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

Title: SU-F-T-557: Evaluation of Detector Response in Rectangular Small Field Dosimetry

Abstract

Purpose: As stereotactic treatment modalities grow towards becoming the standard of care, the need for accurate dose computation in small fields is becoming increasingly essential. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the response of different detectors, intended for small field dosimetry, in jaw defined small rectangular fields by analyzing output factors from a stereotactic clinical accelerator. Methods: Two Dosimeters, the Exradin A26 Microionization Chamber (Standard Imaging) and Edge Diode Detector (Sun Nuclear) were used to measure output factors taken on the Varian Edge Stereotactic Linear accelerator. Measurements were taken at 6MV and 6FFF at 10cm depth, 100cm SSD in a 48×48×40cm3 Welhoffer BluePhantom2 (IBA) with X and Y jaws set from 0.6 to 2.0cm. Output factors were normalized to a 5×5cm2 machine-specific reference field. Measurements were made in the vertical orientation for the A26 and horizontal orientation for both the A26 and Edge. Output factors were measured as: OF{sub FS} = M{sub FS}/M{sub ref} where M{sub FS} and M{sub ref} are the measured signals for the clinical field and the reference field, respectively. Measured output factors were then analyzed to establish relative responses of the detectors in small fields. Results: At 6MV the Edge detector exhibited a variationmore » in output factors dependent on jaw positioning (X-by-Y vs Y-by-X) of 5.7% of the 5×5cm reference output and a variation of 3.33% at 6FFF. The A26 exhibited variation of output factor dependent on jaw positioning of upto 7.7% of the 5×5cm reference field at 6MV and upto 5.33% at 6FFF. Conclusion: Both the Edge detector and A26 responded as expected at small fields however a dependence on the jaw positioning was noted. At 6MV and 6FFF the detector response showed an increased dependence on the positioning of the X jaws as compared to the positioning of the Y jaws.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2]; ;  [3]
  1. University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio (United States)
  2. SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse NY (United States)
  3. University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649132
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; 60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; CALCULATION METHODS; DOSIMETRY; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; POSITIONING; VARIATIONS

Citation Formats

Qureshi, A, Tanny, S, Parsai, E, and Sperling, N. SU-F-T-557: Evaluation of Detector Response in Rectangular Small Field Dosimetry. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956742.
Qureshi, A, Tanny, S, Parsai, E, & Sperling, N. SU-F-T-557: Evaluation of Detector Response in Rectangular Small Field Dosimetry. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956742.
Qureshi, A, Tanny, S, Parsai, E, and Sperling, N. 2016. "SU-F-T-557: Evaluation of Detector Response in Rectangular Small Field Dosimetry". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956742.
@article{osti_22649132,
title = {SU-F-T-557: Evaluation of Detector Response in Rectangular Small Field Dosimetry},
author = {Qureshi, A and Tanny, S and Parsai, E and Sperling, N},
abstractNote = {Purpose: As stereotactic treatment modalities grow towards becoming the standard of care, the need for accurate dose computation in small fields is becoming increasingly essential. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the response of different detectors, intended for small field dosimetry, in jaw defined small rectangular fields by analyzing output factors from a stereotactic clinical accelerator. Methods: Two Dosimeters, the Exradin A26 Microionization Chamber (Standard Imaging) and Edge Diode Detector (Sun Nuclear) were used to measure output factors taken on the Varian Edge Stereotactic Linear accelerator. Measurements were taken at 6MV and 6FFF at 10cm depth, 100cm SSD in a 48×48×40cm3 Welhoffer BluePhantom2 (IBA) with X and Y jaws set from 0.6 to 2.0cm. Output factors were normalized to a 5×5cm2 machine-specific reference field. Measurements were made in the vertical orientation for the A26 and horizontal orientation for both the A26 and Edge. Output factors were measured as: OF{sub FS} = M{sub FS}/M{sub ref} where M{sub FS} and M{sub ref} are the measured signals for the clinical field and the reference field, respectively. Measured output factors were then analyzed to establish relative responses of the detectors in small fields. Results: At 6MV the Edge detector exhibited a variation in output factors dependent on jaw positioning (X-by-Y vs Y-by-X) of 5.7% of the 5×5cm reference output and a variation of 3.33% at 6FFF. The A26 exhibited variation of output factor dependent on jaw positioning of upto 7.7% of the 5×5cm reference field at 6MV and upto 5.33% at 6FFF. Conclusion: Both the Edge detector and A26 responded as expected at small fields however a dependence on the jaw positioning was noted. At 6MV and 6FFF the detector response showed an increased dependence on the positioning of the X jaws as compared to the positioning of the Y jaws.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956742},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: TheAlfonso et al. [Med. Phys.35, 5179–5186 (2008)] formalism for small field dosimetry proposes a set of correction factors (k{sub Q{sub c{sub l{sub i{sub n,Q{sub m{sub s{sub r}{sup f{sub c}{sub l}{sub i}{sub n},f{sub m}{sub s}{sub r}}}}}}}}}) which account for differences between the detector response in nonstandard (clinical) and machine-specific-reference fields. In this study, the Monte Carlo method was used to investigate the viability of such small field correction factors for four different detectors irradiated under a variety of conditions. Because k{sub Q{sub c{sub l{sub i{sub n,Q{sub m{sub s{sub r}{sup f{sub c}{sub l}{sub i}{sub n},f{sub m}{sub s}{sub r}}}}}}}}} values for singlemore » detector position measurements are influenced by several factors, a new theoretical formalism for integrated-detector-position [dose area product (DAP)] measurements is also presented and was tested using Monte Carlo simulations. Methods: A BEAMnrc linac model was built and validated for a Varian Clinac iX accelerator. Using the egs++ geometry package, detailed virtual models were built for four different detectors: a PTW 60012 unshielded diode, a PTW 60003 Diamond detector, a PTW 31006 PinPoint (ionization chamber), and a PTW 31018 MicroLion (liquid-filled ionization chamber). The egs-chamber code was used to investigate the variation ofk{sub Q{sub c{sub l{sub i{sub n,Q{sub m{sub s{sub r}{sup f{sub c}{sub l}{sub i}{sub n},f{sub m}{sub s}{sub r}}}}}}}}} with detector type, detector construction, field size, off-axis position, and the azimuthal angle between the detector and beam axis. Simulations were also used to consider the DAP obtained by each detector: virtual detectors and water voxels were scanned through high resolution grids of positions extending far beyond the boundaries of the fields under consideration. Results: For each detector, the correction factor (k{sub Q{sub c{sub l{sub i{sub n,Q{sub m{sub s{sub r}{sup f{sub c}{sub l}{sub i}{sub n},f{sub m}{sub s}{sub r}}}}}}}}}) was shown to depend strongly on detector off-axis position and detector azimuthal angle in addition to field size. In line with previous studies, substantial interdetector variation was also observed. However, it was demonstrated that by considering DAPs rather than single-detector-position dose measurements the high level of interdetector variation could be eliminated. Under small field conditions, mass density was found to be the principal determinant of water equivalence. Additionally, the mass densities of components outside the sensitive volumes were found to influence the detector response. Conclusions: k{sub Q{sub c{sub l{sub i{sub n,Q{sub m{sub s{sub r}{sup f{sub c}{sub l}{sub i}{sub n},f{sub m}{sub s}{sub r}}}}}}}}} values for existing detector designs depend on a host of variables and their calculation typically relies on the use of time-intensive Monte Carlo methods. Future moves toward density-compensated detector designs or DAP based protocols may simplify the methodology of small field dosimetry.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the performance of a new stereotactic diode for dosimetry of small photon fields. Methods: A new stereotactic diode, consisting of an unshielded p-type silicon chip, and with improved radiation hardness energy dependence was recently developed (IBA Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruch, Germany). The diode has an active volume of 0.6 mm dia. x 0.02 mm thick. Two new diodes were evaluated, one which was pre-irradiated to 100kGy with 10 MeV electrons and another which received no prior irradiation. Sensitivity, stability, reproducibility, and linearity as a function of dose were assessed. Beam profiles and small field output factors were measured onmore » a CyberKnife (CK) and compared with measurements using two commercially available diodes. Results: The new diodes exhibit linear behavior (within 0.6%) over a dose range 0.02 – 50 Gy; a commercially available device exhibits excursions of up to 4% over the same range. The sensitivity is 4.1 and 3.8 nC/Gy for the un-irradiated and pre-irradiated diodes, respectively. When irradiated with 150 Gy in dose increments of 5, 20 and 35 Gy, both new diodes provide a stable response within 0.5%. Output factors measured with the two new diodes are identical and compare favorably with other commercially available diodes and published data. Similarly, no differences in measured field size or penumbra were observed among the devices tested. Conclusion: The new diodes show excellent stability and sensitivity. The beam characterization in terms of output factors and beam profiles is consistent with that obtained with commercially available diodes.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the performance of a commercial plastic scintillator detector (PSD) for small-field stereotactic patient-specific quality assurance using flattening-filter-free (FFF) beams. Methods: A total of ten spherical targets (volume range:[0.03cc–2cc]) were planned using Dynamic Conformal Arc(DCA-10 plans) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy(VMAT-10 plans) techniques in Eclipse(AAA v.11, 1mm dose calculation grid size). Additionally, 15 previously-treated cranial and spine SRS plans were evaluated (6 DCA, 9 VMAT, volume range:[0.04cc–119.02cc]). All measurements were acquired using Varian Edge equipped with HDMLC. Three detectors were used: PinPoint ion chamber (PTW;active volume 0.015cc), Exradin W1 PSD (Standard Imaging;active volume 0.002cc), and Gafchromic EBT3 filmmore » (Ashland). PinPoint and PSD were positioned perpendicular to beam axis in a Lucy phantom (Standard Imaging). Films were placed at isocenter in solid water. Calibration films were delivered for absolute dose analysis. Results: For large spherical targets(>1.5cc) with DCA, all detectors agreed within 1% of AAA calculations. As target volume decreased, PSD measured higher doses than AAA (maximum difference: 3.3% at 0.03cc target), while PinPoint chamber measured lower doses (maximum difference:-3.8% at 0.03cc target). Inter-detector differences between pinpoint and PSD increased with decreasing target size; differences>5% were observed for targets<0.09cc. Similar trends for inter-detector behavior were observed for clinical plans. For target sizes<0.08cc, PSD measured>5% higher dose than PinPoint chamber (maximum difference: 9.25% at 0.04cc target). Film demonstrated agreement of −0.19±1.47% with PSD for all spherical targets, and agreement within −0.98±2.25% for all 15 clinical targets. Unlike DCA, VMAT plans did not show improved AAA-to-detector agreements for large targets. Conclusion: For all targets, the PSD measurements agreed with film within 1.0%, on average. For small volume targets (<0.10cc), PSD agreed with film but measured significantly higher doses (>5%) compared with the pin point ion chamber. The plastic scintillator detector appears to be suitable for accurate measurements of small SRS targets.« less