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

Title: SU-F-T-78: Minimum Data Set of Measurements for TG 71 Based Electron Monitor-Unit Calculations

Abstract

Purpose: Building up a TG-71 based electron monitor-unit (MU) calculation protocol usually involves massive measurements. This work investigates a minimum data set of measurements and its calculation accuracy and measurement time. Methods: For 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV of our Varian Clinac-Series linear accelerators, the complete measurements were performed at different depth using 5 square applicators (6, 10, 15, 20 and 25 cm) with different cutouts (2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 15 and 20 cm up to applicator size) for 5 different SSD’s. For each energy, there were 8 PDD scans and 150 point measurements for applicator factors, cutout factors and effective SSDs that were then converted to air-gap factors for SSD 99–110cm. The dependence of each dosimetric quantity on field size and SSD was examined to determine the minimum data set of measurements as a subset of the complete measurements. The “missing” data excluded in the minimum data set were approximated by linear or polynomial fitting functions based on the included data. The total measurement time and the calculated electron MU using the minimum and the complete data sets were compared. Results: The minimum data set includes 4 or 5 PDD’s and 51 to 66 point measurementsmore » for each electron energy, and more PDD’s and fewer point measurements are generally needed as energy increases. Using only <50% of complete measurement time, the minimum data set generates acceptable MU calculation results compared to those with the complete data set. The PDD difference is within 1 mm and the calculated MU difference is less than 1.5%. Conclusion: Data set measurement for TG-71 electron MU calculations can be minimized based on the knowledge of how each dosimetric quantity depends on various setup parameters. The suggested minimum data set allows acceptable MU calculation accuracy and shortens measurement time by a few hours.« less

Authors:
; ; ;  [1]
  1. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22642326
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; ACCURACY; APPROXIMATIONS; DEPTH; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; POLYNOMIALS; RADIATION MONITORING; RADIATION MONITORS

Citation Formats

Xu, H, Guerrero, M, Prado, K, and Yi, B. SU-F-T-78: Minimum Data Set of Measurements for TG 71 Based Electron Monitor-Unit Calculations. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956214.
Xu, H, Guerrero, M, Prado, K, & Yi, B. SU-F-T-78: Minimum Data Set of Measurements for TG 71 Based Electron Monitor-Unit Calculations. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956214.
Xu, H, Guerrero, M, Prado, K, and Yi, B. 2016. "SU-F-T-78: Minimum Data Set of Measurements for TG 71 Based Electron Monitor-Unit Calculations". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956214.
@article{osti_22642326,
title = {SU-F-T-78: Minimum Data Set of Measurements for TG 71 Based Electron Monitor-Unit Calculations},
author = {Xu, H and Guerrero, M and Prado, K and Yi, B},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Building up a TG-71 based electron monitor-unit (MU) calculation protocol usually involves massive measurements. This work investigates a minimum data set of measurements and its calculation accuracy and measurement time. Methods: For 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV of our Varian Clinac-Series linear accelerators, the complete measurements were performed at different depth using 5 square applicators (6, 10, 15, 20 and 25 cm) with different cutouts (2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 15 and 20 cm up to applicator size) for 5 different SSD’s. For each energy, there were 8 PDD scans and 150 point measurements for applicator factors, cutout factors and effective SSDs that were then converted to air-gap factors for SSD 99–110cm. The dependence of each dosimetric quantity on field size and SSD was examined to determine the minimum data set of measurements as a subset of the complete measurements. The “missing” data excluded in the minimum data set were approximated by linear or polynomial fitting functions based on the included data. The total measurement time and the calculated electron MU using the minimum and the complete data sets were compared. Results: The minimum data set includes 4 or 5 PDD’s and 51 to 66 point measurements for each electron energy, and more PDD’s and fewer point measurements are generally needed as energy increases. Using only <50% of complete measurement time, the minimum data set generates acceptable MU calculation results compared to those with the complete data set. The PDD difference is within 1 mm and the calculated MU difference is less than 1.5%. Conclusion: Data set measurement for TG-71 electron MU calculations can be minimized based on the knowledge of how each dosimetric quantity depends on various setup parameters. The suggested minimum data set allows acceptable MU calculation accuracy and shortens measurement time by a few hours.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956214},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • A protocol is presented for the calculation of monitor units (MU) for photon and electron beams, delivered with and without beam modifiers, for constant source-surface distance (SSD) and source-axis distance (SAD) setups. This protocol was written by Task Group 71 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and has been formally approved by the AAPM for clinical use. The protocol defines the nomenclature for the dosimetric quantities used in these calculations, along with instructions for their determination and measurement. Calculations are made using the dose per MU under normalization conditions, D{sub 0}{sup ′},more » that is determined for each user's photon and electron beams. For electron beams, the depth of normalization is taken to be the depth of maximum dose along the central axis for the same field incident on a water phantom at the same SSD, where D{sub 0}{sup ′} = 1 cGy/MU. For photon beams, this task group recommends that a normalization depth of 10 cm be selected, where an energy-dependent D{sub 0}{sup ′} ≤ 1 cGy/MU is required. This recommendation differs from the more common approach of a normalization depth of d{sub m}, with D{sub 0}{sup ′} = 1 cGy/MU, although both systems are acceptable within the current protocol. For photon beams, the formalism includes the use of blocked fields, physical or dynamic wedges, and (static) multileaf collimation. No formalism is provided for intensity modulated radiation therapy calculations, although some general considerations and a review of current calculation techniques are included. For electron beams, the formalism provides for calculations at the standard and extended SSDs using either an effective SSD or an air-gap correction factor. Example tables and problems are included to illustrate the basic concepts within the presented formalism.« less
  • ABSTRACT: This work describes the experimental validation of treatment planning system monitor unit (MU) calculations against measurement for a range of scenarios. This, together with a comparison of treatment planning system MUs and an independent MU check method, allows the derivation of confidence intervals for the check process. Data were collected for open and 60° motorized wedge fields using an Elekta Synergy linac at 6 and 8 MV using homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms. Masterplan (Version 4.0) pencil-beam and collapsed cone algorithms were used for the primary MU calculations with full inhomogeneity correction. Results show that both algorithms agree with measurementmore » to acceptable tolerance levels in the majority of the cases studied. The confidence interval for the pencil-beam algorithm MU against an independent check was determined as + 1.6% to −3.4%. This is modified to + 2.3% to −2.5% when data collected with low-density heterogeneities are removed as this algorithm is not used clinically for these cases. The corresponding interval for the collapsed cone algorithm was + 1.2% to −4.3%, indicating that an offset tolerance for the independent check is appropriate. Analysis of clinical conformal treatment plan data generated using the pencil-beam algorithm (1393 beams) returned 93% of beams within the independent check tolerance. Similarly, using the collapsed cone algorithm as the primary MU calculation, 77% (of 1434 beams) were within the confidence interval.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate the influence of the minimum monitor unit (MU) on the quality of clinical treatment plans for scanned proton therapy. Methods: Delivery system characteristics limit the minimum number of protons that can be delivered per spot, resulting in a min-MU limit. Plan quality can be impacted by the min-MU limit. Two sites were used to investigate the impact of min-MU on treatment plans: pediatric brain tumor at a depth of 5-10 cm; a head and neck tumor at a depth of 1-20 cm. Three field intensity modulated spot scanning proton plans were created for each site with themore » following parameter variations: min-MU limit range of 0.0000-0.0060; and spot spacing range of 0.5-2.0σ of the nominal spot size at isocenter in water (σ=4mm in this work). Comparisons were based on target homogeneity and normal tissue sparing. Results: The increase of the min-MU with a fixed spot spacing decreases plan quality both in homogeneous target coverage and in the avoidance of critical structures. Both head and neck and pediatric brain plans show a 20% increase in relative dose for the hot spot in the CTV and 10% increase in key critical structures when comparing min-MU limits of 0.0000 and 0.0060 with a fixed spot spacing of 1σ. The DVHs of CTVs show min-MU limits of 0.0000 and 0.0010 produce similar plan quality and quality decreases as the min-MU limit increases beyond 0.0020. As spot spacing approaches 2σ, degradation in plan quality is observed when no min-MU limit is imposed. Conclusion: Given a fixed spot spacing of ≤ 1σ of the spot size in water, plan quality decreases as min- MU increases greater than 0.0020. The effect of min-MU should be taken into consideration while planning spot scanning proton therapy treatments to realize its full potential.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate the influence of the minimum monitor unit (MU) on the quality of clinical treatment plans for scanned proton therapy. Methods: Delivery system characteristics limit the minimum number of protons that can be delivered per spot, resulting in a min-MU limit. Plan quality can be impacted by the min-MU limit. Two sites were used to investigate the impact of min-MU on treatment plans: pediatric brain tumor at a depth of 5–10 cm; a head and neck tumor at a depth of 1–20 cm. Three-field, intensity modulated spot scanning proton plans were created for each site with the followingmore » parameter variations: min-MU limit range of 0.0000–0.0060; and spot spacing range of 2–8 mm. Comparisons were based on target homogeneity and normal tissue sparing. For the pediatric brain, two versions of the treatment planning system were also compared to judge the effects of the min-MU limit based on when it is accounted for in the optimization process (Eclipse v.10 and v.13, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). Results: The increase of the min-MU limit with a fixed spot spacing decreases plan quality both in homogeneous target coverage and in the avoidance of critical structures. Both head and neck and pediatric brain plans show a 20% increase in relative dose for the hot spot in the CTV and 10% increase in key critical structures when comparing min-MU limits of 0.0000 and 0.0060 with a fixed spot spacing of 4 mm. The DVHs of CTVs show min-MU limits of 0.0000 and 0.0010 produce similar plan quality and quality decreases as the min-MU limit increases beyond 0.0020. As spot spacing approaches 8 mm, degradation in plan quality is observed when no min-MU limit is imposed. Conclusions: Given a fixed spot spacing of ≤4 mm, plan quality decreases as min-MU increased beyond 0.0020. The effect of min-MU needs to be taken into consideration while planning proton therapy treatments.« less