In this study, we present three significant artifacts that have the potential to negatively impact the accuracy and precision of film dosimetry measurements made using GAFCHROMIC EBT radiochromic film when read out with CCD flatbed scanners. Films were scanned using three commonly employed instruments: a Macbeth TD932 spot densitometer, an Epson Expression 1680 CCD array scanner, and a Microtek ScanMaker i900 CCD array scanner. For the two scanners we assessed the variation in optical density (OD) of GAFCHROMIC EBT film with scanning bed position, angular rotation of the film with respect to the scan line direction, and temperature inside the scanner due to repeated scanning. Scanning uniform radiochromic films demonstrated a distinct bowing effect in profiles in the direction of the CCD array with a nonuniformity of up to 17%. Profiles along a direction orthogonal to the CCD array demonstrated a 7% variation. A strong angular dependence was found in measurements made with the flatbed scanners; the effect could not be reproduced with the spot densitometer. An IMRT quality assurance film was scanned twice rotating the film 90' between the scans. For films scanned on the Epson scanner, up to 12% variation was observed in unirradiated EBT films rotated between 0 degrees and 90 degrees, which decreased to approximately 8% for EBT films irradiated to 300 cGy. Variations of up to 80% were observed for films scanned with the Microtek scanner. The scanners were found to significantly increase the film temperature with repeated scanning. Film temperature between 18 and 33 degrees C caused OD changes of approximately 7%. Considering these effects, we recommend adherence to a strict scanning protocol that includes: maintaining the orientation of films scanned on flatbed scanners, limiting scanning to the central portion of the scanner bed, and limiting the number of consecutive scans to minimize changes in OD caused by film heating.

In this study, we perform a scientific comparative analysis of using (60)Co beams in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). In particular, we evaluate the treatment plan quality obtained with (i) 6 MV, 18 MV and (60)Co IMRT; (ii) different numbers of static multileaf collimator (MLC) delivered (60)Co beams and (iii) a helical tomotherapy (60)Co beam geometry. We employ a convex fluence map optimization (FMO) model, which allows for the comparison of plan quality between different beam energies and configurations for a given case. A total of 25 clinical patient cases that each contain volumetric CT studies, primary and secondary delineated targets, and contoured structures were studied: 5 head-and-neck (H&N), 5 prostate, 5 central nervous system (CNS), 5 breast and 5 lung cases. The DICOM plan data were anonymized and exported to the University of Florida optimized radiation therapy (UFORT) treatment planning system. The FMO problem was solved for each case for 5-71 equidistant beams as well as a helical geometry for H&N, prostate, CNS and lung cases, and for 3-7 equidistant beams in the upper hemisphere for breast cases, all with 6 MV, 18 MV and (60)Co dose models. In all cases, 95% of the target volumes received at least the prescribed dose with clinical sparing criteria for critical organs being met for all structures that were not wholly or partially contained within the target volume. Improvements in critical organ sparing were found with an increasing number of equidistant (60)Co beams, yet were marginal above 9 beams for H&N, prostate, CNS and lung. Breast cases produced similar plans for 3-7 beams. A helical (60)Co beam geometry achieved similar plan quality as static plans with 11 equidistant (60)Co beams. Furthermore, 18 MV plans were initially found not to provide the same target coverage as 6 MV and (60)Co plans; however, adjusting the trade-offs in the optimization model allowed equivalent target coverage for 18 MV. For plans with comparable target coverage, critical structure sparing was best achieved with 6 MV beams followed closely by (60)Co beams, with 18 MV beams requiring significantly increased dose to critical structures. In this paper, we report in detail on a representative set of results from these experiments. The results of the investigation demonstrate the potential for IMRT radiotherapy employing commercially available (60)Co sources and a double-focused MLC. Increasing the number of equidistant beams beyond 9 was not observed to significantly improve target coverage or critical organ sparing and static plans were found to produce comparable plans to those obtained using a helical tomotherapy treatment delivery when optimized using the same well-tuned convex FMO model. While previous studies have shown that 18 MV plans are equivalent to 6 MV for prostate IMRT, we found that the 18 MV beams actually required more fluence to provide similar quality target coverage.

To report a study of the use of GAFCHROMIC EBT radiochromic film (RCF) digitized with a commercially available flatbed document scanner for accurate and reliable all‐purpose two‐dimensional (2D) absolute dosimetry within a clinical environment. We used a simplified methodology that yields high‐precision dosimetry measurements without significant postirradiation correction. The Epson Expression 1680 Professional scanner and the Epson Expression 10000XL scanner were used to digitize the films. Both scanners were retrofitted with light‐diffusing glass to minimize the effects of Newton rings. Known doses were delivered to calibration films. Flat and wedge fields were irradiated with variable depth of solid water and 5 cm back scatter solid water. No particular scanner nonuniformity effect corrections or significant post‐scan image processing were carried out. The profiles were compared with CC04 ionization chamber profiles. The depth dose distribution was measured at a source‐to‐surface distance (SSD) of 100 cm with a field size of 10×10 cm2. Additionally, 22 IMRT fields were measured and evaluated using gamma index analysis. The overall accuracy of RCF with respect to CC04 was found to be 2%–4%. The overall accuracy of RCF was determined using the absolute mean of difference for all flat and wedge field profiles. For clinical IMRT fields, both scanners showed an overall gamma index passing rate greater than 90%. This work demonstrated that EBT films, in conjunction with a commercially available flatbed scanner, can be used as an accurate and precise absolute dosimeter. Both scanners showed that no significant scanner nonuniformity correction is necessary for accurate absolute dosimetry using the EBT films for field sizes smaller than or equal to 15×15 cm2.PACS number: 87.53.Bn

As very small ion chambers become commercially available, medical physicists may be inclined to use them during the linear accelerator commissioning process to better characterize the beam in steep dose gradient areas. For this work, a total of eight different ion chambers (volumes from 0.007 cc to 0.6 cc) and four different scanning systems were used to scan PDDs at both +300normalV and −300normalV biases. We observed a reproducible, significant difference (overresponse with depth) in PDDs acquired when using very small ion chambers, with specific bias/water tank combinations — up to 5% at a depth of 25 cm in water. This difference was not observed when the PDDs were sampled using the ion chamber in static positions in conjunction with an external electrometer. This suggests noise/signal interference produced by the controller box and cable system assemblies, which can become relatively significant for the very small current signals collected by very small ion chambers, especially at depth as the signal level is even further reduced. Based on the results observed here, the use of very small active volume chambers under specific scanning conditions may lead to collection of erroneous data, introducing systematic errors into the treatment planning system. In case the use of such a chamber is required, we recommend determining whether such erroneous effect exists by comparing the scans with those obtained with a larger chamber.PACS numbers: 87.56.bd, 87.56.Fc, 87.56.Da

No abstract