Dynamic wedges – dosimetry and quality control

Quantitative Verification of Dynamic Wedge Dose Distribution Using a 2D Ionization Chamber Array

The accuracy of two calculation algorithms of the Eclipse 8.9 treatment planning system (TPS)--the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA) and pencil-beam convolution (PBC)--in modeling the enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) was investigated. Measurements were carried out for 6 and 18 MV photon beams using a 2D ionization chamber array. Accuracy of the TPS was evaluated using a gamma index analysis with the following acceptance criteria for dose differences (DD) and distance to agreement (DTA): 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm. The TPS models the dose distribution accurately except for 20×20 cm(2) field size, 60 (°) and 45 (°) wedge angles using PBC at 6 MV photon energy. For these latter fields, the pass rate and the mean value of gamma were less than 90% and more than 0.5, respectively at the (3%/3 mm) acceptance criteria. In addition, an accuracy level of (2%/2 mm) was achieved using AAA with better agreement for 18 MV photon energy.

Multienergetic verification of dynamic wedge angles in medical accelerators using multichannel linear array

BACKGROUND

The aim of the modern radiotherapy is to get a homogenous dose distribution in PTV, which is obtained by using for example physical or dynamic wedges. The using of a physical wedge has provided such isodose distributions but their use resulted in detrimental dosimetric consequences, for example beam hardening effects and practical consequences of filter handling or possible misalignment. Linear accelerators are now equipped with collimator jaws systems and controlled by modern computers and it is possible to generate wedge shaped isodose distributions dynamically. Because of a more comfortable use of a dynamic wedge, there are alternatives to the standard physical wedge. During the treatment, different segments of the treatment field can be exposed to the primary beam at different intervals of time. This process of shrinking the field while modulating the collimator jaw velocity and dose rate creates the desired wedge-shaped isodose gradient across the treatment field. Dynamic wedges can replace physical wedges but they need more precise dosimetry and quality control procedures.

AIM

The aim of this study was to perform a multienergetic verification of dynamic wedge angles using the multichannel detector PTW LA48 linear array.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The measurements of angle value of dynamic wedges were performed for Clinac 2300 C/D accelerators (Varian). The accelerator was equipped with the EDW option for 6 MV and 15 MV photon beams. In this case, 7 wedge angle values were used: 10°, 15°, 20°, 25°, 30°, 45° and 60°. The dynamic wedges are realized by continuous movement of one collimator jaw. The field size is gradually reduced until the collimator is almost completely closed or the field increases, while the beam is on. The measurements were divided in two steps: in the first step, the dynamic wedges were verified with the recommended values and in the second step there the planned and measured angles of dynamic wedges were compared. Measurements were made by means of LA48 linear array of ionization chambers (PTW). The results of the measurements were compared with the reference profile produced by the treatment planning system ECLIPSE 8.5 (Varian).

RESULTS

The results showed differences between measured and calculated angle of dynamic wedges. The differences were observed for both energies in the case of a small angle value. For energies 6 MV and 15 MV, almost all percentage difference between the measured and calculated profile was lower than 5%. The biggest difference was observed in the first step of measurements when the angle of Dynamic Wedge was verified. The comparison between the planned and measured angle value of Dynamic Wedge showed the difference between 0.1% and 4.5%. The difference for 6 MV for the angle value of 10° in orientation IN was 1.1% and for energy 15 MV in the same case the difference was 3.8%. Thinner wedges exhibit less difference.

CONCLUSION

It is necessary to provide comprehensive quality control procedure for enhanced dynamic wedges. Verification measurements should be an obligatory procedure in the recommendation for the testing of medical accelerators. These results are the preliminary results to provide measurements in other Polish Cancer Centres.

Comparison of dosimetric characteristics of physical and enhanced dynamic wedges

BACKGROUND

Wedge filters can be used as missing tissue compensators or wedge pairs to alter the shape of isodose curves so that two beams can be angled with a small hinge angle at a target volume without creating a hotspot.

AIM

In this study the dosimetric properties of Varian Enhanced Dynamic Wedge (EDW) and physical wedges (PW) were analyzed and compared.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ionometric measurements of open field output factor, physical wedge output factor, physical wedge factor and EDW factor for photon beams were carried out. A 3D scanning water phantom was used to scan depth dose and profiles for open and PW fields. The 2D ionization matrix was used to measure profiles of physical and EDW wedges. The isodose curves of physical and EDW angles were obtained using a therapy verification film.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The PW output factors of photons were compared with the open field output factors. The physical and EDW factors were compared. The difference in percentage depth dose for open and PW fields was observed for both photon beams. The measured isodose plots for physical and EDW were compared.

CONCLUSION

The wedge field output factor increases with field size and wedge angle compared to that of the open field output factor. The number of MU to deliver a particular dose with the EDW field is less than that of the PW field due to a change in wedge factor. The dosimetric characteristics, like profile and isodose of EDW, closely match with that of the PW.

Verification of Varian Enhanced Dynamic Wedge implementation in masterplan treatment planning system

This paper investigates the accuracy of the two available calculation algorithms of the Oncentra MasterPlan three‐dimensional treatment planning system (TPS) – the pencil beam method and collapsed‐cone convolution – in modeling the Varian enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW). Measurements were carried out for a dual high energy (6–15 MV) Varian DHX‐S linear accelerator using ionization chambers for beam axis measurements (wedge factors and depth doses), film dosimetry for off‐axis dose profiles measurements, and a diode matrix detector for two dimensional absolute dose distributions. Using both calculation algorithms, different configuration of symmetric and asymmetric fields varying the wedge's angle were tested. Accuracy of the treatment planning system was evaluated in terms of percentage differences between measured and calculated values for wedge factors, depth doses, and profiles. As far as the absolute dose distribution was concerned, the gamma index method (Low et al.⁽¹³⁾) was used with 3% and 3 mm as acceptance criteria for dose difference and distance‐to‐agreement, respectively. Wedge factors and percentage depth doses were within 1% deviation between calculated and measured values. The comparison of measured and calculated dose profiles shows that the Van Dyk's acceptance criteria (Van Dyk et al.⁽¹⁴⁾) are generally met; a disagreement can be noted for large wedge angles and field size limited to the low dose‐low gradient region only. The 2D absolute dose distribution analysis confirms the good accuracy of the two calculation algorithms in modeling the enhanced dynamic wedge.

PACS number: 87.53.Bn, 87.55.kn, 87.56.ng