Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 21, Number 1, 2016

Safe bunker designing for the 18 MV Varian 2100 Clinac: a comparison between Monte Carlo simulation based upon data and new protocol recommendations

Manije Beigi, Fatemeh Afarande, Hosein Ghiasi

Summary:

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare two bunkers designed by only protocols recommendations and Monte Carlo (MC) based upon data derived for an 18 MV Varian 2100Clinac accelerator.

Background

High energy radiation therapy is associated with fast and thermal photoneutrons. Adequate shielding against the contaminant neutron has been recommended by IAEA and NCRP new protocols.

Materials and methods

The latest protocols released by the IAEA (safety report No. 47) and NCRP report No. 151 were used for the bunker designing calculations. MC method based upon data was also derived. Two bunkers using protocols and MC upon data were designed and discussed.

Results

From designed door's thickness, the door designed by the MC simulation and Wu–McGinley analytical method was closer in both BPE and lead thickness. In the case of the primary and secondary barriers, MC simulation resulted in 440.11 mm for the ordinary concrete, total concrete thickness of 1709 mm was required. Calculating the same parameters value with the recommended analytical methods resulted in 1762 mm for the required thickness using 445 mm as recommended by TVL for the concrete. Additionally, for the secondary barrier the thickness of 752.05 mm was obtained.

Conclusion

Our results showed MC simulation and the followed protocols recommendations in dose calculation are in good agreement in the radiation contamination dose calculation. Difference between the two analytical and MC simulation methods revealed that the application of only one method for the bunker design may lead to underestimation or overestimation in dose and shielding calculations.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2016; 21(1) : 42-49


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2