For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
66
views
13
references
 Top references
cited by
6
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      300
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The study was aimed to compare accuracy of monitor unit verification in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using 6 MV photons by three different methodologies with different detector phantom combinations. Sixty patients were randomly chosen. Zero degree couch and gantry angle plans were generated in a plastic universal IMRT verification phantom and 30×30×30 cc water phantom and measured using 0.125 cc and 0.6 cc chambers, respectively. Actual gantry and couch angle plans were also measured in water phantom using 0.6 cc chamber. A suitable point of measurement was chosen from the beam profile for each field. When the zero-degree gantry, couch angle plans and actual gantry, couch angle plans were measured by 0.6 cc chamber in water phantom, the percentage mean difference (MD) was 1.35%, 2.94 % and Standard Deviation (SD) was 2.99%, 5.22%, respectively. The plastic phantom measurements with 0.125 cc chamber Semiflex ionisation chamber (SIC) showed an MD=4.21% and SD=2.73 %, but when corrected for chamber-medium response, they showed an improvement, with MD=3.38 % and SD=2.59 %. It was found that measurements with water phantom and 0.6cc chamber at gantry angle zero degree showed better conformity than other measurements of medium-detector combinations. Correction in plastic phantom measurement improved the result only marginally, and actual gantry angle measurement in a flat- water phantom showed higher deviation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Patient-specific point dose measurement for IMRT monitor unit verification.

          Lei Dong, Mohammad Salehpour, Laura O'Neill … (2003)
          To review intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) monitor unit verification in a phantom for 751 clinical cases. A custom water-filled phantom was used to measure the integral dose with an ion chamber for patient-specific quality assurance. The Corvus IMRT planning system was used for all cases reviewed. The 751 clinical cases were classified into 9 treatment sites: central nervous system (27 cases), gastrointestinal (24 cases), genitourinary (447 cases), gynecologic (18 cases), head and neck (200 cases), hematology (12 cases), pediatric (3 cases), sarcoma (8 cases), and thoracic (12 cases). Between December 1998 and January 2002, 1591 measurements were made for these 751 IMRT quality assurance plans. The mean difference (MD) in percent between the measurements and the calculations was +0.37% (with the measurement being slightly higher). The standard deviation (SD) was 1.7%, and the range of error was from -4.5% to 9.5%. The MD and SD were +0.49% and 1.4% for MIMiC treatments delivered in 2-cm mode (261 cases) and -0.33% and 2.7% for those delivered in 1-cm mode (36 cases). Most treatments (420) were delivered using the step-and-shoot multileaf collimator with a 6-MV photon beam; the MD and SD were +0.31% and 1.8%, respectively. Among the 9 treatment sites, the prostate IMRT (in genitourinary site) was most consistent with the smallest SD (1.5%). There were 23 cases (3.1% of all cases) in which the measurement difference was greater than 3.5%; of those, 6 cases used the MIMiC in 1-cm mode, and 14 of the cases were from the head-and-neck treatment site. IMRT monitor unit calculations from the Corvus planning system agreed within 3.5% with the point-dose ion chamber measurement in 97% of 751 cases representing 9 different treatment sites. A good consistency was observed across sites.
          Article 0 comments Cited 18 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

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

            Daniel A Low, Parag Parikh, James F Dempsey … (2003)
            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.
            Article 0 comments Cited 18 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of ionization chambers of various volumes for IMRT absolute dose verification.

              Nesrin Dogan, Leonid B Leybovich, Anil Sethi (2003)
              IMRT plans are usually verified by phantom measurements: dose distributions are measured using film and the absolute dose using an ionization chamber. The measured and calculated doses are compared and planned MUs are modified if necessary. To achieve a conformal dose distribution, IMRT fields are composed of small subfields, or "beamlets." The size of beamlets is on the order of 1 x 1 cm2. Therefore, small chambers with sensitive volumes < or = 0.1 cm3 are generally used for absolute dose verification. A dosimetry system consisting of an electrometer, an ion chamber, and connecting cables may exhibit charge leakage. Since chamber sensitivity is proportional to volume, the effect of leakage on the measured charge is relatively greater for small chambers. Furthermore, the charge contribution from beamlets located at significant distances from the point of measurement may be below the small chambers threshold and hence not detected. On the other hand, large (0.6 cm3) chambers used for the dosimetry of conventional external fields are quite sensitive. Since these chambers are long, the electron fluence through them may not be uniform ("temporal" uniformity may not exist in the chamber volume). However, the cumulative, or "spatial" fluence distribution (as indicated by calculated IMRT dose distribution) may become uniform at the chamber location when the delivery of all IMRT fields is completed. Under the condition of "spatial" fluence uniformity, the charge collected by the large chamber may accurately represent the absolute dose delivered by IMRT to the point of measurement. In this work, 0.6, 0.125, and 0.009 cm3 chambers were used for the absolute dose verification for tomographic and step-and-shoot IMRT plans. With the largest, 0.6 cm3 chamber, the measured dose was equal to calculated within 0.5%, when no leakage corrections were made. Without leakage corrections, the error of measurement with a 0.125 cm3 chamber was 2.6% (tomographic IMRT) and 1.5% (step-and-shoot IMRT). When doses measured by a 0.125 cm3 chamber were corrected for leakage, the difference between the calculated and measured doses reduced to 0.5%. Leakage corrected doses obtained with the 0.009 cm3 chamber were within 1.5%-1.7% of calculated doses. Without leakage corrections, the measurement error was 16% (tomographic IMRT) and 7% (step-and-shoot IMRT).
              Article 0 comments Cited 13 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Med Phys
                Journal ID (publisher-id): JMP
                Title: Journal of Medical Physics / Association of Medical Physicists of India
                Publisher: Medknow Publications (India )
                ISSN (Print): 0971-6203
                ISSN (Electronic): 1998-3913
                Publication date (Print): Jul-Sep 2010
                Volume: 35
                Issue: 3
                Pages: 144-150
                Affiliations
                Department of Radiation Oncology and Medical Physics, Advanced Medicare and Research Institute (AMRI) Cancer Centre, Advanced Medicare and Research Institute (AMRI) Hospitals, Kolkata, India
                [1 ]Centre of Applied Mathematics and Computational Sciences, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata, India
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Mr. Biplab Sarkar, Department of Medical Physics, AMRI Hospitals, 15 Panchanantala Road, Kolkata- 700 029, India. E-mail: biplabphy@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                Publisher ID: JMP-35-144
                DOI: 10.4103/0971-6203.62129
                PMC ID: 2936183
                PubMed ID: 20927221
                SO-VID: fa07934c-39b3-4939-bffd-aa26f7dc6051
                Copyright © © Journal of Medical Physics
                License:

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 12 November 2009
                Date revision received : 12 December 2009
                Date accepted : 14 January 2010
                Categories
                Subject: Original Article

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medical physics
                Keywords: dose verification,point dose measurement,quality assurance
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medical physics
                Keywords: dose verification, point dose measurement, quality assurance

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content300

                See all similar

                Cited by6

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors86

                See all reference authors