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

Title: SU-G-BRB-14: Uncertainty of Radiochromic Film Based Relative Dose Measurements

Abstract

Purpose: Due to inherently non-linear dose response, measurement of relative dose distribution with radiochromic film requires measurement of absolute dose using a calibration curve following previously established reference dosimetry protocol. On the other hand, a functional form that converts the inherently non-linear dose response curve of the radiochromic film dosimetry system into linear one has been proposed recently [Devic et al, Med. Phys. 39 4850–4857 (2012)]. However, there is a question what would be the uncertainty of such measured relative dose. Methods: If the relative dose distribution is determined going through the reference dosimetry system (conversion of the response by using calibration curve into absolute dose) the total uncertainty of such determined relative dose will be calculated by summing in quadrature total uncertainties of doses measured at a given and at the reference point. On the other hand, if the relative dose is determined using linearization method, the new response variable is calculated as ζ=a(netOD)n/ln(netOD). In this case, the total uncertainty in relative dose will be calculated by summing in quadrature uncertainties for a new response function (σζ) for a given and the reference point. Results: Except at very low doses, where the measurement uncertainty dominates, the total relative dosemore » uncertainty is less than 1% for the linear response method as compared to almost 2% uncertainty level for the reference dosimetry method. The result is not surprising having in mind that the total uncertainty of the reference dose method is dominated by the fitting uncertainty, which is mitigated in the case of linearization method. Conclusion: Linearization of the radiochromic film dose response provides a convenient and a more precise method for relative dose measurements as it does not require reference dosimetry and creation of calibration curve. However, the linearity of the newly introduced function must be verified. Dave Lewis is inventor and runs a consulting company for radiochromic films.« less

Authors:
; ; ;  [1];  [2];  [3]
  1. McGill University, Montreal, QC (Canada)
  2. RCF Consulting, LLC, Monroe, CT (United States)
  3. King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, Riyadh (Saudi Arabia)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649285
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:
07 ISOTOPES AND RADIATION SOURCES; CALIBRATION; FILM DOSIMETRY; NONLINEAR PROBLEMS; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RESPONSE FUNCTIONS

Citation Formats

Devic, S, Tomic, N, DeBlois, F, Seuntjens, J, Lewis, D, and Aldelaijan, S. SU-G-BRB-14: Uncertainty of Radiochromic Film Based Relative Dose Measurements. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956921.
Devic, S, Tomic, N, DeBlois, F, Seuntjens, J, Lewis, D, & Aldelaijan, S. SU-G-BRB-14: Uncertainty of Radiochromic Film Based Relative Dose Measurements. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956921.
Devic, S, Tomic, N, DeBlois, F, Seuntjens, J, Lewis, D, and Aldelaijan, S. 2016. "SU-G-BRB-14: Uncertainty of Radiochromic Film Based Relative Dose Measurements". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956921.
@article{osti_22649285,
title = {SU-G-BRB-14: Uncertainty of Radiochromic Film Based Relative Dose Measurements},
author = {Devic, S and Tomic, N and DeBlois, F and Seuntjens, J and Lewis, D and Aldelaijan, S},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Due to inherently non-linear dose response, measurement of relative dose distribution with radiochromic film requires measurement of absolute dose using a calibration curve following previously established reference dosimetry protocol. On the other hand, a functional form that converts the inherently non-linear dose response curve of the radiochromic film dosimetry system into linear one has been proposed recently [Devic et al, Med. Phys. 39 4850–4857 (2012)]. However, there is a question what would be the uncertainty of such measured relative dose. Methods: If the relative dose distribution is determined going through the reference dosimetry system (conversion of the response by using calibration curve into absolute dose) the total uncertainty of such determined relative dose will be calculated by summing in quadrature total uncertainties of doses measured at a given and at the reference point. On the other hand, if the relative dose is determined using linearization method, the new response variable is calculated as ζ=a(netOD)n/ln(netOD). In this case, the total uncertainty in relative dose will be calculated by summing in quadrature uncertainties for a new response function (σζ) for a given and the reference point. Results: Except at very low doses, where the measurement uncertainty dominates, the total relative dose uncertainty is less than 1% for the linear response method as compared to almost 2% uncertainty level for the reference dosimetry method. The result is not surprising having in mind that the total uncertainty of the reference dose method is dominated by the fitting uncertainty, which is mitigated in the case of linearization method. Conclusion: Linearization of the radiochromic film dose response provides a convenient and a more precise method for relative dose measurements as it does not require reference dosimetry and creation of calibration curve. However, the linearity of the newly introduced function must be verified. Dave Lewis is inventor and runs a consulting company for radiochromic films.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956921},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Megavoltage x-ray beams exhibit the well-known phenomena of dose buildup within the first few millimeters of the incident phantom surface, or the skin. Results of the surface dose measurements, however, depend vastly on the measurement technique employed. Our goal in this study was to determine a correction procedure in order to obtain an accurate skin dose estimate at the clinically relevant depth based on radiochromic film measurements. To illustrate this correction, we have used as a reference point a depth of 70 {mu}. We used the new GAFCHROMIC[reg] dosimetry films (HS, XR-T, and EBT) that have effective points of measurementmore » at depths slightly larger than 70 {mu}. In addition to films, we also used an Attix parallel-plate chamber and a home-built extrapolation chamber to cover tissue-equivalent depths in the range from 4 {mu} to 1 mm of water-equivalent depth. Our measurements suggest that within the first millimeter of the skin region, the PDD for a 6 MV photon beam and field size of 10x10 cm{sup 2} increases from 14% to 43%. For the three GAFCHROMIC[reg] dosimetry film models, the 6 MV beam entrance skin dose measurement corrections due to their effective point of measurement are as follows: 15% for the EBT, 15% for the HS, and 16% for the XR-T model GAFCHROMIC[reg] films. The correction factors for the exit skin dose due to the build-down region are negligible. There is a small field size dependence for the entrance skin dose correction factor when using the EBT GAFCHROMIC[reg] film model. Finally, a procedure that uses EBT model GAFCHROMIC[reg] film for an accurate measurement of the skin dose in a parallel-opposed pair 6 MV photon beam arrangement is described.« less
  • Purpose: We investigated the effect of the EBT3 GafChromicTM film model absorbed dose energy response when used for percent depth dose (PDD) measurements in low-energy photon beams. Methods: We measured PDDs in water from a Xoft 50 kVp source using EBT3 film, and compared them to PDD measurements acquired with a PTW-TN34013 parallel-plate ionization chamber. For the x-ray source, we simulated spectra using the EGSnrc (BEAMnrc) Monte Carlo code, and calculated Half Value Layer (HVL) at different distances from the source in water. Pieces of EBT3 film were irradiated in air and calibration curves were created in terms of air-kermamore » in air ((Kair)air) for different beam qualities. Pieces of EBT3 film were positioned at distances of 2–6 cm from the Xoft source in a water phantom using a custom-made holder, and irradiated at the same time. As scatter is incorporated in the measured film signal in water, measured (Kair)wat was subsequently converted into absorbed dose to water by the ratio of mass energy absorption coefficients following the AAPM TG-61 dosimetry protocol. Results: Our results show that film calibration curves obtained at beam qualities near the effective energy of the Xoft 50 kVp source in water lead to variation in absorbed dose energy dependence of the response of around 3%. However, if the calibration curve was established at MV beam quality, the error in absorbed dose could be as large as 15%. We observed agreement within 1% between PDD measurements using EBT3 film model (using a calibration curve obtained at 80 kVp, HVL=2.18 mm Al, Eeff=29.5 keV) and the parallel-plate ionization chamber. Conclusion: Accurate dose measurements using radiochromic films at low photon energies require that the radiochromic film dosimetry system be calibrated at corresponding low energies, as large absorbed dose errors are expected for calibrations performed at MV beam qualities.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the transit dose based patient specific quality assurance (QA) of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for verification of the accuracy of dose delivered to the patient. Methods: Five IMRT plans were selected and utilized to irradiate a homogeneous plastic water phantom and an inhomogeneous anthropomorphic phantom. The transit dose distribution was measured with radiochromic film and was compared with the computed dose map on the same plane using a gamma index with a 3% dose and a 3 mm distance-to-dose agreement tolerance limit. Results: While the average gamma index for comparisons of dose distributions was less thanmore » one for 98.9% of all pixels from the transit dose with the homogeneous phantom, the passing rate was reduced to 95.0% for the transit dose with the inhomogeneous phantom. Transit doses due to a 5 mm setup error may cause up to a 50% failure rate of the gamma index. Conclusions: Transit dose based IMRT QA may be superior to the traditional QA method since the former can show whether the inhomogeneity correction algorithm from TPS is accurate. In addition, transit dose based IMRT QA can be used to verify the accuracy of the dose delivered to the patient during treatment by revealing significant increases in the failure rate of the gamma index resulting from errors in patient positioning during treatment.« less
  • The purpose of the study was evaluating accuracy and reproducibility of a radiochromic film-based protocol to measure computer tomography dose index (CTDI) as a part of annual QA on CT scanners and kV-CBCT systems attached to linear accelerators. Energy dependence of Gafchromic XR-QA2 ® film model was tested over imaging beam qualities (50 – 140 kVp). Film pieces were irradiated in air to known values of air-kerma (up to 10 cGy). Calibration curves for each beam quality were created (Film reflectance change Vs. Air-kerma in air). Film responses for same air-kerma values were compared. Film strips were placed into holesmore » of a CTDI phantom and irradiated for several clinical scanning protocols. Film reflectance change was converted into dose to water and used to calculate CTDIvol values. Measured and tabulated CTDIvol values were compared. Average variations of ±5.2% in the mean film reflectance change were observed in the energy range of 80 to 140 keV, and 11.1% between 50 and 140 keV. Measured CTDI values were in average 10% lower than tabulated CTDI values for CT-simulators, and 44% higher for CBCT systems. Results presented a mean variation for the same machine and protocol of 2.6%. Variation of film response is within ±5% resulting in ±15% systematic error in dose estimation if a single calibration curve is used. Relatively large discrepancy between measured and tabulated CTDI values strongly support the trend towards replacing CTDI value with equilibrium dose measurement in the center of cylindrical phantom, as suggested by TG- 111.« less