Dosimetric characteristics of 6 and 10MV unflattened photon beams

The purpose of this study is to perform dosimetric validation of Monaco treatment planning system version 5.1. The Elekta VersaHD linear accelerator with high dose rate flattening filter‐free photon modes and electron energies was used in this study. The dosimetric output of the new Agility head combined with the FFF photon modes warranted this investigation into the dosimetric accuracy prior to clinical usage. A model of the VersaHD linac was created in Monaco TPS by Elekta using commissioned beam data including percent depth dose curves, beam profiles, and output factors. A variety of 3D conformal fields were created in Monaco TPS on a combined Plastic water/Styrofoam phantom and validated against measurements with a calibrated ion chamber. Some of the parameters varied including source to surface distance, field size, wedges, gantry angle, and depth for all photon and electron energies. In addition, a series of step and shoot IMRT, VMAT test plans, and patient plans on various anatomical sites were verified against measurements on a Delta4 diode array. The agreement in point dose measurements was within 2% for all photon and electron energies in the homogeneous phantom and within 3% for photon energies in the heterogeneous phantom. The mean ± SD gamma passing rates of IMRT test fields yielded 93.8 ± 4.7% based on 2% dose difference and 2 mm distance‐to‐agreement criteria. Eight previously treated IMRT patient plans were replanned in Monaco TPS and five measurements on each yielded an average gamma passing rate of 95% with 6.7% confidence limit based on 3%, 3 mm gamma criteria. This investigation on dosimetric validation ensures accuracy of modeling VersaHD linac in Monaco TPS thereby improving patient safety.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric validation of Monaco treatment planning system on an Elekta VersaHD linear accelerator

Narayanasamy

Saenz²,

Defoor³

et al. 2017

“…FF removal also affects the variation in the energy spectrum across the beam (making it much more uniform) but energy matching across the beam is not possible. In contrast, and in following with other work 10 , 23 the 10 MV beam has not been adjusted. The

{TPR}_{20 / 10}

for the 10 MV and 10 MV FFF beams are 0.737 and 0.716, respectively.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although surface doses have been studied under a range of conditions for conventional “flattened” beams, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 there is very little data for filter‐free beams. Several authors have reported simple surface dose vs. field size variations in FFF beams, 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 but data for changes in SSD and in the presence of absorbers, such as the shadow tray, wedge, and couch, are unavailable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface dose variations in 6 and 10 MV flattened and flattening filter‐free (FFF) photon beams

Cashmore

2016

As the use of linear accelerators operating in flattening filter‐free (FFF) modes becomes more widespread, it is important to have an understanding of the surface doses delivered to patients with these beams. Flattening filter removal alters the beam quality and relative contributions of low‐energy X‐rays and contamination electrons in the beam. Having dosimetric data to describe the surface dose and buildup regions under a range of conditions for FFF beams is important if clinical decisions are to be made. An Elekta Synergy linac with standard MLCi head has been commissioned to run at 6 MV and 10 MV running with the flattening filter in or out. In this linac the 6 MV FFF beam has been energy‐matched to the clinical beam on the central axis (normalD10). The 10 MV beam energy has not been adjusted. The flattening filter in both cases is replaced by a thin (2 mm) stainless steel plate. A thin window parallel plate chamber has been used to measure a comprehensive set of surface dose data in these beams for variations in field size and SSD, and for the presence of attenuators (wedge, shadow tray, and treatment couch). Surface doses are generally higher in FFF beams for small field sizes and lower for large field sizes with a crossover at 10×10 cm2 at 6 MV and 25×25 cm2 at 10 MV. This trend is also seen in the presence of the wedge, shadow tray, and treatment couch. Only small differences (<0.5%) are seen between the beams on varying SSD. At both 6 and 10 MV the filter‐free beams show far less variation with field size than conventional beams. By removing the flattening filter, a source of contamination electrons is exchanged for a source of low‐energy photons (as these are no longer attenuated). In practice these two components almost balance out. No significant effects on surface dose are expected by the introduction of FFF delivery.PACS number(s): 87.53.Bn, 87.55.ne, 87.56.bd

“…Linacs with FFF beams have since been released by vendors and implemented clinically at many institutions. Properties of the FFF beams for these machines, usually determined during the commissioning process, have been subsequently reported 4 , 5 , 6 . Comparisons between Monte Carlo calculations and experimental measurements have been performed to confirm that simulations accurately model accelerator geometry 7 , 8 , 9 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Clinically relevant investigation of flattening filter‐free skin dose

Guy

Karki

Sharma

et al. 2016

As flattening filter‐free (FFF) photon beams become readily available for treatment delivery in techniques such as SBRT, thorough investigation of skin dose from FFF photon beams is necessary under clinically relevant conditions. Using a parallel‐plate PTW Markus chamber placed in a custom water‐equivalent phantom, surface‐dose measurements were taken at 2×2,3×3,4×4,6×6,8×8,10×10,20×20, and 30×30 cm2 field sizes, at 80, 90, and 100 cm source‐to‐surface distances (SSDs), and with fields defined by jaws and multileaf collimator (MLC) using multiple beam energies (6X, 6XFFF, 10X, and 10XFFF). The same set of measurements was repeated with the chamber at a reference depth of 10 cm. Each surface measurement was normalized by its corresponding reference depth measurement for analysis. The FFF surface doses at 100 cm SSD were higher than flattened surface doses by 45% at 2×2 cm2 to 13% at 20×20 cm2 for 6 MV energy. These surface dose differences varied to a greater degree as energy increased, ranging from +63% at 2×2 cm2 to −2% at 20×20 cm2 for 10 MV. At small field sizes, higher energy increased FFF surface dose relative to flattened surface dose; while at larger field sizes, relative FFF surface dose was higher for lower energies. At both energies investigated, decreasing SSD caused a decrease in the ratios of FFF‐to‐flattened surface dose. Variability with SSD of FFF‐to‐flattened surface dose differences increased with field size and ranged from 0% to 6%. The field size at which FFF and flattened beams gave the same skin dose increased with decreasing beam energy. Surface dose was higher with MLC fields compared to jaw fields under most conditions, with the difference reaching its maximum at a field size between 4×4 cm2 and 6×6 cm2 for a given energy and SSD. This study conveyed the magnitude of surface dose in a clinically meaningful manner by reporting results normalized to 10 cm depth dose instead of depth of dose maximum.PACS number(s): 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Ly, 87.55.‐x, 87.55.N‐, 87.56.N‐