Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective: FLASH radiotherapy requires ultra-high dose rates (>40 Gy/s), yet commercial treatment planning systems are currently unavailable. Monte Carlo (MC) simulation offers high transport accuracy, but full-head modeling for every setup is computationally prohibitive. This work establishes a methodology for generating pulse-width-specific phase-space files for the Mobetron UHDR (9 MeV), accounting for systematic beam quality shifts caused by RF waveguide loading across pulse widths of 1.2-4.0 μs. Approach: Using GAMOS 6.2.0 MC simulations, voxelized dose distributions were post-processed via an iterative script to refine source-level parameters against experimental targets. Mean energy was optimized by matching phantom-measured R50, while energy spread was refined using surface dose and build-up gradients. Relationships derived from a mid-range 6 cm applicator were applied across clinical apertures (2.5-10 cm) to test aperture-independence. The geometric mean of experimental pulse widths (2.28 μs) was evaluated as a single reference condition. Main Results: Phase space files were generated across pulse widths and apertures. For the A6I6 reference, mean energy decreased monotonically from 9.58±0.24 to 9.04±0.24 MeV with pulse width, best described by a logarithmic model (LOO-RMSE=0.033 MeV). Energy spread increased linearly from 0.173±0.020 to 0.287±0.020 MeV (LOO-RMSE=0.005 MeV). Cross-aperture validation confirmed these shifts occur upstream of collimation. Evaluating the 2.28 μs reference predicted 9.30 MeV mean energy and 0.215 MeV energy spread, yielding depth-dose deviations ≤1.3 mm across experimental extremes and satisfying AAPM TG-106 tolerances (≤2.0 mm). Significance: This work provides pulse-width-specific phase-space characterization for Mobetron FLASH commissioning. Cross-validated regression models enable beam parameter prediction within 1.2-4.0 μs, and the 2.28 μs reference phase space streamlines routine planning while maintaining clinical accuracy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carballeira et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: