• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.218-224
• /
• 2003

Purpose：By evaluating the dependence of the tray transmission factor (tray factor) on collimator setting and tray thickness, we determined the validity of the clinically used single tray factor for standard radiation field size (10${\times}$10 $\textrm{cm}^2$). Methods and Materials：For each X ray energies (6 and 10 MV), outputs were measured by using 5 steps of tray thickness (0, 6, 8, 10, 12 mm) and 7 steps of radiation field size (5${\times}$5, 10${\times}$10, 15${\times}$15, 20${\times}$20, 25${\times}$25, 30${\times}$30, 35${\times}$35 $\textrm{cm}^2$) at 10 cm phantom depth. Outputs were measured in both 'with tray' and 'without tray' conditions by using radiation with the same monitor units, and the tray factors were determined by the ratios of the two outputs. To evaluate the validity of a single tray factor obtained for standard radiation field, we analyzed the pattern of the field sizes in cases treated at our hospital in 2002. Results : In the 6 MV X-ray, the increases in the tray factor between the standard field (l0${\times}$10 $\textrm{cm}^2$) and the largest field (35${\times}$35 $\textrm{cm}^2$) were 0.517%, 0.835%, 1.058%, 1.066% in 6, 8, 10, and 12 mm thickness tray, respectively. In the 10 MV X-ray, the increases in the fray factor between the standard field (10${\times}$10 $\textrm{cm}^2$) and the largest field (35${\times}$35 $\textrm{cm}^2$) were 0.517%, 0.836%, 1.058%, 1.066% in 6, 8, 10, 12 mm thickness tray, respectively. In a major portion of clinical cases, when the field size was smaller than 20${\times}$20 $\textrm{cm}^2$, the tray factor was in good agreement with the standard tray factor. However, in cases where the field sizes were 30${\times}$30 $\textrm{cm}^2$ and 35${\times}$35 $\textrm{cm}^2$, the error could exceed 1.0%. Conclusion：The tray factor increased with increasing field size or decreasing tray thickness. The difference of tray factor between the small field and the large field increased with increasing tray thickness. Furthermore, the standard tray factor was valid in most clinical cases except for when the field size was greater than 30${\times}$30 $\textrm{cm}^2$, wherein the error could exceed 1.0%.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.1-7
• /
• 2005

Radiation absorption parameters of carbon fiber panel were measured in comparison to acrylic panel. $30{\times}30cm$ sized 2mm thick carbon fiber panel and identical sized 6mm thick acrylic panel were placed in tray holder position and 0cm, 5cm, 10cm from surface of phantom. Radiation field size was $10{\times}10cm$. 50MU of 4MV photon was irradiated to the phantom with dose rate of 300MU/min. Source-to-phantom distance was 120cm. Radiation dose was measured with 0.6cc Farmer-type ionization chamber with 1cm build-up. Measurement was repeated thrice and normalization was done to the dose of the open field. Radiation transmission rate of carbon fiber panel is approximately 1% lower than acrylic panel of equivalent thickness. However, considering the strength of the material, transmission rate is higher for carbon fiber panel. Although carbon fiber panel increases the radiation dose when attached to the surface for about 2%, it normalizes the radiation dose to 97-99% of irradiated dose which could have been lowered to as much as 5-7.5% with acrylic panel. As carbon fiber panel is stronger than acrylic panel, radiation fixation device could be made thinner and thus lighter and furthermore, with increased radiation transmission. This in turn makes carbon fiber more ideal material for radiation fixation device over conventionally used acrylic.