (2011). Validation of an electron Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm in the presence of heterogeneities using EGSnrc and radiochromic film measurements. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 12.
  4. Bjork P, Knoos T, Nilsson P (2002). Influence of initial electron beam characteristics on Monte Carlo calculated absorbed dose distributions for linear accelerator electron beams. Physics in medicine and biology, 47, 4019.
  5. Capote R, Jeraj R, Ma C, et al (2006). Phase-space database for external beam radiotherapy. IAEA, Nucl. Data Sec. Report INDC (NDS)-0484, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.
  6. Chetty IJ, Curran B, Cygler JE, et al (2007). Report of the AAPM Task Group No. 105: Issues associated with clinical implementation of Monte Carlo-based photon and electron external beam treatment planning. Medical Physics, 34, 4818.
  7. Conneely E, Alexander A, Stroian G, et al (2013). An investigation into the use of MMCTP to tune accelerator source parameters and testing its clinical application. J App Clinical Medical Physics, 14.
  8. Connell T, Alexander A, Evans M, et al (2012). An experimental feasibility study on the use of scattering foil free beams for modulated electron radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol, 57, 3259-72.
  9. Das IJ, Cheng C-W, Watts RJ, et al (2008). Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM. Medical physics, 35, 4186-215.
  10. Deng J, Jiang SB, Pawlicki T, et al (2001). Derivation of electron and photon energy spectra from electron beam central axis depth dose curves. Phys Med Biol, 46, 1429-49.
  11. Ding G, Rogers D, Mackie T (1996). Mean energy, energy range relationships and depth scaling factors for clinical electron beams. Medical physics, 23, 361-76.
  12. Faddegon BA, Sawkey D, O'Shea T, et al (2009). Treatment head disassembly to improve the accuracy of large electron field simulation. Medical physics, 36, 4577.
  13. Gerbi BJ, Antolak JA, Deibel FC, et al (2009). Recommendations for clinical electron beam dosimetry: Supplement to the recommendations of Task Group 25. Medical physics, 36, 3239-79.
  14. Hogstrom KR, Almond PR (2006). Review of electron beam therapy physics. Phys Med Biol, 51, 455-89.
  15. Huang VW, Seuntjens J, Devic S, et al (2005). Experimental determination of electron source parameters for accurate Monte Carlo calculation of large field electron therapy. Physics in medicine and biology, 50, 779.
  16. ICRU RD (1984). Electron beams with energies between 1 and 50 MeV. ICRU Report, 35.
  17. Karzmark C, Nunan CS, Tanabe E 1993. Medical electron accelerators, McGraw-Hill.
  18. Keall PJ, Siebers JV, Libby B, et al (2003). Determining the incident electron fluence for Monte Carlo-based photon treatment planning using a standard measured data set. Medical physics, 30, 574.
  19. Khan FM, Doppke KP, Hogstrom KR, et al (1991). Clinical electron beam dosimetry: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 25 tg. Medical Physics, 18, 73-109.
  20. Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, et al (2009). Task Group 142 report: Quality assurance of medical acceleratorsa). Medical physics, 36, 4197-212.
  21. Ojala J, Hyodynmaa S, Baranczyk R, et al (2014). Performance of two commercial electron beam algorithms over regions close to the lung-mediastinum interface, against Monte Carlo simulation and point dosimetry in virtual and anthropomorphic phantoms. Physica Medica, 30, 147-54.
  22. Rodriguez M, Sempau J, Brualla L (2013). PRIMO: A graphical environment for the Monte Carlo simulation of Varian and Elekta linacs. Strahlentherapie Onkologie, 189, 881-6.
  23. Rogers D, Faddegon B, Ding G, et al (1995). BEAM: A Monte Carlo code to simulate radiotherapy treatment units. Medical physics, 22, 503.
  24. Sawkey D, Faddegon B (2009). Determination of electron energy, spectral width, and beam divergence at the exit window for clinical megavoltage x-ray beams. Medical Physics, 36, 698.
  25. Shimozato T, Okudaira K, Fuse H, et al (2013). Monte Carlo simulation and measurement of radiation leakage from applicators used in external electron radiotherapy. Physica Medica, 29, 388-96.
  26. Sorcini BB, Hyodynmaa S, Brahme A (1997). Quantification of mean energy and photon contamination for accurate dosimetry of high-energy electron beams. Phys Med Biol, 42, 1849-73.
  27. Tanabe E, Hamm RW (1985). Compact multi-energy electron linear accelerators. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 10, 871-6.
  28. Weinberg R, Antolak JA, Starkschall G, et al (2009). Influence of source parameters on large-field electron beam profiles calculated using Monte Carlo methods. Phys Med Biol, 54, 105.