skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-E-T-35: A General Fill Factor Definition Serving to Characterise the MLC Misalignment Detection Capabilities of Two-Dimensional Detector Arrays

Abstract

Purpose: To present a general definition of the fill factor realistically characterizing the “field coverage”, i.e. the MLC misalignment detection capabilities of a detector array. Methods: According to Gago-Arias et al.{sup 1} the fill factor of a 2D array is defined as the ratio of the area enclosed by the FWHM of the fluence response function KM(x) of a single detector and its cell area defined by the detector spacing. More generally - accounting also for the possible overlap between FWHM’s of neighboured detectors - the fill factor is here defined as that fraction of the sum of the detector cell areas in which a defined MLC misalignment is detectable when the induced percentage signal changes exceed a detection threshold d. Ideally the generalized fill factor may reach 100 %. With user code EGS-chamber and a 2 MeV photon slit beam 0.25 mm wide, both types of the fill factor were calculated for an array with total cell area 100 cm{sup 2} for chamber widths 1–9 mm, using =1mm, d=5%. Results: For single chamber width 5 mm, fill factors were 0.49 (FWHM) and 0.61 (generalized). For chamber width 2 mm the FWHM fill factor was 0.13 whereas the generalized fillmore » factor was 0.32. For chamber widths above 7 mm, the FWHM fill factor exceeds unity, and the general fill factor is exactly 1.00. Conclusions: An updated fill factor definition is introduced which, as a generalization of the FWHM-based definition, more closely estimates the performance of small array chambers and gives a realistic value in the case of overlapping sensitive areas of neighboured chambers. References:{sup 1}A. Gago-Arias, L. Brualla-Gonzalez, D.M. Gonzalez-Castano, F. Gomez, M.S. Garcia, V.L. Vega, J.M. Sueiro, J. Pardo-Montero, “Evaluation of chamber response function influence on IMRT verification using 2D commercial detector arrays,” Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 2005–2020 (2012)« less

Authors:
; ;  [1];  [2];  [3]
  1. Clinic for Radiation Therapy, Pius-Hospital, Oldenburg, DE (United States)
  2. (United States)
  3. Prof. em., Medical Physics and Biophysics, Georg August University, Goettingen, DE (Germany)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22545168
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; COLLIMATORS; DETECTION; EVALUATION; FILL FACTORS; PERFORMANCE; RADIOTHERAPY; RESPONSE FUNCTIONS; VERIFICATION

Citation Formats

Stelljes, T.S., Looe, H.K., Poppe, B., WG Medical Radiation Physics, Carl von Ossietzky University, Oldenburg, DE, and Harder, D. SU-E-T-35: A General Fill Factor Definition Serving to Characterise the MLC Misalignment Detection Capabilities of Two-Dimensional Detector Arrays. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4924396.
Stelljes, T.S., Looe, H.K., Poppe, B., WG Medical Radiation Physics, Carl von Ossietzky University, Oldenburg, DE, & Harder, D. SU-E-T-35: A General Fill Factor Definition Serving to Characterise the MLC Misalignment Detection Capabilities of Two-Dimensional Detector Arrays. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924396.
Stelljes, T.S., Looe, H.K., Poppe, B., WG Medical Radiation Physics, Carl von Ossietzky University, Oldenburg, DE, and Harder, D. Mon . "SU-E-T-35: A General Fill Factor Definition Serving to Characterise the MLC Misalignment Detection Capabilities of Two-Dimensional Detector Arrays". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924396.
@article{osti_22545168,
title = {SU-E-T-35: A General Fill Factor Definition Serving to Characterise the MLC Misalignment Detection Capabilities of Two-Dimensional Detector Arrays},
author = {Stelljes, T.S. and Looe, H.K. and Poppe, B. and WG Medical Radiation Physics, Carl von Ossietzky University, Oldenburg, DE and Harder, D.},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To present a general definition of the fill factor realistically characterizing the “field coverage”, i.e. the MLC misalignment detection capabilities of a detector array. Methods: According to Gago-Arias et al.{sup 1} the fill factor of a 2D array is defined as the ratio of the area enclosed by the FWHM of the fluence response function KM(x) of a single detector and its cell area defined by the detector spacing. More generally - accounting also for the possible overlap between FWHM’s of neighboured detectors - the fill factor is here defined as that fraction of the sum of the detector cell areas in which a defined MLC misalignment is detectable when the induced percentage signal changes exceed a detection threshold d. Ideally the generalized fill factor may reach 100 %. With user code EGS-chamber and a 2 MeV photon slit beam 0.25 mm wide, both types of the fill factor were calculated for an array with total cell area 100 cm{sup 2} for chamber widths 1–9 mm, using =1mm, d=5%. Results: For single chamber width 5 mm, fill factors were 0.49 (FWHM) and 0.61 (generalized). For chamber width 2 mm the FWHM fill factor was 0.13 whereas the generalized fill factor was 0.32. For chamber widths above 7 mm, the FWHM fill factor exceeds unity, and the general fill factor is exactly 1.00. Conclusions: An updated fill factor definition is introduced which, as a generalization of the FWHM-based definition, more closely estimates the performance of small array chambers and gives a realistic value in the case of overlapping sensitive areas of neighboured chambers. References:{sup 1}A. Gago-Arias, L. Brualla-Gonzalez, D.M. Gonzalez-Castano, F. Gomez, M.S. Garcia, V.L. Vega, J.M. Sueiro, J. Pardo-Montero, “Evaluation of chamber response function influence on IMRT verification using 2D commercial detector arrays,” Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 2005–2020 (2012)},
doi = {10.1118/1.4924396},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}
  • Purpose: Proton therapy aims to deliver a high dose in a well-defined target volume while sparing the healthy surrounding tissues thanks to their inherent depth dose characteristic (Bragg peak). In proton therapy, several techniques can be used to deliver the dose into the target volume. The one that allows the best conformity with the tumor, is called PBS (Pencil Beam Scanning). The measurement of the proton pencil beam spot profile (spot size) and position is very important for the accurate delivery of dose to the target volume with a good conformity. Methods: We have developed a fine segmented detector arraymore » to monitor the PBS. A prototype beam monitor using Cherenkov radiation in clear plastic optical fibers (cPOF) has been developed for continuous display of the pencil beam status during the therapeutic proton Pencil Beam Scanning mode operation. The benefit of using Cherenkov radiation is that the optical output is linear to the dose. Pedestal substraction and the gain adjustment between channels are performed. Spot profiles of various pencil beam energies(100 MeV to 226 MeV) are measured. Two dimensional gaussian fit is used to analyze the beam width and the spot center. The results are compared with that of Lynx(Scintillator-based sensor with CCD camera) and EBT3 Film. Results: The measured gaussian widths using fiber array system changes from 13 to 5 mm for the beam energies from 100 to 226 MeV. The results agree well with Lynx and Film within the systematic error. Conclusion: The results demonstrate good monitoring capability of the system. Not only measuing the spot profile but also monitoring dose map by accumulating each spot measurement is available. The x-y monitoing system with 128 channel readout will be mounted to the snout for the in-situ real time monitoring.« less
  • Purpose: An accurate leaf fluence model can be used in applications such as patient specific delivery QA and in-vivo dosimetry for TomoTherapy systems. It is known that the total fluence is not a linear combination of individual leaf fluence due to leakage-transmission, tongue-and-groove, and source occlusion effect. Here we propose a method to model the nonlinear effects as linear terms thus making the MLC-detector system a linear system. Methods: A leaf pattern basis (LPB) consisting of no-leaf-open, single-leaf-open, double-leaf-open and triple-leaf-open patterns are chosen to represent linear and major nonlinear effects of leaf fluence as a linear system. An arbitrarymore » leaf pattern can be expressed as (or decomposed to) a linear combination of the LPB either pulse by pulse or weighted by dwelling time. The exit detector responses to the LPB are obtained by processing returned detector signals resulting from the predefined leaf patterns for each jaw setting. Through forward transformation, detector signal can be predicted given a delivery plan. An equivalent leaf open time (LOT) sinogram containing output variation information can also be inversely calculated from the measured detector signals. Twelve patient plans were delivered in air. The equivalent LOT sinograms were compared with their planned sinograms. Results: The whole calibration process was done in 20 minutes. For two randomly generated leaf patterns, 98.5% of the active channels showed differences within 0.5% of the local maximum between the predicted and measured signals. Averaged over the twelve plans, 90% of LOT errors were within +/−10 ms. The LOT systematic error increases and shows an oscillating pattern when LOT is shorter than 50 ms. Conclusion: The LPB method models the MLC-detector response accurately, which improves patient specific delivery QA and in-vivo dosimetry for TomoTherapy systems. It is sensitive enough to detect systematic LOT errors as small as 10 ms.« less
  • Purpose: In this study we will compare the ability of three QA methods (Delta4, MU-EPID, Dynalog QA) to detect specific errors. Methods: A Varian Novalis Tx with a HD120 MLC and aS1000 Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) was used in our study. Multi-leaf collimator (MLC) errors, gantry angle and dose errors were introduced into 5 volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) plans. 3D dose distributions calculated with data from the EPID and Dynalog QA methods were compared with the planned dose distribution. The gamma passing percentages as well as percentage error of planning target volume (PTV) dose were used for passing determination.more » Baselines for gamma passing percentages and PTV dose were established by measuring the original plan 5 times consecutively. Standard passing thresholds as well as thresholds derived from receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis and 2 standard deviation (SD) criteria were used. Results: When applying the standard 95% pass rate at 3%/3mm gamma analysis 14, 21 and 8 of 30 errors were detected by the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA methods respectively. Thresholds set at 2 SD from our base line measurements resulted in the detection of 18, 9 and 14 of 30 errors for the Delta4, MU-EPID and Dynalog QA methods respectively. When using D2 of the PTV as a metric the Dynalog QA detected 20 of 30 errors while the EPID method detected 14 of 30 errors. Using D98 of the PTV, Dynalog QA detected 13 of 30 while the EPID detected 3 of 30 errors. Conclusion: Although MU-EPID detected the most errors at the standard 95% cutoff it also produced the most false detections in the baseline data. The Dynalog QA was the most effective when the ROC adjusted passing threshold was used. D2 was more effective as a metric for detecting errors than D98.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate VMAT treatment plans generated with HD120 MLC and Millennium 120 MLC between two matched linacs and to determine if one can back up the other. Methods: The 6x photon beams are matched for our Varian TrueBeam STx and Trilogy linacs, which are equipped with HD120 MLC and Millennium 120 MLC, respectively. Three prostate and three brain VMAT plans were used for the evaluation. Five plans (three prostate and two brain plans) were originally generated with the TrueBeam STx and re-computed with the Trilogy. One brain plan was evaluated the other way around. For each plan, the PTVmore » coverage of V95 was made the same between two linacs. The dosimetric differences associated with the plans were compared using: 1) Percentage mean dose differences to the PTV, 2) Homogeneity index, HI = (Dmax − Dmin)/Dmean for the PTV. For prostate plans, the mean dose differences to the rectum were evaluated. While for brain plans, the percentage max dose differences to the lenses (left and right lens) were evaluated. Results: For three prostate plans, the average of the percentage mean dose differences to the PTV was 0.5 ± 0.1% and the HI was 0.1 ± 0.0%. The average of the percentage mean dose difference to the rectum was 3.5 ± 0.5%. For three brain plans, the average of the percentage mean dose differences to the PTV was 0.2 ± 1.1% and the HI was 0.2 ± 0.1%. The average of the percentage max dose differences to the lenses was 22.9 ± 4.0%. Conclusion: For prostate VMAT plans, changing the treatment from the TrueBeam STx to the Trilogy does not necessarily need re-optimization. But for brain plans, in order to minimize dose to the lenses, it is recommended to re-optimize the plan if changing the treatment between these two linacs.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate the dosimetric accuracy of multiple-diode-array detector (Mapcheck2) for high-dose-rate brachytherapy Ir-192 source. The two-dimensional (2D) dose distributions measured with MapCheck2 were validated with EBT2 Gafchromic film measurement and AAPM task-group- 43 (TG-43) modeling. Methods: 2D-dose distributions from Ir-192 source were measured with MapCheck2 and EBT2-films. MapCheck2 response was corrected for effects: directional dependence, diode and phantom heterogeneity. Optical density growth of the film was controlled by synchronized scanning of the film exposed to Ir-192 and calibration films exposed to 6 MV linac beams. Similarly, MapCheck2 response was calibrated to dose using 6 MV beams. An empirical modelmore » was developed for the dose distributions measured with Mapcheck2 that considered directional, diode and phantom heterogeneity corrections. The dose deposited in solid-state-detectors was modeled using a cavity theory model for the diode. This model was then validated with measurements using EBT2-films and calculations with TG-43. Results: The response of MapCheck2 has been corrected for different effects including: (a) directional dependence of 0–20% over angular range 0o–90o, (b) phantom heterogeneity (3%) and (c) diode heterogeneity (9%). The corrected dose distributions measured with MapCheck2 agreed well with the measured dose distributions from EBT2-film and with calculations using TG-43 within 5% over a wide range of dose levels and rates. The advantages of MapCheck2 include less noisy, linear and stable response compared with film. The response of MapCheck2 exposed to 192Ir-source showed no energy dependence similar to its response to MV energy beam. Detection spatial-resolution of individual diodes was 0.8×0.8 mm2, however, 2DMapCheck2 resolution is limited by distance between diodes (7.07 mm). Conclusion: The dose distribution measured with MapCheck2 agreed well within 5% with that measured using EBT2-films; and calculations with TG- 43. Considering correction of artifacts, MapCheck2 provides a compact, practical and accurate dosimetric tool for measurement of 2D-dose distributions for brachytherapy Ir-192.« less