The computed tomography dose index (CTDI) measured with a 10 cm long pencil ionization chamber placed in a 14 cm long PMMA phantom is typically used to evaluate the doses delivered during CT procedure. For the new generation of CT scanners, the efficiency of this methodology is low because it excludes the contribution of radiation scattered beyond the 100 mm range of integration along z. The AAPM TG111 Report proposes a new measurement modality using a small volume ionization chamber positioned in a phantom long enough to establish dose equilibrium at the location of the chamber. In this work, the AAPM report was implemented. The minimum scanning length needed to obtain cumulative dose equilibrium was evaluated. The equilibrium dose was determined and compared to CTDI values informed by the CT scanner, and the dose values were confirmed with TLD measurements. The difference between doses measured with TLD and with the ionization chamber (IC) was below 1% and the repeatability of the measurements' setup was 0.4%. The measurements showed that the scanning lengths needed to reach the cumulated dose equilibrium were 450 mm and 380 mm for the central and peripheral axes, respectively, which justifies the phantom length. For the studied clinical protocols, the doses measured were about 30% higher than those informed by the CT scanner. For the new generation of CT systems with wider longitudinal detector size or cone‐beam technology, the current CTDI measurements may no longer be adequate, and the informed CTDI tends to undervalue the dose delivered. It is therefore important to evaluate CT radiation doses following the AAPM TG111 methodology.PACS number: 87.57.qp, 87.53.Bn
This work introduces a new method for verifying MLC leaf positions with enough spatial resolution to replace film‐based methods in performing QA tests. It is implemented on a 2D ion chamber array, and it is based on the principle of varying signal response of a volumetric detector to partial irradiation. A PTW 2D‐ARRAY seven29 (PTW‐729 2D) array was used to assess a Siemens OPTIFOCUS MLC. Partial volume response curves for chambers in the array were obtained by irradiating them with the leaves of the MLC, progressively covering varying portions of the chambers correlated with the leaf positions. The readings from the array's chambers are processed with an in‐house program; it generates a reference response that translates readings into leaf positions. This principle allows discriminating errors in pairs of opposing leaves that could combine to cancel their detection with other tools.Patterns of leaf positions, similar to the Bayouth test but with different, purposefully introduced errors, were generated and used to test the effectiveness of the method. The same patterns were exposed on radiographic film and analyzed with the RIT software for validation. For four test patterns with a total of 100 errors of ±1 mm, ±2 mm and ±3 mm, all were correctly determined with the proposed method. The analysis of the same pattern with film using the Bayouth routine in the RIT software resulted in either somewhat low true positives combined with a large fraction of false positives, or a low true positive rate with a low false positive ratio, the results being significantly affected by the threshold selected for the analysis.This method provides an effective, easy to use tool for quantitative MLC QA assessment, with excellent spatial resolution. It can be easily applied to other 2D arrays, as long as they exhibit a partial volume detector response.PACS number: 87.55.Qr
Purpose: The current paradigm used to evaluate the doses delivered during CT procedure is the computed tomography dose index (CTDI). It is measured with a 100mm‐long pencil ionization chamber placed in a cylindrical PMMA phantom (14cm‐long and 16 or 32cm‐diameter) but this method excludes contribution of radiation scattered beyond the 100mm‐ range of integration along z. The purpose of this work was to measured CT radiation dose following the new method described in the AAPM TG111 report using small volume ionization chamber positioned in a phantom. Methods: A Siemens, SOMATOM Spirit Power 2‐slice CT scanner was used. A PTW Farmer‐type chamber (0.6cm3) connected to a PTW UnidosE electrometer was calibrated by a Secondary Standard Dosimetry Laboratory for beam quality ranges associated with those of CT scanner spectra. A 30cm‐diameter, 50cm‐long water phantom was designed to allow the chamber position at the center or at peripheral axis. Measurements were realized for each clinically CT protocols following the AAPM recommendations. The minimum scanning length needed to obtain cumulative dose equilibrium was evaluated. The equilibrium dose was determined and compared to CTDI values informed by the CT scanner. In order to validate the measurement set, the dose values were confirmed with TLD measurements. Results: The measurements showed that the scanning lengths needed to reach the cumulated dose equilibrium were 450mm and 380mm for central and peripheral axis respectively that justify the phantom length. The difference between doses measured with TLD and ionization chamber was 2%. For each clinical protocol, the doses measured were about 30% higher than those informed by the CT scanner. Conclusions: For new generations of CT systems with wider longitudinal detector size or cone‐ beam technology, the CTDI informed by the CT scanner tends to undervalue the dose delivered. It is therefore important to evaluate CT radiation dose with new methodology.
Gamma index comparison has been established as a method for patient specific quality assurance in IMRT. Detector arrays can replace radiographic film systems to record 2D dose distributions and fulfill quality assurance requirements. These electronic devices present spatial resolution disadvantages with respect to films. This handicap can be partially overcome with a multiple acquisition sequence of adjacent 2D dose distributions. The detector spatial response influence can also be taken into account through the convolution of the calculated dose with the detector spatial response. A methodology that employs both approaches could allow for enhancements of the quality assurance procedure. 35 beams from different step and shoot IMRT plans were delivered on a phantom. 2D dose distributions were recorded with a PTW-729 ion chamber array for individual beams, following the multiple acquisition methodology. 2D dose distributions were also recorded on radiographic films. Measured dose distributions with films and with the PTW-729 array were processed with the software RITv5.2 for Gamma index comparison with calculated doses. Calculated dose was also convolved with the ion chamber 2D response and the Gamma index comparisons with the 2D dose distribution measured with the PTW-729 array was repeated. 3.7 ± 2.7% of points surpassed the accepted Gamma index when using radiographic films compared with calculated dose, with a minimum of 0.67 and a maximum of 13.27. With the PTW-729 multiple acquisition methodology compared with calculated dose, 4.1 ± 1.3% of points surpassed the accepted Gamma index, with a minimum of 1.44 and a maximum of 11.26. With the PTW- multiple acquisition methodology compared with convolved calculated dose, 2.7 ± 1.3% of points surpassed the accepted Gamma index, with a minimum of 0.42 and a maximum of 5.75. The results obtained in this work suggest that the comparison of merged adjacent dose distributions with convolved calculated dose represents an enhancement in the methodology for IMRT patient specific quality assurance with the PTW-729 ion chamber array.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.