252Cf Mixed-Field Dosimetry for a Variety of Source Geometries and Phantom Materials for Clinical Brachytherapy

Comparison of Measurements and Calculations
  • Mark J. Rivard
  • Mark Yudelev
  • Frank Van den Heuvel
  • Jacek G. Wierzbicki
  • Rodger C. Martin
  • Robert R. McMahon


The purpose of this study was to compare experimental and calculated mixed-field dosimetry results for 252Cf Applicator Tube (AT) neutron emitting brachytherapy sources. This subject has not been critically examined in many years,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and is timely as Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is now able to fabricate AT sources, and eventually high dose rate (HDR) clinical sources, which would increase availability of high LET radiation sources. 252Cf is unique as it has fast neutrons of relatively low energy and an appreciable photon dose component. Ion chambers and a GM counter were used to measure the total and photon dose, respectively, close to 252Cf AT type sources. A brachytherapy dosimetry protocol was formulated similar to the external beam neutron formalism of ICRU 45. Comparisons of experimental dosimetry were made with results of Colvett et al.4 Neutron kerma in a variety of materials and for various source geometries was calculated using Monte Carlo (MCNP)7 methods and compared with other neutron sources.8


Neutron Source Photon Dose Neutron Dosimetry 252Cf Neutron Applicator Tube 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C.C. Schlea, and D.H. Stoddard, Californium isotopes proposed for intracavitary and interstitial radiation therapy with neutrons, Nature, 206:1058–1059, 1965.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. Krishnaswamy, Calculation of the dose distribution about 252Cf needles in tissue, Radiol, 98:155–160, 1971.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. Krishnaswamy, Calculated depth dose tables for 252Cf sources in tissue, Phys. Med. Biol., 17:56–63, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R.D. Colvett, H.H. Rossi, and V. Krishnaswamy, Dose distribution around a 252Cf needle, Phys. Med. Biol., 17:356–364, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    L.L. Anderson, Status of dosimetry for 252Cf medical neutron sources, Phys. Med. Biol., 18:779–799, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    L.L. Anderson, 252Cf physics and dosimetry, Nuc. Sci. App., 2:273–281, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.F. Briesmeister, Monte Carlo N-Particle transport code system, in: “MCNP4B User’s Manual,” LANL, Los Alamos, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Awschalom, I. Rosenberg, and A. Mravca, Kerma for various substances averaged over the energy spectra of fast neutron therapy beams: a study in uncertainties, Med. Phys., 10:395–409, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    V.E. Lewis, and J.B. Hunt, Fast neutron sensitivities of Geiger-Mueller counter gamma dosemeters, Phys. Med. Biol., 23:888–893, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    G.F. Knoll, “General properties of radiation detectors,” in Radiation detection and measurement 2nd edition (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1989), pp. 103–130.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Geist, A. Beguelin, J. Dongarra, W. Jiang, R. Manchek, and V. Sunderam. “PVM: Parallel Virtual Machine- A User’s Guide and Tutorial for Networked Parallel Computing,” The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Gastorf, L. Humphries, and M. Rozenfeld, Cylindrical chamber dimensions and the corresponding values of AWALL and NGAS/(NxAion), Med. Phys., 13:751–754, 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    L.J. Goodman, and J.J. Coyne, Wn and neutron kerma for methane-based tissue-equivalent gas, Radiat. Res., 83:491, 1980.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F.M. Waterman, FT. Kuchnir, L.S. Skaggs, R.T Kouzes, and W.H. Moore, Energy dependence of the neutron sensitivity of C-CO2, Mg-Ar, and TE-TE ionisation chambers, Phys. Med. Biol., 24:721, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Zoetelief, C.A. Engels, J.J. Broerse, and B.J. Mijnheer, Effect of finite size of ion chambers used for neutron dosimetry, Phys. Med. Biol., 25:1121, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D.T.L. Jones, The neutron sensitivity of a GM counter between 0.5 and 8 MeV, in: “Radiation Protection, 4th Symposium on Neutron Dosimetry,” edited by G. Burger and H.G. Erbert ed., EUR 7448, Munich, 1981, pp. 409–419.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    V.E. Lewis and J.B. Hunt, Fast neutron sensitivities of Geiger-Mueller counter gamma dosemeters, Phys. Med. BioL, 23:888–893, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark J. Rivard
    • 1
  • Mark Yudelev
    • 2
  • Frank Van den Heuvel
    • 2
  • Jacek G. Wierzbicki
    • 3
  • Rodger C. Martin
    • 4
  • Robert R. McMahon
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Radiation OncologyTufts University School of Medicine, New England Medical Center #246BostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiation OncologyWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  3. 3.Cancer Treatment CenterSaint Mary’s Medical CenterSaginawUSA
  4. 4.Radiochemical Engineering Development Center, Chemical Technology DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA

Personalised recommendations