Calibration of helical tomotherapy machine using EPR/alanine dosimetry
- CEA, LIST, Laboratoire National Henri Becquerel, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette CEDEX (France)
Purpose: Current codes of practice for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon beams in conventional radiotherapy recommend using a 10x10 cm{sup 2} square field, with the detector at a reference depth of 10 cm in water and 100 cm source to surface distance (SSD) (AAPM TG-51) or 100 cm source-to-axis distance (SAD) (IAEA TRS-398). However, the maximum field size of a helical tomotherapy (HT) machine is 40x5 cm{sup 2} defined at 85 cm SAD. These nonstandard conditions prevent a direct implementation of these protocols. The purpose of this study is twofold: To check the absorbed dose in water and dose rate calibration of a tomotherapy unit as well as the accuracy of the tomotherapy treatment planning system (TPS) calculations for a specific test case. Method: Both topics are based on the use of electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) using alanine as transfer dosimeter between the Laboratoire National Henri Becquerel (LNHB) {sup 60}Co-{gamma}-ray reference beam and the Institut Curie's HT beam. Irradiations performed in the LNHB reference {sup 60}Co-{gamma}-ray beam allowed setting up the calibration method, which was then implemented and tested at the LNHB 6 MV linac x-ray beam, resulting in a deviation of 1.6% (at a 1% standard uncertainty) relative to the reference value determined with the standard IAEA TRS-398 protocol. Results: HT beam dose rate estimation shows a difference of 2% with the value stated by the manufacturer at a 2% standard uncertainty. A 4% deviation between measured dose and the calculation from the tomotherapy TPS was found. The latter was originated by an inadequate representation of the phantom CT-scan values and, consequently, mass densities within the phantom. This difference has been explained by the mass density values given by the CT-scan and used by the TPS which were not the true ones. Once corrected using Monte Carlo N-Particle simulations to validate the accuracy of this process, the difference between corrected TPS calculations and alanine measured dose values was then found to be around 2% (with 2% standard uncertainty on TPS doses and 1.5% standard uncertainty on EPR measurements). Conclusion: Beam dose rate estimation results were found to be in good agreement with the reference value given by the manufacturer at 2% standard uncertainty. Moreover, the dose determination method was set up with a deviation around 2% (at a 2% standard uncertainty).
- OSTI ID:
- 22098541
- Journal Information:
- Medical Physics, Vol. 38, Issue 3; Other Information: (c) 2011 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); ISSN 0094-2405
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
An absolute dose determination of helical tomotherapy accelerator, TomoTherapy High-Art II
Absolute calibration of the Gamma Knife{sup ®} Perfexion™ and delivered dose verification using EPR/alanine dosimetry
Related Subjects
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE
ACCURACY
ALANINES
CALIBRATION
CAT SCANNING
COBALT 60
CT-GUIDED RADIOTHERAPY
DOSE RATES
DOSEMETERS
DOSIMETRY
ELECTRON SPIN RESONANCE
GAMMA RADIATION
IAEA
IMPLEMENTATION
IRRADIATION
LINEAR ACCELERATORS
MONTE CARLO METHOD
PHANTOMS
PHOTON BEAMS
PLANNING
RADIATION DOSES
SIMULATION
WATER