Literature DB >> 12607828

Comparison of ionization chambers of various volumes for IMRT absolute dose verification.

Leonid B Leybovich1, Anil Sethi, Nesrin Dogan.   

Abstract

IMRT plans are usually verified by phantom measurements: dose distributions are measured using film and the absolute dose using an ionization chamber. The measured and calculated doses are compared and planned MUs are modified if necessary. To achieve a conformal dose distribution, IMRT fields are composed of small subfields, or "beamlets." The size of beamlets is on the order of 1 x 1 cm2. Therefore, small chambers with sensitive volumes < or = 0.1 cm3 are generally used for absolute dose verification. A dosimetry system consisting of an electrometer, an ion chamber, and connecting cables may exhibit charge leakage. Since chamber sensitivity is proportional to volume, the effect of leakage on the measured charge is relatively greater for small chambers. Furthermore, the charge contribution from beamlets located at significant distances from the point of measurement may be below the small chambers threshold and hence not detected. On the other hand, large (0.6 cm3) chambers used for the dosimetry of conventional external fields are quite sensitive. Since these chambers are long, the electron fluence through them may not be uniform ("temporal" uniformity may not exist in the chamber volume). However, the cumulative, or "spatial" fluence distribution (as indicated by calculated IMRT dose distribution) may become uniform at the chamber location when the delivery of all IMRT fields is completed. Under the condition of "spatial" fluence uniformity, the charge collected by the large chamber may accurately represent the absolute dose delivered by IMRT to the point of measurement. In this work, 0.6, 0.125, and 0.009 cm3 chambers were used for the absolute dose verification for tomographic and step-and-shoot IMRT plans. With the largest, 0.6 cm3 chamber, the measured dose was equal to calculated within 0.5%, when no leakage corrections were made. Without leakage corrections, the error of measurement with a 0.125 cm3 chamber was 2.6% (tomographic IMRT) and 1.5% (step-and-shoot IMRT). When doses measured by a 0.125 cm3 chamber were corrected for leakage, the difference between the calculated and measured doses reduced to 0.5%. Leakage corrected doses obtained with the 0.009 cm3 chamber were within 1.5%-1.7% of calculated doses. Without leakage corrections, the measurement error was 16% (tomographic IMRT) and 7% (step-and-shoot IMRT).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12607828     DOI: 10.1118/1.1536161

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  10 in total

1.  The change of response of ionization chambers in the penumbra and transmission regions: impact for IMRT verification.

Authors:  D González-Castaño; J Pena; F Sánchez-Doblado; G H Hartmann; F Gómez; A Leal
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2007-09-08       Impact factor: 2.602

2.  Total scatter factors of small beams: a multidetector and Monte Carlo study.

Authors:  Paolo Francescon; Stefania Cora; Carlo Cavedon
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  The effect of influence quantities and detector orientation on small-field patient-specific IMRT QA: comparison of measurements with various ionization chambers.

Authors:  Henry Finlay Godson; Ravikumar Manickam; Sathiyan Saminathan; Kadirampatti Mani Ganesh; Retna Ponmalar
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2016-12-01

4.  Dosimetric characterization and behaviour in small X-ray fields of a microchamber and a plastic scintillator detector.

Authors:  Massimo Pasquino; Claudia Cutaia; Lorenzo Radici; Serena Valzano; Eva Gino; Carlo Cavedon; Michele Stasi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Optimized point dose measurement for monitor unit verification in intensity modulated radiation therapy using 6 MV photons by three different methodologies with different detector-phantom combinations: A comparative study.

Authors:  Biplab Sarkar; Bhaswar Ghosh; Sukumaran Mahendramohan; Ayan Basu; Jyotirup Goswami; Amitabh Ray
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2010-07

6.  Two years experience with quality assurance protocol for patient related Rapid Arc treatment plan verification using a two dimensional ionization chamber array.

Authors:  Daniela Wagner; Hilke Vorwerk
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 3.481

7.  Verification of inverse planning and treatment delivery for segmental IMRT.

Authors:  James L Bedford; Peter J Childs; Alan P Warrington
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2004-04-01       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Absolute dose verification of static intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with ion chambers of various volumes and TLD detectors.

Authors:  Hediye Acun-Bucht; Ebru Tuncay; Emin Darendeliler; Gönül Kemikler
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2018-05-19

9.  A study to establish reasonable action limits for patient-specific quality assurance in intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Stefan Both; Ionut M Alecu; Andrada R Stan; Marius Alecu; Andrei Ciura; Jeremy M Hansen; Rodica Alecu
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2007-03-07       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Characterization of cylindrical ionization chambers for patient specific IMRT QA.

Authors:  Danielle Fraser; William Parker; Jan Seuntjens
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 2.102

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.