Literature DB >> 12906187

Ionization chamber volume averaging effects in dynamic intensity modulated radiation therapy beams.

Daniel A Low1, Parag Parikh, James F Dempsey, Sasha Wahab, Saiful Huq.   

Abstract

The commercial cylindrical ionization chamber ionization integration accuracy of dynamically moving fields was evaluated. The ionization chambers were exposed to long (14 cm), narrow (0.6, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 cm) 6 MV and 18 MV fields. Rather than rely on the linear accelerator to reproducibly scan across the chamber, the chambers were scanned beneath fixed portals. A water-equivalent phantom was constructed with cavities that matched the chambers and placed on a computer-controlled one-dimensional table. Computer-controlled electrometers were utilized in continuous charge integrate mode, with 10 samples of the charge, along with time stamps, acquired for each chamber location. A reference chamber was placed just beneath the linear accelerator jaws to adjust for variations in linear accelerator dose rate. The scan spatial resolution was selected to adequately sample regions of steep dose gradient and second spatial derivative (curvature). A fixed measurement in a 10 x 10 cm2 field was used to normalize the profiles to absolute chamber response. Three ionization chambers were tested, a microchamber (0.009 cm3), a Farmer chamber (0.6 cm3) and a waterproof scanning chamber (0.125 cm3). The larger chambers exhibited severe under-response at the small field's centers, but all of the chambers, independent of orientation, accurately integrated the ionization across the scanned portal. This indicates that the tested ionization chambers provide accurate integrated charges in regions of homogeneous dose regions. Partial integration (less than the field width plus the chamber length plus 2 cm), yielded integration errors of greater than 1% and 2% for 6 MV and 18 MV, respectively, with errors for the Farmer chamber of greater than 10% even for the 4 cm wide field.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12906187     DOI: 10.1118/1.1582558

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


  11 in total

1.  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

2.  Optical imaging provides rapid verification of static small beams, radiosurgery, and VMAT plans with millimeter resolution.

Authors:  Muhammad Ramish Ashraf; Petr Bruza; Brian W Pogue; Nathan Nelson; Benjamin B Williams; Lesley A Jarvis; David J Gladstone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-10-04       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Patient-specific quality assurance for the delivery of (60)Co intensity modulated radiation therapy subject to a 0.35-T lateral magnetic field.

Authors:  H Harold Li; Vivian L Rodriguez; Olga L Green; Yanle Hu; Rojano Kashani; H Omar Wooten; Deshan Yang; Sasa Mutic
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2014-10-25       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Optimized point dose measurement: An effective tool for QA in intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  Alok Kumar; Gautam Mukherjee; Girigesh Yadav; Vinod Pandey; Kalyan Bhattacharya
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2007-10

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.  Portal dosimetry for pretreatment verification of IMRT plan: a comparison with 2D ion chamber array.

Authors:  Dayananda Shamurailatpam Sharma; Vaibav Mhatre; Malhotra Heigrujam; Kaustav Talapatra; Suman Mallik
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  A robust measurement point for dose verification in delivery quality assurance for a robotic radiosurgery system.

Authors:  Keita Kurosu; Iori Sumida; Hiroya Shiomi; Hirokazu Mizuno; Hiroko Yamaguchi; Hirofumi Okubo; Keisuke Tamari; Yuji Seo; Osamu Suzuki; Seiichi Ota; Shinichi Inoue; Kazuhiko Ogawa
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 2.724

8.  Modeling a superficial radiotherapy X-ray source for relative dose calculations.

Authors:  Christopher D Johnstone; Richard LaFontaine; Yannick Poirier; Mauro Tambasco
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Evaluation of a neural network-based photon beam profile deconvolution method.

Authors:  Karl Mund; Jian Wu; Chihray Liu; Guanghua Yan
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-03-30       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Different Dosimeters/Detectors Used in Small-Field Dosimetry: Pros and Cons.

Authors:  Wrya Parwaie; Soheila Refahi; Mahdieh Afkhami Ardekani; Bagher Farhood
Journal:  J Med Signals Sens       Date:  2018 Jul-Sep
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.