• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.29 no.3
• /
• pp.92-100
• /
• 2018

The manufacturer of a linear accelerator (LINAC) has reported that the target melting phenomenon could be caused by a non-recommended output setting and the excessive use of monitor unit (MU) with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Due to these reasons, we observed an unexpected beam interruption during the treatment of a patient in our institution. The target status was inspected and a replacement of the target was determined. After the target replacement, the beam profile was adjusted to the machine commissioning beam data, and the absolute doses-to-water for 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams were calibrated according to American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group (TG)-51 protocol. To verify the beam data after target replacement, the beam flatness, symmetry, output factor, and percent depth dose (PDD) were measured and compared with the commissioning data. The difference between the referenced and measured data for flatness and symmetry exhibited a coincidence within 0.3% for both 6 MV and 10 MV, and the difference of the PDD at 10 cm depth ($PDD_{10}$) was also within 0.3% for both photon energies. Also, patient-specific quality assurances (QAs) were performed with gamma analysis using a 2-D diode and ion chamber array detector for eight patients. The average gamma passing rates for all patients for the relative dose distribution was $99.1%{\pm}1.0%$, and those for absolute dose distribution was $97.2%{\pm}2.7%$, which means the gamma analysis results were all clinically acceptable. In this study, we recommend that the beam characteristics, such as beam profile, depth dose, and output factors, should be examined. Further, patient-specific QAs should be performed to verify the changes in the overall beam delivery system when a target replacement is inevitable; although it is more important to check the beam output in a daily routine.

• Journal of Biomedical Engineering Research
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.89-95
• /
• 2004

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) often uses small beam segments. The heterogeneity effect is well known for relatively large field sizes used in the conventional radiation treatments. However, this effect is not known in small fields such as the beamlets used in IMRT. There are many factors that can cause errors in the small field i.e. electronic disequilibrium and multiple electron scattering. This study prepared geometrically regular heterogeneous phantoms, and compared the measurements with the calculations using the Convolution/Superposition algorithm and Monte Carlo method for small beams. This study used the BEAM00/EGS4 code to simulate the head of a Varian 2300C/D. The commissioning of a 6MV photon beam were performed from two points of view, the beam profiles and depth doses. The calculated voxel size was 1${\times}$1${\times}$2$\textrm{cm}^2$ with field sizes of 1${\times}$1$\textrm{cm}^2$, 2${\times}$2$\textrm{cm}^2$, and 5${\times}$5$\textrm{cm}^2$. The XiOTM TPS (Treatment Planning System) was used for the calculation using the Convolution/Superposition algorithm. The 6MV photon beam was irradiated to homogeneous (water equivalent) and heterogeneous phantoms (water equivalent ＋ air cavity, water equivalent ＋ bone equivalent). The beam profiles were well matched within :t1 mm and the depth doses were within ${\pm}$2%. In conclusion, the dose calculations of the Convolution/Superposition and Monte Carlo simulations showed good agreement with the film measurements in the small field.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.125-129
• /
• 2005

The first step in the commissioning procedure of a treatment planning system is always verification of the basic beam data. In this work, we have measured POD curves and beam profiles between 1 $\times$ 1 cm$^{2}$ and 40 $\times$ 40 cm$^{2}$ . In an attempt, Pinnacle 7.4f detect discrepancies between predicted dose distribution and delivered dose distribution. The discrepancies between measurement data and caculation data was found. The delivered dose was underestimated in field but overestimated out of field. The D$_{max}$ depth of 1 $\times$ 1 cm$^{2}$ was reduced about 2 mm. For the larger field size ($\geq$4$\times$4 cm$^{2}$, the beam profile and PDD curve showed good agreement between measurement data and calculation data.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.16 no.7
• /
• pp.863-870
• /
• 2022

DLG (Dosimetric Leaf Gap) and transmission factor are important parameters of MLC modeling in treatment planning system. In this study, DLG and transmission factor of HD-MLC were measured using detector with different measuring volumes, and the accuracy of the treatment plans was evaluated according to the DLG values. DLG was measured using the dynamic sweeping gap method with Semiflux3D and MicroDiamond detectors. Then, 10 radiation treatment plans were generated to optimize the DLG value and compared with the measurement results. Photon energies 6, 8, 10 MV, the DLG measured by Semiflux3D were 0.76, 0.83, and 0.85 mm, and DLG measured by MicroDiamond were 0.78, 0.86, and 0.9 mm. All plans were measured by portal dosimetry and analyzed using Gamma Evaluation. In the 6 MV photon beams, the average gamma passing rate were 94.3% and 98.4% for DLG 0.78 mm and 1.15 mm. In the 10 MV photon beam, the average gamma passing rate were 91.2% and 97.6% for DLG 0.9 mm and 1.25 mm. HD-MLC needs accurate modeling in the treatment planning system. DLG could be used measured data using small volume detector. However, for better radiation therapy, DLG should be optimized at the commissioning stage of LINAC.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.201-207
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of a "stealth chamber" as a novel reference chamber for measuring percentage depth dose (PDD) and profile of 6, 8 and 10 MV photon energies. The PDD curves and dose profiles with fields ranging from $3{\times}3$ to $25{\times}25cm^2$ were acquired from measurements by using the stealth chamber and CC 13 chamber as reference chamber. All measurements were performed with Varian VitalBeam linear accelerator. In order to assess the performance of stealth chamber, PDD curves and profiles measured with stealth chamber were compared with measurement data using CC13 chamber. For PPDs measured with both chambers, the dosimetric parameters such as $d_{max}$ (depth of maximum dose), $D_{50}$ (PDD at 50 mm depth), and $D_{100}$ (PDD at 100 mm depth) were analyzed. Moreover, root mean square error (RMSE) values for profiles at $d_{max}$ and 100 mm depth were evaluated. The measured PDDs and profiles between the stealth chamber and CC13 chamber as reference detector had almost comparable. For PDDs, the evaluated dosimetric parameters were observed small difference (<1%) for all energies and field sizes, except for $d_{max}$ less than 2 mm. In addition, the difference of RMSEs for profiles at $d_{max}$ and 100 mm depth was similar for both chambers. This study confirmed that the use of stealth chamber for measuring commission beam data is a feasible as reference chamber for fields ranging from $3{\times}3$ to $20{\times}20cm^2$. Furthermore, it has an advantage with respect to measurement of the small fields (less than $3{\times}3cm^2$ field) although not performed in this study.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.269-276
• /
• 2009

Radiation treatment techniques using photon beam such as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) as well as intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) demand accurate dose calculation in order to increase target coverage and spare healthy tissue. Both jaw collimator and multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) for photon beams have been used to achieve such goals. In the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system (TPS), which we are using in our clinics, a set of model parameters like jaw collimator transmission factor (JTF) and MLC transmission factor (MLCTF) are determined from the measured data because it is using a model-based photon dose algorithm. However, model parameters obtained by this auto-modeling process can be different from those by direct measurement, which can have a dosimetric effect on the dose distribution. In this paper we estimated JTF and MLCTF obtained by the auto-modeling process in the Pinnacle3 TPS. At first, we obtained JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement, which were the ratio of the output at the reference depth under the closed jaw collimator (MLCs for MLCTF) to that at the same depth with the field size $10{\times}10\;cm^2$ in the water phantom. And then JTF and MLCTF were also obtained by auto-modeling process. And we evaluated the dose difference through phantom and patient study in the 3D-CRT plan. For direct measurement, JTF was 0.001966 for 6 MV and 0.002971 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.01657 for 6 MV and 0.01925 for 10 MV. On the other hand, for auto-modeling process, JTF was 0.001983 for 6 MV and 0.010431 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.00188 for 6 MV and 0.00453 for 10 MV. JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement were very different from those by auto-modeling process and even more reasonable considering each beam quality of 6 MV and 10 MV. These different parameters affect the dose in the low-dose region. Since the wrong estimation of JTF and MLCTF can lead some dosimetric error, comparison of direct measurement and auto-modeling of JTF and MLCTF would be helpful during the beam commissioning.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.275-286
• /
• 2001

Purpose : To setup procedures of quality assurance (OA) for implementing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) clinically, report OA procedures peformed for one patient with prostate cancer. Materials and methods : $P^3IMRT$ (ADAC) and linear accelerator (Siemens) with multileaf collimator are used to implement IMRT. At first, the positional accuracy, reproducibility of MLC, and leaf transmission factor were evaluated. RTP commissioning was peformed again to consider small field effect. After RTP recommissioning, a test plan of a C-shaped PTV was made using 9 intensity modulated beams, and the calculated isocenter dose was compared with the measured one in solid water phantom. As a patient-specific IMRT QA, one patient with prostate cancer was planned using 6 beams of total 74 segmented fields. The same beams were used to recalculate dose in a solid water phantom. Dose of these beams were measured with a 0.015 cc micro-ionization chamber, a diode detector, films, and an array detector and compared with calculated one. Results : The positioning accuracy of MLC was about 1 mm, and the reproducibility was around 0.5 mm. For leaf transmission factor for 10 MV photon beams, interleaf leakage was measured $1.9\%$ and midleaf leakage $0.9\%$ relative to $10\times\;cm^2$ open filed. Penumbra measured with film, diode detector, microionization chamber, and conventional 0.125 cc chamber showed that $80\~20\%$ penumbra width measured with a 0.125 cc chamber was 2 mm larger than that of film, which means a 0.125 cc ionization chamber was unacceptable for measuring small field such like 0.5 cm beamlet. After RTP recommissioning, the discrepancy between the measured and calculated dose profile for a small field of $1\times1\;cm^2$ size was less than $2\%$. The isocenter dose of the test plan of C-shaped PTV was measured two times with micro-ionization chamber in solid phantom showed that the errors upto $12\%$ for individual beam, but total dose delivered were agreed with the calculated within $2\%$. The transverse dose distribution measured with EC-L film was agreed with the calculated one in general. The isocenter dose for the patient measured in solid phantom was agreed within $1.5\%$. On-axis dose profiles of each individual beam at the position of the central leaf measured with film and array detector were found that at out-of-the-field region, the calculated dose underestimates about $2\%$, at inside-the-field the measured one was agreed within $3\%$, except some position. Conclusion : It is necessary more tight quality control of MLC for IMRT relative to conventional large field treatment and to develop QA procedures to check intensity pattern more efficiently. At the conclusion, we did setup an appropriate QA procedures for IMRT by a series of verifications including the measurement of absolute dose at the isocenter with a micro-ionization chamber, film dosimetry for verifying intensity pattern, and another measurement with an array detector for comparing off-axis dose profile.