Experimental determination of the “collimator monitoring fill factor” and its relation to the error detection capabilities of various 2D‐arrays

Abstract

Purpose: The collimator monitoring fill factor (CM-FF) introduced by Stelljes et al. (2017) and the FWHM fill factor (FWHM-FF) introduced by Gago-Arias et al. (2012) were determined using the measured photon fluence response functions of various 2D-arrays. The error detection capabilities of 2D-arrays were studied by comparing detector signal changes and local gamma index passing rates in different field setups with introduced collimation errors. Methods: The fill factor is defined as the ratio of the sensitive detector area and the cell area of a detector, defined by the detector arrangement on a 2D-array. Gago-Arias et al. calculated the FWHM-FF, using the FWHM² of a detector's fluence response function K M (x) as the sensitive detector area. For the CM-FF a sensitive detector width w(D mm, d%) is calculated. The sensitive detector width is the lateral extent of K M (x), lying inside the detector cell area, along which a collimator error of D mm yields a signal change exceeding a detection threshold of d%. The sensitive area for a single detector is calculated using w(D mm, d%)². The CM-FF is then calculated as the ratio of the sensitive area of a detector within its cell area and the detector cell area. The fluence response functions of the central detector of the OCTAVIUS 729, 1500, and 1000 SRS array (all PTW-Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany) and the Map-CHECK 2 array (Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, US) were measured using a photon slit beam. The FWHM-FF and the CM-FF were calculated and compared for all 2D-arrays under investigation. The error detection capabilities of 2D-arrays in quadratic fields were studied by investigating the signal changes in the detectors adjacent to the collimator edge when changing the collimator position. The change in local gamma index passing rate with respect to the introduced collimator error was investigated for an ionization chamber and a diode array in quadratic and two intensity modulated fields. Results: Values for the CM-FF and FWHM-FF were 1.0 and 0.35, respectively for the area of the liquid-filled 1000 SRS ionization chamber array with a detector to detector distance of 5 mm and 0.32 and 0.04, respectively, for the MapCHECK 2 diode array. For the vented ionization chamber array OCTAVIUS 729 fill factors were calculated as CM-FF = 0.59 and FWHM-FF = 0.53, while the OCTAVIUS 1500 array yielded fill factors of CM-FF = 0.77 and FWHM-FF = 0.72. Signal changes in vented ionization chambers for collimator errors of 1 mm surpassed those of diodes by a factor of 2 in quadratic fields. The gamma index passing rates in quadratic fields reflect those findings. In intensity modulated fields, the decline of the gamma index passing rate is bigger for the ionization chamber array compared to the diode array when introducing collimator errors. Conclusions:The calculated values of the CM-FF correlate with the signal changes in quadratic field setups with introduced collimator position errors of 1 mm, while the FWHM-FF underestimates the error detection capabilities of 2D-arrays. An increased er...

Dosimetric Evaluation of the QFix kVueTM Calypso Couch Top

“…It consists of 1405 vented ionization chambers, each chamber has an entrance area of 4.4 Â 4.4 mm 2 and a height of 3 mm, resulting in an ionization volume of 0.058 cm 3 . [21][22][23] The chambers are arranged in rows, and the center-to-center distance between the chambers in each row is 7.07 mm. The water effective depth from the surface to the detector array is 7 mm.…”

Test case simplification based on coupling metrics in software bug location

“…After the test cases have been reduced, a key issue to consider is the test suite error detection rate. Numerous studies have shown that the error detection capability of the test suite is proportional to the size of the test case set, and increases with its increase [22][23]. Therefore, it is essential to ensure the error detection rate of the test suite when it is reduced.…”

Semiconductor dosimetry in modern external-beam radiation therapy

“…The Collimator-Monitoring Fill-Factor parameter (Gago-Arias et al 2012, Stelljes et al 2017Stelljes et al , 2019 is generally defined as a ratio of the detector sensitive area to the detector cell area (a measure of detector spacing). It was shown that for the relatively sparse 2D arrays, the higher fill factor for the ion chamber-based instrument vs. the diode-based led to a higher probability of a collimation error detection (Stelljes et al 2019). It would be interesting to do a similar experimental comparison between the more tightly packed chamber and diode arrays, e.g.…”

“…the OCTAVIUS 1000 SRS (Poppe et al 2013) and SRS MapCHECK (Ahmed et al 2019) dosimeters. A desirable array design should combine a high fill factor and a high spatial resolution of its single detectors (Stelljes et al 2019). However, further decreasing detector pitch becomes increasingly challenging for array of single diodes.…”