Dosimetric evaluation of the Siemens Virtual Wedge

FOIL ACTIVATION TECHNIQUE-A TOOL FOR THE EVALUATION OF PHOTO-NEUTRON DOSE IN RADIOTHERAPY

Treatment of cancer is carried out using photon beams from high-energy medical linear accelerators. Photo-neutrons are also produced as an unwanted by product in the process of dose delivery to the cancer patients during their radiation treatments. In the present study, photo-neutron dose equivalents (both thermal and fast components) per unit delivered gamma-photon dose were measured at different depths, as function of distances from iso-centre in patient plane, field sizes, wedge angles and at LINAC head for a 15-MV medical linear accelerator model Elekta Precise using multi-foil activation technique. The neutron dose equivalents determined for the above-mentioned parameters were found to be lower (<0.05%) in comparison with the therapeutic photon dose delivered and within the prescribed limits recommended by the national regulatory authority.

Monitor unit calculations for external photon and electron beams: Report of the AAPM Therapy Physics Committee Task Group No. 71

A protocol is presented for the calculation of monitor units (MU) for photon and electron beams, delivered with and without beam modifiers, for constant source-surface distance (SSD) and source-axis distance (SAD) setups. This protocol was written by Task Group 71 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and has been formally approved by the AAPM for clinical use. The protocol defines the nomenclature for the dosimetric quantities used in these calculations, along with instructions for their determination and measurement. Calculations are made using the dose per MU under normalization conditions, D'0, that is determined for each user's photon and electron beams. For electron beams, the depth of normalization is taken to be the depth of maximum dose along the central axis for the same field incident on a water phantom at the same SSD, where D'0 = 1 cGy/MU. For photon beams, this task group recommends that a normalization depth of 10 cm be selected, where an energy-dependent D'0 ≤ 1 cGy/MU is required. This recommendation differs from the more common approach of a normalization depth of dm, with D'0 = 1 cGy/MU, although both systems are acceptable within the current protocol. For photon beams, the formalism includes the use of blocked fields, physical or dynamic wedges, and (static) multileaf collimation. No formalism is provided for intensity modulated radiation therapy calculations, although some general considerations and a review of current calculation techniques are included. For electron beams, the formalism provides for calculations at the standard and extended SSDs using either an effective SSD or an air-gap correction factor. Example tables and problems are included to illustrate the basic concepts within the presented formalism.

Studying wedge factors and beam profiles for physical and enhanced dynamic wedges

This study was designed to investigate variation in Varian's Physical and Enhanced Dynamic Wedge Factors (WF) as a function of depth and field size. The profiles for physical wedges (PWs) and enhanced dynamic wedges (EDWs) were also measured using LDA-99 array and compared for confirmation of EDW angles at different depths and field sizes. WF measurements were performed in water phantom using cylindrical 0.66 cc ionization chamber. WF was measured by taking the ratio of wedge and open field ionization data. A normalized wedge factor (NWF) was introduced to circumvent large differences between wedge factors for different wedge angles. A strong linear dependence of PW Factor (PWF) with depth was observed. Maximum variation of 8.9% and 4.1% was observed for 60 degrees PW with depth at 6 and 15 MV beams respectively. The variation in EDW Factor (EDWF) with depth was almost negligible and less than two per cent. The highest variation in PWF as a function of field size was 4.1% and 3.4% for thicker wedge (60 degrees ) at 6 and 15 MV beams respectively and decreases with decreasing wedge angle. EDWF shows strong field size dependence and significant variation was observed for all wedges at both photon energies. Differences in profiles between PW and EDW were observed on toe and heel sides. These differences were dominant for larger fields, shallow depths, thicker wedges and low energy beam. The study indicated that ignoring depth and field size dependence of WF may result in under/over dose to the patient especially doing manual point dose calculation.

Comparison of dosimetric characteristics of Siemens virtual and physical wedges for ONCOR linear accelerator

Dosimetric properties of virtual wedge (VW) and physical wedge (PW) in 6- and 10-MV photon beams from a Siemens ONCOR linear accelerator, including wedge factors, depth doses, dose profiles, peripheral doses, are compared. While there is a great difference in absolute values of wedge factors, VW factors (VWFs) and PW factors (PWFs) have a similar trend as a function of field size. PWFs have stronger depth dependence than VWF due to beam hardening in PW fields. VW dose profiles in the wedge direction, in general, match very well with those of PW, except in the toe area of large wedge angles with large field sizes. Dose profiles in the nonwedge direction show a significant reduction in PW fields due to off-axis beam softening and oblique filtration. PW fields have significantly higher peripheral doses than open and VW fields. VW fields have similar surface doses as the open fields, while PW fields have lower surface doses. Surface doses for both VW and PW increase with field size and slightly with wedge angle. For VW fields with wedge angles 45° and less, the initial gap up to 3 cm is dosimetrically acceptable when compared to dose profiles of PW. VW fields in general use less monitor units than PW fields.

Effect of output variation with dose rate on the Virtual Wedge factor

The Siemens Virtual Wedge factor (VWF: Siemens Medical Solutions, Malvern, PA) may drift significantly because of an increase in output as the dose rate declines. This variation in output is caused by sample and hold boards in the dosimetry circuit that become defective because of radiation damage. Here, we present a simple model based on the principle of Virtual Wedge operation and the measured output variation with dose rate to quantitatively describe VWF drift as a function of field size and wedge angle. Our results support the recommendation that VWF be measured for large field sizes (for example, 20×20 cm) and large wedge angles (for example, 60 degrees) as a part of routine quality assurance.

PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.55.N‐

Study and evaluation of the Siemens virtual wedge factor: dosimetric monitor system and variable field effects

In the year 1997 Siemens introduced the virtual wedge in its accelerators. The idea was that a dose profile similar to that of a physical wedge can be obtained by moving one of the accelerator jaws at a constant speed while the dose rate is changing. This work explores the observed behaviour of virtual wedge factors. A model is suggested which takes into account that at any point in time, when the jaw moves, the dose at a point of interest in the phantom is not only due to the direct beam. It also depends on the scattered radiation in the phantom, the head scatter and the behaviour of the monitoring system of the accelerator. Measurements are performed in a Siemens Primus accelerator and compared to the model predictions. It is shown that the model agrees reasonably well with measurements spanning a wide range of conditions. A strong dependence of virtual wedge factors on the dosimetric board has been confirmed and an explanation has been given on how the balance between different contributions is responsible for virtual wedge factors values.

A study on beam homogeneity for a Siemens Primus linac

Asymmetric offset fields are an important tool for radiotherapy and their suitability for treatment should be assessed. Dose homogeneity for highly asymmetric fields has been studied for a Siemens PRIMUS clinical linear accelerator. Profiles and absolute dose have been measured in fields with two jaws at maximal position (20 cm) and the other two at maximal overtravel (10 cm), corresponding to 10 cm x 10 cm fields with extreme offset. Measured profiles have a marked decreasing gradient towards the beam edge, making these fields unsuitable for treatments. The flattening filter radius is smaller than the primary collimator aperture, and this creates beam inhomogeneities that affect large fields in areas far from the collimator axis, and asymmetric fields with large offset. The results presented assess the effect that the design of the primary collimator and flattening filter assembly has on beam homogeneity. This can have clinical consequences for treatments involving fields that include these inhomogeneous areas. Comparison with calculations from a treatment planning system, Philips Pinnacle v6.3, which computes under the hypotheses of a uniformly flattened beam, results in severe discrepancies.

Influence of monitor chamber calibration on virtual Wedge dosimetry

We have investigated the influence of the linear accelerator (LINAC) monitor chamber calibration on the dosimetry of Siemens Virtual Wedge (VW.) The doses delivered in the three phases of wedge delivery (initial gap, sweep portion, and open field) utilize the ionization current generated in two dose monitoring ion chambers (MONITOR 1 and MONITOR 2) in the LINAC to control the wedge delivery. We intentionally offset the calibration of each of these chambers by +/- 3% and observed up to a 13% change in the dose along the wedge profile for a 6 MV beam at a field size of 20 x 20 cm2. If the calibration of one of the two dose monitoring chambers changed independently then the relative dose at points along the wedge profile were affected. Furthermore, the percentage change in dose varied across the wedge profile thereby affecting the wedge angle as well as the central axis wedge factor. We also present equations for calculating the change in dose at a position along the wedge profile as a function of monitor chamber calibration. A comparison with measurement showed that our theoretical predictions were accurate to within +/- 1.7%. The equations have proven useful tools in evaluating periodic drifts in VW dosimetry.

A pulse-rate dependence of dose per monitor unit and its significant effect on wedged-shaped fields delivered with variable dose rate and a moving jaw

Wedge-shaped dose distributions are delivered on some modern linear accelerators with a virtual wedge, combining variable dose rate and a moving jaw. Drift in the wedge factor and wedge angle of a 20 X 20 cm field for the 60 degree virtual wedge was found commonplace in several models of linear accelerator from one manufacturer. It was found that errors in dose delivery both on and off axis could exceed 5% if quality assurance checks are limited to 10 X 10 cm or smaller fields or wedge angles of 45 degrees or less. A procedure to easily identify and remedy the problem is presented. In each case the change was due to variation in dose per monitor unit (D/MU) with the electron beam pulse rate. The variation was traced to a pair of circuit boards in the dosimetry system, one for each output measurement channel. Wedge factors and dose profiles measured before and after board replacement on 4 accelerators, and for a set of defective boards placed on one of the accelerators, were compared. The effect was largest for the wedge with the steepest profile (60 degree wedge angle) and the largest field measured: 20 X 20 cm. In this case, a 1% variation in D/MU with a factor of 5 reduction in pulse rate corresponded to an average 0.8% change in wedge factor and 0.8% change in the off axis ratio at 8.5 cm off axis on the high dose side of the wedge field, 0.3% on the low dose side. After board replacement, wedge factors and profiles measured on the 4 machines generally agreed to 2% for the full range of wedge angles and field sizes. Quality assurance of virtual wedges is discussed in light of the new findings.

Comparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil-beam convolution

We used the two available calculation algorithms of the Varian Eclipse 7.3 three‐dimensional (3D) treatment planning system (TPS), the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA) and pencil‐beam convolution (PBC), to compare measured and calculated two‐dimensional enhanced dynamic wedge (2D EDW) dose distributions, plus implementation of the dynamic wedge into the TPS. Measurements were carried out for a 6‐MV photon beam produced with a Clinac 2300C/D linear accelerator equipped with EDW, using ionization chambers for beam axis measurements and films for dose distributions. Using both algorithms, the calculations were performed by the TPS for symmetric square fields in a perpendicular configuration. Accuracy of the TPS was evaluated using a gamma index, allowing 3% dose variation and 3 mm distance to agreement (DTA) as the individual acceptance criteria. Beam axis wedge factors and percentage depth dose calculation were within 1% deviation between calculated and measured values. In the non‐wedged direction, profiles exhibit variations lower than 2% of dose or 2 mm DTA. In the wedge direction, both algorithms reproduced the measured profiles within the acceptance criteria up to 30 degrees EDW. With larger wedge angles, the difference increased to 3%. The gamma distribution showed that, for field sizes of 10×10 cm or larger, using an EDW of 45 or 60 degrees, the field corners and the high‐dose region of the distribution are not well modeled by PBC. For a 20×20 cm field, using a 60‐degree EDW and PBC for calculation, the percentage of pixels that do not reach the acceptance criteria is 28.5%; but, using the AAA for the same conditions, this percentage is only 0.48% of the total distribution. Therefore, PBC is not reliable for planning a treatment when using a 60‐degree EDW for large field sizes. In all the cases, AAA models wedged dose distributions more accurately than PBC did.

PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Dq, 87.53.Kn

The accuracy of dynamic wedge dose computation in the ADAC Pinnacle RTP system

The nonphysical wedge is a modality that uses computer‐controlled jaw motion to generate wedge‐shaped dose distributions. There are Varian enhanced dynamic wedges (EDWs) and Siemens virtual wedges (VWs). We recently commissioned dynamic wedges on both Varian and Siemens LINACs. The beam data, acquired with a Wellhöfer chamber array and a Sun Nuclear profiler, are used for modeling in the ADAC Pinnacle system. As recommended by ADAC, only a limited number of beam data is measured and used for beam modeling. Therefore, the dose distributions of dynamic wedges generated by Pinnacle must be examined. Following the commissioning of the dynamic wedges, we used Pinnacle to generate a number of dose distributions with different energies, wedge angles, field sizes, and depths. The computed data from Pinnacle are then compared with the measured data.

The deviations of the output factor in all square and rectangular fields are mostly within 2.0% for both EDW and VW. For asymmetric fields, the deviations are within 3%. However, exceptions of differences more than 3% have been found in a larger field and large wedge combinations. The precision of the beam profiles generated by Pinnacle is also evaluated. As a result of this investigation, we present a scope of quality assurance tests that are necessary to ensure acceptable consistency between the delivered dose and the associated treatment plan when dynamic wedges are applied.

PACS numbers: 8753 Dq, 87.53.Xd

Simultaneous optimization of beam orientations, wedge filters and field weights for inverse planning with anatomy-based MLC fields

As an alternative between manual planning and beamlet-based IMRT, we have developed an optimization system for inverse planning with anatomy-based MLC fields. In this system, named Ballista, the orientation (table and gantry), the wedge filter and the field weights are simultaneously optimized for every beam. An interesting feature is that the system is coupled to Pinnacle3 by means of the PinnComm interface, and uses its convolution dose calculation engine. A fully automatic MLC segmentation algorithm is also included. The plan evaluation is based on a quasi-random sampling and on a quadratic objective function with penalty-like constraints. For efficiency, optimal wedge angles and wedge orientations are determined using the concept of the super-omni wedge. A bound-constrained quasi-Newton algorithm performs field weight optimization, while a fast simulated annealing algorithm selects the optimal beam orientations. Moreover, in order to generate directly deliverable plans, the following practical considerations have been incorporated in the system: collision between the gantry and the table as well as avoidance of the radio-opaque elements of a table top. We illustrate the performance of the new system on two patients. In a rhabdomyosarcoma case, the system generated plans improving both the target coverage and the sparing of the parotide, as compared to a manually designed plan. In the second case presented, the system successfully produced an adequate plan for the treatment of the prostate while avoiding both hip prostheses. For the many cases where full IMRT may not be necessary, the system efficiently generates satisfactory plans meeting the clinical objectives, while keeping the treatment verification much simpler.

Optimal clinical implementation of the siemens virtual wedge

Installation of a modern high-energy Siemens Primus linear accelerator at the Northern Centre for Cancer Treatment (NCCT) provided the opportunity to investigate the optimal clinical implementation of the Siemens virtual wedge filter. Previously published work has concentrated on the production of virtual wedge angles at 15 degrees, 30 degrees, 45 degrees, and 60 degrees as replacements for the Siemens hard wedges of the same nominal angles. However, treatment plan optimization of the dose distribution can be achieved with the Primus, as its control software permits the selection of any virtual wedge angle from 15 degrees to 60 degrees in increments of 1 degrees. The same result can also be produced from a combination of open and 60 degrees wedged fields. Helax-TMS models both of these modes of virtual wedge delivery by the wedge angle and the wedge fraction methods respectively. This paper describes results of timing studies in the planning of optimized patient dose distributions by both methods and in the subsequent treatment delivery procedures. Employment of the wedge fraction method results in the delivery of small numbers of monitor units to the beam's central axis; therefore, wedge profile stability and delivered dose with low numbers of monitor units were also investigated. The wedge fraction was proven to be the most efficient method when the time taken for both planning and treatment delivery were taken into consideration, and is now used exclusively for virtual wedge treatment delivery in Newcastle. It has also been shown that there are no unfavorable dosimetric consequences from its practical implementation.

Modelling the wedge shape for the virtual wedge

We present a method to model the virtual wedge shape in a 3D treatment planning system as a physical wedge. The virtual wedge shape was determined using the measured dose profile of the virtual wedge at a chosen reference depth. The differences between the calculated and the measured dose profiles for the virtual wedge were within 0.5% at the reference depth, and within 2.5% at other depths. This method provides a fast and accurate way to implement the virtual wedge into our planning system for any wedge angles. This method is also applicable to model the physical wedge shapes with comparable good results.

Behavior of the Siemens Virtual Wedge following an interruption to beam delivery

Investigations were made into the beam profile shape and dose delivered by the Siemens Virtual Wedge trade mark under standard operational conditions compared with those following delivery interruption on two Siemens Primus linear accelerators (Type 7445 and 8067) running different versions of control software (7.2 and 7.0, respectively). The shape of the Virtual Wedge trade mark profiles was found to be unaffected by beam delivery interruption. An increase in the dose delivered to the central axis was found when delivery was interrupted and subsequently resumed using information recorded in a recall data file on one of the accelerators. This dose increase was attributed to a difference in delivered monitor units recorded in the recall data file compared to those displayed on the linear accelerator control console.

Suppression of dark current radiation in step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy by the initial pulse-forming network

The effect of the initial pulse forming network (IPFN) on the suppression of dark current is investigated for a Siemens Primus accelerator. The dark current produces a spurious radiation, which is referred to as dark current radiation (DCR) in this study. In the step-and-shoot delivery of an intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), the DCR could be of some concern for whole body dose along with leakage radiation through collimator jaws or multileaf collimator. By adjusting the IPFN-to-PFN ratio to >0.8, the DCR can be measured with an ion chamber during the "PAUSE" state of the accelerator in the IMRT mode. For 15 MV x rays, the magnitude of the DCR is approximately equal to 0.7% of the dose at dmax for a 10 x 10 cm2 field. The DCR has a similar central axis depth dose as a 15 MV beam as determined from a water phantom scan. When the IPFN-to-PFN ratio is lowered to <0.8, no DCR is detected. For low energy x rays (6 MV), no DCR is detected regardless of the IPFN-to-PFN ratio. Although the DCR is studied only for the Siemens Primus model accelerator, the same precaution applies to other models of modern accelerators from other vendors. Due to the large number of field segments used in a step-and-shoot IMRT, it is imperative therefore, that dark current evaluation be part of machine commissioning and annual calibration for high-energy photon beams. Should DCR be detected, the medical physicist should work with a service engineer to rectify the problem. In view of DCR and whole body dose, low-energy photon beams are advisable for IMRT.

Verification of the super-omni wedge concept

This study verifies the concept of the super-omni wedge by validating its equations for effective wedge orientation and wedge angle and by comparing the dose distributions it produces with those produced by other wedge techniques. To validate the equations, we calculated dose distributions for 20 combinations of wedge orientations and wedge angles: we then determined the differences between the wedge orientations and angles predicted by the equations and those calculated by a three-dimensional treatment-planning system. To compare the super-omni wedge concept with other techniques, we calculated the dose and position differences between the dose distributions produced by the super-omni wedge concept and those produced by other wedge techniques. The error of wedge orientations ranged from -0.5 degrees to 0.4 degrees, and that of wedge angles ranged from -0.6 degrees to 1.7 degrees. The dose distributions produced by the super-omni wedge were similar and therefore equivalent to those produced by other wedge techniques. Serving as an intermediate step in treatment-planning optimization. the super-omni wedge is a reliable method for producing wedged dose distributions with arbitrary wedge orientations and wedge angles.

Dependence of virtual wedge factor on dose calibration and monitor units

One of the important features of the Siemens Virtual Wedge (VW) is that the VW factor (VWF) is approximately equal to unity for all beams with a total deviation for a given wedge no greater than 0.05, as specified by Siemens. In this note we report the observed dependence of VWF on dose calibration (cGy/MU), monitor units (MU), and beam tuning for a Primus, a linear accelerator with two dose-rate ranges available for VW operation. The VWF is defined as the ratio of doses measured on the beam central axis for the wedge field to the open field; the open field dose is always measured with the nominal high dose-rate beam. When VW operates in the high dose-rate range, the VWF is independent of calibration (cGy/MU). When VW works in the low dose-rate range, the VWF varies linearly with the calibration of the low dose-rate mode. For a linear accelerator that has only one dose-rate range for VW, there is no observable dependence of VWF on the calibration. We also studied the monitor unit dependence of VWF. A discontinuity in VWF was observed at the switching point between the high and low dose-rate ranges. Working with Siemens, we have investigated causes of this discontinuity. As a result of this investigation, the discontinuity in VWF as a function monitor unit is practically removed.

Comparison of dosimetric characteristics of Siemens virtual and physical wedges

Dosimetric properties of Virtual Wedge (VW) and physical wedge (PW) in 6 and 23 MV photon beams from a Siemens Primus linear accelerator, including wedge factors, depth doses, dose profiles, peripheral doses and surface doses, are compared. While there is a great difference in absolute values of wedge factors, VW factors (VWFs) and PW factors (PWFs) have a similar trend as a function of field size. PWFs have a stronger depth dependence than VWF due to beam hardening in PW fields. VW dose profiles in the wedge direction, in general, match very well with PW, except in the toe area of large wedge angles with large field sizes. Dose profiles in the nonwedge direction show a significant reduction in PW fields due to off-axis beam softening and oblique filtration. PW fields have significantly higher peripheral doses than open and VW fields. VW fields have similar surface doses as the open fields while PW fields have lower surface doses. Surface doses for both VW and PW increase with field size and slightly with wedge angle. For VW fields with wedge angles 45 degrees and less, the initial gap up to 3 cm is dosimetrically acceptable when compared to dose profiles of PW. VW fields in general use less monitor units than PW fields.

Implementation and verification of virtual wedge in a three-dimensional radiotherapy planning system

Virtual Wedge (VW) is a Siemens treatment modality which generates wedge-shaped dose distributions by moving a collimator jaw from closed to open at a constant speed while varying the dose rate in every 2 mm jaw position. In this work, the implementation and verification of VW in a radiotherapy treatment planning (RTP) system is presented. The VW implementation models the dose delivered by VW using the Siemens monitor units (MU) analytic formalism which determines the number of MU required to generate a wedge-fluence profile at points across the VW beam. For any set of treatment parameters, the VW algorithm generates an "intensity map" that is used to model the modification of fluence emanating from the collimator. The intensity map is calculated as the ratio of MU delivered on an axis point, divided by the monitor units delivered on the central-axis MU(0). The dose calculation is then performed using either the Clarkson or Convolution/ Superposition algorithms. The VW implementation also models the operational constraints for the delivery of VW due to dose rate and jaw speed limits. Dose verifications with measured profiles were performed using both the Clarkson and Convolution/Superposition algorithms for three photon beams; Siemens Primus 6 and 23 MV, and Mevatron MD 15 MV. Agreement within 2% or 2 mm was found between calculated and measured doses, over a large set of test cases, for 15, 30, 45, and 60 degree symmetric and asymmetric VW fields, using the manufacturer's supplied mu and c values for each beam.

Dynamic and omni wedge implementation on an Elekta SL linac

The concommitant use of a multileaf collimator (MLC) and a wedge can result in conflicts in the optimal collimator angle if both MLC and wedge are fixed relative to one another. This is particularly true of linacs in which a single wedge orientation is provided. In this paper, a solution is provided that makes use of two orthogonal universal wedges (omni wedge). Although this technique can be applied regardless of the means by which the wedged fields are implemented, the measurements reported in this paper were performed using a fixed, internal mechanical wedge coupled with a dynamic wedge, formed by the motion of one of the backup jaws. An implementation of a dynamic wedge for the Elekta SL series of linear accelerators is presented. Results of measurements of the dosimetric characteristics of both the particular implementation of the dynamic wedge and of the omni field are presented. For the dynamic wedge, measurements were made of the wedge factor and dose profile as a function of field size and depth. In addition, the effects of variables, such as dynamic delivery technique and direction of diaphragm motion, on the dynamic wedge profiles were studied and discussed. For the omni wedge, measurements were made of the degree to which the mathematical formalism for describing an omni wedge matches the measured isodose distributions. Comparisons between mechanical wedge dose distributions and the omni wedge were also made.

A comparison of different intensity modulation treatment techniques for tangential breast irradiation

PURPOSE

Several intensity modulation (IM) treatment techniques for tangential breast irradiation were evaluated in terms of dose uniformity in the treated breast volume, contralateral breast dose, and treatment irradiation time.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Contralateral breast dose was measured via TLD chips, and the dose uniformity was calculated on two anthropomorphic phantoms. IM was applied to all beams or to the lateral-medial (LM) beam only. The techniques evaluated include (a) IM via "step & shoot" multileaf collimator (MLC), (b) IM via intensity modulator (compensator), (c) virtual wedge, and (d) physical wedge. A dose optimization algorithm was used for the first two techniques.

RESULTS

Collimator-generated IM techniques (MLC-IM and the virtual wedge) produced 50% (average) less contralateral breast dose than the conventional two-wedge technique. When the compensator or the physical wedge was used, contralateral breast dose was reduced 30% (average) by leaving the ML beam open.

CONCLUSION

The treatments generated by dose optimization algorithm and delivered via the compensator and MLC techniques offered superior dose uniformity. Single-beam IM techniques in general use less irradiation time without significant degradation of dose uniformity. The MLC-IM technique in this study required the longest treatment irradiation time, while the virtual wedge and compensator IM techniques required the least.

Monte Carlo modelling of a virtual wedge

Compared with a set of physical photon wedges, a non physical wedge (virtual or dynamic wedge), realized by a moving collimator jaw, offers an alternative that allows creation of a wedged field with any arbitrary wedge angle instead of the traditional four physical wedges (15 degrees, 30 degrees, 45 degrees and 60 degrees). It is commonly assumed that non-physical wedges do not alter the photon spectrum compared with physical wedges that introduce beam hardening and loss of dose uniformity in the unwedged direction. In this study, we investigated the influence of a virtual wedge on the photon spectra of a 6-10 MV Siemens MD2 accelerator with the Monte Carlo code EGS4/BEAM. Good agreement was obtained between calculated and measured lateral dose profiles at the depth of maximum dose and at 10 cm depth for 20 x 20 cm2 fields for 6 and 10 MV photon beams. By comparing Monte Carlo models of a physical wedge and the virtual wedge that was studied in this work, it is confirmed that the latter has an insignificant effect on the beam quality, whereas the former can introduce significant beam hardening.