Paolo Francescon1, Sam Beddar2, Ninfa Satariano1, Indra J Das3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Ospedale Di Vicenza, Viale Rodolfi, Vicenza 36100, Italy. 2. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77005. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evaluate the ability of different dosimeters to correctly measure the dosimetric parameters percentage depth dose (PDD), tissue-maximum ratio (TMR), and off-axis ratio (OAR) in water for small fields. METHODS: Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were used to estimate the variation of kQclin,Qmsr (fclin,fmsr) for several types of microdetectors as a function of depth and distance from the central axis for PDD, TMR, and OAR measurements. The variation of kQclin,Qmsr (fclin,fmsr) enables one to evaluate the ability of a detector to reproduce the PDD, TMR, and OAR in water and consequently determine whether it is necessary to apply correction factors. The correctness of the simulations was verified by assessing the ratios between the PDDs and OARs of 5- and 25-mm circular collimators used with a linear accelerator measured with two different types of dosimeters (the PTW 60012 diode and PTW PinPoint 31014 microchamber) and the PDDs and the OARs measured with the Exradin W1 plastic scintillator detector (PSD) and comparing those ratios with the corresponding ratios predicted by the MC simulations. RESULTS: MC simulations reproduced results with acceptable accuracy compared to the experimental results; therefore, MC simulations can be used to successfully predict the behavior of different dosimeters in small fields. The Exradin W1 PSD was the only dosimeter that reproduced the PDDs, TMRs, and OARs in water with high accuracy. With the exception of the EDGE diode, the stereotactic diodes reproduced the PDDs and the TMRs in water with a systematic error of less than 2% at depths of up to 25 cm; however, they produced OAR values that were significantly different from those in water, especially in the tail region (lower than 20% in some cases). The microchambers could be used for PDD measurements for fields greater than those produced using a 10-mm collimator. However, with the detector stem parallel to the beam axis, the microchambers could be used for TMR measurements for all field sizes. The microchambers could not be used for OAR measurements for small fields. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with MC simulation, the Exradin W1 PSD can reproduce the PDDs, TMRs, and OARs in water with a high degree of accuracy; thus, the correction used for converting dose is very close to unity. The stereotactic diode is a viable alternative because it shows an acceptable systematic error in the measurement of PDDs and TMRs and a significant underestimation in only the tail region of the OAR measurements, where the dose is low and differences in dose may not be therapeutically meaningful.
PURPOSE: Evaluate the ability of different dosimeters to correctly measure the dosimetric parameters percentage depth dose (PDD), tissue-maximum ratio (TMR), and off-axis ratio (OAR) in water for small fields. METHODS: Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were used to estimate the variation of kQclin,Qmsr (fclin,fmsr) for several types of microdetectors as a function of depth and distance from the central axis for PDD, TMR, and OAR measurements. The variation of kQclin,Qmsr (fclin,fmsr) enables one to evaluate the ability of a detector to reproduce the PDD, TMR, and OAR in water and consequently determine whether it is necessary to apply correction factors. The correctness of the simulations was verified by assessing the ratios between the PDDs and OARs of 5- and 25-mm circular collimators used with a linear accelerator measured with two different types of dosimeters (the PTW 60012 diode and PTW PinPoint 31014 microchamber) and the PDDs and the OARs measured with the Exradin W1 plastic scintillator detector (PSD) and comparing those ratios with the corresponding ratios predicted by the MC simulations. RESULTS: MC simulations reproduced results with acceptable accuracy compared to the experimental results; therefore, MC simulations can be used to successfully predict the behavior of different dosimeters in small fields. The Exradin W1 PSD was the only dosimeter that reproduced the PDDs, TMRs, and OARs in water with high accuracy. With the exception of the EDGE diode, the stereotactic diodes reproduced the PDDs and the TMRs in water with a systematic error of less than 2% at depths of up to 25 cm; however, they produced OAR values that were significantly different from those in water, especially in the tail region (lower than 20% in some cases). The microchambers could be used for PDD measurements for fields greater than those produced using a 10-mm collimator. However, with the detector stem parallel to the beam axis, the microchambers could be used for TMR measurements for all field sizes. The microchambers could not be used for OAR measurements for small fields. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with MC simulation, the Exradin W1 PSD can reproduce the PDDs, TMRs, and OARs in water with a high degree of accuracy; thus, the correction used for converting dose is very close to unity. The stereotactic diode is a viable alternative because it shows an acceptable systematic error in the measurement of PDDs and TMRs and a significant underestimation in only the tail region of the OAR measurements, where the dose is low and differences in dose may not be therapeutically meaningful.
Authors: David M Klein; Ramesh C Tailor; Louis Archambault; Lilie Wang; Francois Therriault-Proulx; A Sam Beddar Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: R Alfonso; P Andreo; R Capote; M Saiful Huq; W Kilby; P Kjäll; T R Mackie; H Palmans; K Rosser; J Seuntjens; W Ullrich; S Vatnitsky Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: E Pantelis; C Antypas; L Petrokokkinos; P Karaiskos; P Papagiannis; M Kozicki; E Georgiou; L Sakelliou; I Seimenis Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Madelaine K Tyler; Paul Z Y Liu; Christopher Lee; David R McKenzie; Natalka Suchowerska Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-05-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Luis Muñoz; Tomas Kron; Marco Petasecca; Joseph Bucci; Michael Jackson; Peter Metcalfe; Anatoly B Rosenfeld; Giordano Biasi Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Carolin Weber; Rafael Kranzer; Jan Weidner; Kevin Kröninger; Björn Poppe; Hui Khee Looe; Daniela Poppinga Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 4.071