• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.193-200
• /
• 2015

The aim of this study is to present commissioning results of the ViewRay system. We verified safety functions of the ViewRay system. For imaging system, we acquired signal to noise ratio (SNR) and image uniformity. In addition, we checked spatial integrity of the image. Couch movement accuracy and coincidence of isocenters (radiation therapy system, imaging system and virtual isocneter) was verified. Accuracy of MLC positioing was checked. We performed reference dosimetry according to American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 51 (TG-51) in water phantom for head 1 and 3. The deviations between measurements and calculation of percent depth dose (PDD) and output factor were evaluated. Finally, we performed gamma evaluations with a total of 8 IMRT plans as an end-to-end (E2E) test of the system. Every safety system of ViewRay operated properly. The values of SNR and Uniformity met the tolerance level. Every point within 10 cm and 17.5 cm radii about the isocenter showed deviations less than 1 mm and 2 mm, respectively. The average couch movement errors in transverse (x), longitudinal (y) and vertical (z) directions were 0.2 mm, 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively. The deviations between radiation isocenter and virtual isocenter in x, y and z directions were 0 mm, 0 mm and 0.3 mm, respectively. Those between virtual isocenter and imaging isocenter were 0.6 mm, 0.5 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively. The average MLC positioning errors were less than 0.6 mm. The deviations of output, PDDs between mesured vs. BJR supplement 25, PDDs between measured and calculated and output factors of each head were less than 0.5%, 1%, 1% and 2%, respectively. For E2E test, average gamma passing rate with 3%/3 mm criterion was $99.9%{\pm}0.1%$.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.103-114
• /
• 1999

In this study, as a preliminary study for developing a full 3D photon dose calculation algorithm, We developed 2.5D photon dose calculation algorithm by extending 2D calculation algorithm to allow non-coplanar configurations of photon beams. For this purpose, we defined the 3d patient coordinate system and the 3d beam coordinate system, which are appropriate to 3d treatment planning and dose calculation. and then, calculate a transformation matrix between them. For dose calculation, we extended 2d "Clarkson-Cunningham" model to 3d one, which can calculate wedge fields as well as regular and irregular fields on arbitrary plane. The simple Batho's power-law method was implemented as an inhomogeneity correction. We evaluated the accuracy of our dose model following procedures of AAPM TG#23; radiation treatment planning dosimetry verifications for 4MV of Varian Clinac-4. As results, PDDs (percent depth dose) of cubic fields, the accuracy of calculation are within 1% except buildup region, and $\pm$3% for irregular fields and wedge fields. And for 45$^{\circ}$ oblique incident beam, the deviations between measurements and calculations are within $\pm$4%. In the case of inhomogeneity correction, the calculation underestimate 7% at the lung/water boundary and overestimate 3% at the bone/water boundary. At the conclusions, we found out our model can predict dose with 5% accuracy at the general condition. we expect our model can be used as a tool for educational and research purpose.. purpose..

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.225-232
• /
• 2014

We evaluated the effect of scatter on a build-up region based on the measured percent depth dose (PDD) of high-energy photon beams that penetrated a handmade build-up modifier (BM) as a substitute of bolus. BM scatter factors ($S_{BM}$) were calculated based on the PDDs of photon beams that penetrated through the BM. The calculated $S_{BM}$ values were normalized to 1 at the square field side (SFS) of 30 mm without a BM. For the largest SFS (200 mm), the SBM values for a 6-MV beam were 1.331, 1.519, 1.598, 1.641, and 1.657 for the corresponding BM thickness values. For a 10-MV beam, the $S_{BM}$ values were 1.384, 1.662, 1.825, 1.913, and 2.001 for the corresponding BM thickness values. The BM yielded 76% of the bolus efficiency. We expect BM to become useful devices for deep-set patient body parts to which it is difficult to apply a bolus.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.3-17
• /
• 1997

Because a wedged beam consists of attenuated primary photons and scattered radiations from wedge, the spectrum of the wedged beam does not coincide with that of an open beam with same geometry. The aims of current report are to get exact information about whether effects of 15-60$^{\circ}$ wedge for 4 -10 MV photon beams should be considered for dose calculation or not, and to suggest a reference condition for measurement of wedge transmission factor. Percent depth dose of both open and wedged fields with angles of 15, 30, 45, 60$^{\circ}$ for beams of 4 MV(Clinac 4/100, Varian), two 6 MV(Clinac 6/100 and Clinac 2100C, Varian), 10 MV(Clinac 2100C, Varian) X-rays were measured to 30cm deep in water using ionization chambers. Hardening factors of photon beams were calculated with measured PDDs. Both field size factors and transmission factors of wedge filters were measured at d$_{max}$ in water. Beam hardening factors of wedged fields of 4 and 6 MV X-ray were larger than 1 for all wedge angles, field sizes and depths deeper than d$_{max}$ Beam hardening factors for wedge angles 15, 30, 45, 60$^{\circ}$ for 10$\times$10cm were respectively 1.010, 1.014, 1.023 and 1.034 for 4MV X-ray, 1.005, 1.008, 1.019, and 1.024 for 6MV X-ray of Clinac 6/100, 1.011, 1.021, 1.032, 1.036 for 6MV X-ray of Clinac 2100C, and 1.008, 1.012, 1.012 and 1.012 for 10MV X-ray. Beam hardening factors of 10MV X-ray were 1 within 1.2％ difference for all wedge angles, depths and field sizes. It was made clear that for 6MV X-rays, the beam hardening factor depends on treatment machine. The relationship of the factor and depth was linear. Field size factor at d$_{max}$ was independent of wedge angle except for the field of 15$\times$15cm. and maximum difference of the field size factors for the field size was 1.4％ for 4MV X-ray. When the wedge factor is determined, dependence of the factor on field size is negligible at d$_{max}$ but should be considered at deeper depth. Calculating dose distribution or MU, the beam hardening factor should be applied for 4~6MV X-ray beams, but might not be considered for 10MV beam. When wedge transmission factor was determined at d$_{max}$ or in air, field size factors for open field are also applicable to wedged fields, but otherwise, field size factor for each wedge or wedge factor depending on field size should be applied.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.70-76
• /
• 2005

For clinical implementation of Enhanced Dynamic Wedge (EDW), it is necessary to adequately analyze and commission its dosimetric properties in comparison to common physical metal wedge (MTW). This study was implemented with the essential measurements of parameters for clinical application, such as percentage depth dose, peripheral dose, surface dose, effective wedge factor, and wedge profile. In addition, through the comparison study of EDW with open and MTW, the analysis was performed to characterize the EDW. We also compared EDW dose profiles of measured values using chamber array 24 (CA24) with calculated values using radiation treatment planning system. PDDs of EDW showed good agreements between $0.2\~0.5\%$ of open beam, but $2\%$ differences with MTW. In the result of the measurements of peripheral dose, it was shown that MTW was about $1\%$ higher than open field and EDW. The surface doses of $60^{\circ}$ MTW showed 10% lower than the others. We found that effective wedge factor of EDW had linear relationships according to Y jaw sizes and was independent of X jaw sizes and was independent of X jaw sizes and asymmetric Y jaw opening. In comparison with measured values and calculate values from Golden-STT based radiation treatment planning system (RTP system), it showed very good agreement within difference of $1\%$. It could be concluded that EDW is a very reliable and useful tool as a beam modification substitute for conventional MTW.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.195-202
• /
• 1998

Purpose : In order to obtain basic data for treatment plan in radiosurgery, we measured small fields of 6 MV X-rays and compared the measured data with our Monte Carlo simulations for the small fields. Materials and Methods : The small fields of 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 cm in diameter were used in this study. Percentage depth dose (PDD) and beam Profiles of those fields were measured and calculated. A small semiconductor detector, water phantoms, and a remote control system were used for the measurement Monte Carlo simulations were Performed using the EGS4 code with the input data prepared for the energy distribution of 6 MV X-rays, beam divergence, circular fields and the geometry of the water phantoms. Results : In the case of PDD values, the calculated values were lower than the measured values for all fields and depths, with the differences being 0.3 to 5.7% at the depths of 20 to 20.0 cm and 0.0 to 8.9% at the surface regions. As a result of the analysis of beam profiles for all field sizes at a depth of loom in water phantom, the measured 90% dose widths were in good agreement with the calculated values, however, the calculated Penumbra radii were 0.1 cm shorter than measured values. Conclusion : The measured PDDs and beam profiles agreement with the Monte Carlo calculations approximately. However, it is different when it comes to calculations in the area of phantom surface and penumbra because the Monte Carlo calculations were performed under the simplified geometries. Therefore, we have to study how to include the actual geometries and more precise data for the field area in Monte Carlo calculations. The Monte Carlo calculations will be used as a useful tool for the very complicated conditions in measurement and verification.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.71-78
• /
• 1997

Purpose : To collect beam data for dynamic wedge fields using conventional measurement tools without the multi-detector system, such as the linear diode detectors or ionization chambers. Materials and Methods : The accelerator CL 2100 C/D has two photon energies of 6MV and 15MV with dynamic wedge an91es of 15o, 30o, 45o and 60o. Wedge transmission factors, percentage depth doses(PDD's) and dose Profiles were measured. The measurements for wedge transmission factors are performed for field sizes ranging from $4\times4cm^2\;to\;20\times20cm^2$ in 1-2cm steps. Various rectangular field sizes are also measured for each photon energy of 6MV and 15MV, with the combination of each dynamic wedge angle of 15o 30o. 45o and 60o. These factors are compared to the calculated wedge factors using STT(Segmented Treatment Table) value. PDD's are measured with the film and the chamber in water Phantom for fixed square field. Converting parameters for film data to chamber data could be obtained from this procedure. The PDD's for dynamic wedged fields could be obtained from film dosimetry by using the converting parameters without using ionization chamber. Dose profiles are obtained from interpolation and STT weighted superposition of data through selected asymmetric static field measurement using ionization chamber. Results : The measured values of wedge transmission factors show good agreement to the calculated values The wedge factors of rectangular fields for constant V-field were equal to those of square fields The differences between open fields' PDDs and those from dynamic fields are insignificant. Dose profiles from superposition method showed acceptable range of accuracy(maximum 2% error) when we compare to those from film dosimetry. Conclusion : The results from this superposition method showed that commissionning of dynamic wedge could be done with conventional dosimetric tools such as Point detector system and film dosimetry winthin maximum 2% error range of accuracy.