Developing a Novel Method for Photon Skyshine Dose Estimation in Radiation Therapy Facilities Compared to the NCRP151 Approach

M. Robatjazi, F. Koosha, M. Molazadeh

Abstract


This study aimed to enhance the accuracy of estimating photon beam skyshine dose rates by refining the National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) 151 method. Simulations were conducted using the MCNPX Monte Carlo (MC) code for 6, 10, and 18 MV photon beams of Varian 2300 C/D linear accelerators to estimate the skyshine dose rates of photon beams. The analytical methods of NCRP 151 and our proposed formulation were used to estimate the skyshine dose around the vault. The results of the three methods were compared and analyzed. Our modified method demonstrated improved accuracy compared to the NCRP method and agreed with the MC method under similar conditions and geometries for the linac photon beams. The ratio of skyshine dose rates calculated by NCRP 151 to MC simulation results ranged from 5.39 to 16.59 for 18 MV, 2.25 to 19.20 for 10 MV, and 3.33 to 22.50 for 6 MV linacs. However, employing our derived formula reduced these ratios to 0.91 to 1.22 for 18 MV, 0.92 to 1.10 for 10 MV, and 0.12 to 1.40 for 6 MV machines. Our modified method exhibited good agreement with MC modeling across various conditions. Application of the novel method in different situations and comparison with measurements are recommended for further use in radiation therapy and radiation protection calculations.

Keywords


Photon beam; skyshine dose rate; Radiation Protection

Full Text:

PDF

References


P. N. McDermott, J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 23 (2022) e13543.

R. Eghdam-Zamiri, H. Ghiasi, S. Keshavarz, Front. Biomed. Technol. 10 (2023) 161.

N. Rostampour, S. Jafari, M. Saeb et al., Int. J. Radiat. Res. 16 (2018) 499.

J. J. Brunette, Health Phys. 89 (2005) 183.

M. Bethesda, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements: Report No. 49. Bethesda, MD: NCPR (1998).

T. D. Cradduck, J. Nucl. Med. Technol. 6 (1978) 40.

K. J. Olsen, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements: Report No. 79. Bethesda, MD: NCPR (1986).

A. Putri, R. Zurma, R. Munir et al., Atom Indones. 49 (2023) 185.

A. Fisli, E. Yulianti, B. Hanurajie et al., Atom Indones. 49 (2023) 45.

P. Horton and D. Eaton, Design and Shielding of Radiotherapy Treatment Facilities, IPEM Report 75, IOP Publishing, Bristol (2017).

G. P. Glasgow, Med. Phys. 33 (2006) 3578.

E. de Paiva and L. A. da Rosa, J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 13 (2012) 215.

D. H. Elder, J. F. Harmon, T. B. Borak, Health. Phys. 99 (2010) 17.

N. E. Hertel, J. E. Sweezy, J. K. Shultis et al., Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 116 (2005) 252.

R. Hayes, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 111 (2004) 251.

C. Kong, Q. Li, H. Chen, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods. Phys. Res, B. 234 (2005) 269.

M. S. Gossman, P. H. McGinley, M. B. Rising, et al., J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 11 (2010) 259.

R. -D. Sheu, C. -S. Chui, S. -H. Jiang, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 68 (2003) 727.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.55981/aij.2026.1549



Copyright (c) 2026 Atom Indonesia

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.