Purpose The equivalent square (ES) concept has been used for traditional radiation fields defined by the machine collimating system. For small fields, the concept Sclin was introduced based on measuring dosimetric field width (full‐width half maximum, FWHM) of the cardinal axis of the beam profiles. The pros and cons of this concept are evaluated in small fields and compared with the traditional ES using area and perimeter (4A/P) method based on geometric field size settings, for example, light field settings. Methods One hundred thirty‐seven square and rectangular fields from 5–50 mm with every possible permutation (keeping one jaw fixed and varying other jaw from 5 to 50 mm) were utilized to measure FWHM for the validation of Sclin. Using a microSilicon detector and a scanning water tank, measurements were performed on an Elekta (Versa) machine with Agility head and a Varian TrueBeam with different MLC/Jaw design to evaluate the Sclin concept and to understand the effect of exchange factor in small fields. Field output factors were also measured for all 137 fields. Results The data fitting for fields ranging from 5–50 mm between the traditional 4A/P method and Sclin shows differences and indicates a linear relationship with distinct separation of slope for Elekta and Varian machines. For Elekta Agility machine ES based on 4A/P < Sclin and for the VarianTrueBeam 4A/P > Sclin for square fields. Our measured data show that both methods are equally valid but does vary by the machine design. The field output factor is dependent on the elongation factor as well as machine design. For fields with sides ≥10 mm, the exchange factor is nearly identical in both machines with magnitude up to 4%, which is close to measurement uncertainty (±3%), but for small fields (< 10 mm), the Elekta machine has higher exchange factors compared to the Varian machine. Conclusion The results demonstrate that the two concepts for defining equivalent field (Sclin and 4A/P) are equivalent and can be directly related through an empirical equation. This study confirms that 4A/P is still valid for small fields except for very small fields (≤10 mm) where source occlusion is a dominating factor. The Sclin method is potentially sensitive to measurement uncertainty due to measurement of FWHM which is machine‐, detector‐ and user‐dependent, while the 4A/P method relies mainly on geometry of the machine and has less dependency on type of machine, detector, and user. The exchange factors are comparable for both types of machines. The conclusion is based on data from an Elekta with Agility head and a Varian TrueBeam machine that may have potential for bias due to light field/collimator set up and alignment. Care should be taken in extrapolating these data to any other machine.
Electron beam from a linear accelerator is commonly used in total skin electron therapy (TSET) at extended distances. Since Das et al (Med Phys 21, p.1733, 1994 reported 5% bremsstrahlung dose for a 6 MeV electron beam at extended distance of 500 cm it has been accepted as common knowledge. However, measurements by Chen et al (Int J. Rad Onc Biol Phys 59 p.872, 2004) and Monte Carlo simulations by Ding et al (Phys. Med. Biol. 66, 075010, 2021) were unable to reproduce such high bremsstrahlung dose. As bremsstrahlung dose contributes to whole-body dose, which could produce bone marrow toxicity with serious complications for the outcome of the TSET, it is important to reevaluate the magnitude of bremsstrahlung dose accurately. Methods: The EGSnrc Monte Carlo system is used to investigate bremsstrahlung doses from 6 MeV high dose rate total skin electron (HDTSe) beams from Varian TrueBeam and Clinac Accelerators. The measurements were carried out at a depth of d max and 5 cm in Solid Water and Acrylic phantoms at extended distances using a parallel-plate chamber and a cylindrical ion chamber. Results: We were able to reproduce previously reported high bremsstrahlung dose at extended distances by using a parallel plate ionization chamber. However, both the measurements made by using a cylindrical chamber and Monte Carlo simulations showed an insignificant bremsstrahlung dose (∼1%) even at SSD = 500 cm. Conclusion:The bremsstrahlung doses of a 6 MeV electron beam are 0.5% to 1% for SSD from 100 to 700 cm, although it increases with the increasing extended distance. The common belief of up to 5% bremsstrahlung dose at large extended distances is incorrect. Previously reported high bremsstrahlung doses might be due to poor signal-to-noise ratio of using a parallel plate chamber for measuring very low dose or particular setup. K E Y W O R D Sbremsstrahlung dose, cylindrical ion chamber, Monte Carlo simulation, parallel plate ion chamber, total skin electron therapy
Purpose The feasibility of transferring patients between unmatched machines for a limited number of treatment fractions was investigated for three‐dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments. Methods Eighty patient‐plans were evaluated on two unmatched linacs: Elekta Versa HD and Elekta Infinity. Plans were equally divided into pelvis 3DCRT, prostate VMAT, brain VMAT, and lung VMAT plans. While maintaining the number of monitor units (MUs), plans were recalculated on the machine not originally used for treatment. Relative differences in dose were calculated between machines for the target volume and organs at risk (OARs). Differences in mean dose were assessed with paired t‐tests (p < 0.05). The number of interchangeable fractions allowable before surpassing a cumulative ±5% difference in dose was determined. Additionally, patient‐specific quality assurance (PSQA) measurements using ArcCHECK for both machines were compared with distributions calculated on the machine originally used for treatment using gradient compensation (GC) with 2%/2‐mm criteria. Results Interchanging the two machines for pelvic 3DCRT and VMAT (prostate, brain, and lung) plans resulted in an average change in target mean dose of 0.9%, −0.5%, 0.6%, 0.5%, respectively. Based on the differences in dose to the prescription point when changing machines, statistically, nearly one‐fourth of the prescribed fractions could be transferred between linacs for 3DCRT plans. While all of the prescribed fractions could typically be transferred among prostate VMAT plans, a rather large number of treatment fractions, 31% and 38%, could be transferred among brain and lung VMAT plans, respectively, without exceeding a ±5% change in the prescribed dose for two Elekta machines. Additionally, the OAR dosage was not affected within the given criterion with change of machine. Conclusions Despite small differences in calculated dose, transferring patients between two unmatched Elekta machines with similar multileaf collimator (MLC)‐head for target coverage and minimum changes in OAR dose is possible for a limited number of fractions (≤3) to improve clinical flexibility and institutional throughput along with patient satisfaction. A similar study could be carried out for other machines for operational throughput.
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.