Variation of kQclin,Qmsr (fclin,fmsr) for the small-field dosimetric parameters percentage depth dose, tissue-maximum ratio, and off-axis ratio

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.

Small fields output factors measurements and correction factors determination for several detectors for a CyberKnife® and linear accelerators equipped with microMLC and circular cones

PURPOSE

The use of small photon fields is now an established practice in stereotactic radiosurgery and radiotherapy. However, due to a lack of lateral electron equilibrium and high dose gradients, it is difficult to accurately measure the dosimetric quantities required for the commissioning of such systems. Moreover, there is still no metrological dosimetric reference for this kind of beam today. In this context, the first objective of this work was to determine and to compare small fields output factors (OF) measured with different types of active detectors and passive dosimeters for three types of facilities: a CyberKnife(®) system, a dedicated medical linear accelerator (Novalis) equipped with m3 microMLC and circular cones, and an adaptive medical linear accelerator (Clinac 2100) equipped with an additional m3 microMLC. The second one was to determine the kQclin,Qmsr (fclin,fmsr) correction factors introduced in a recently proposed small field dosimetry formalism for different active detectors.

METHODS

Small field sizes were defined either by microMLC down to 6 × 6 mm(2) or by circular cones down to 4 mm in diameter. OF measurements were performed with several commercially available active detectors dedicated to measurements in small fields (high resolution diodes: IBA SFD, Sun Nuclear EDGE, PTW 60016, PTW 60017; ionizing chambers: PTW 31014 PinPoint chamber, PTW 31018 microLion liquid chamber, and PTW 60003 natural diamond). Two types of passive dosimeters were used: LiF microcubes and EBT2 radiochromic films.

RESULTS

Significant differences between the results obtained by several dosimetric systems were observed, particularly for the smallest field size for which the difference in the measured OF reaches more than 20%. For passive dosimeters, an excellent agreement was observed (better than 2%) between EBT2 and LiF microcubes for all OF measurements. Moreover, it has been shown that these passive dosimeters do not require correction factors and can then be used as reference dosimeters. Correction factors for the active detectors have then been determined from the mean experimental OF measured by the passive dosimeters.

CONCLUSIONS

Four sets of correction factors needed to apply the new small field dosimetry formalism are provided for several active detectors. A protocol for small photon beams OF determination based on passive dosimeters measurements has been recently proposed to French radiotherapy treatment centers.

A methodological approach to reporting corrected small field relative outputs

PURPOSE

The goal of this work was to set out a methodology for measuring and reporting small field relative output and to assess the application of published correction factors across a population of linear accelerators.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Measurements were made at 6 MV on five Varian iX accelerators using two PTW T60017 unshielded diodes. Relative output readings and profile measurements were made for nominal square field sizes of side 0.5 to 1.0 cm. The actual in-plane (A) and cross-plane (B) field widths were taken to be the FWHM at the 50% isodose level. An effective field size, defined as √FS eff=A · B, was calculated and is presented as a field size metric. FSeff was used to linearly interpolate between published Monte Carlo (MC) calculated [Formula in text] values to correct for the diode over-response in small fields.

RESULTS

The relative output data reported as a function of the nominal field size were different across the accelerator population by up to nearly 10%. However, using the effective field size for reporting showed that the actual output ratios were consistent across the accelerator population to within the experimental uncertainty of ± 1.0%. Correcting the measured relative output using [Formula in text] at both the nominal and effective field sizes produce output factors that were not identical but differ by much less than the reported experimental and/or MC statistical uncertainties.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, the proposed methodology removes much of the ambiguity in reporting and interpreting small field dosimetric quantities and facilitates a clear dosimetric comparison across a population of linacs.