On‐line quality assurance of rotational radiotherapy treatment delivery by means of a 2D ion chamber array and the Octavius phantom

We measured the angular dependence of central and off‐axis detectors in a 2D ionization chamber array, MatriXX, and applied correction factors (CFs) to improve the accuracy of composite dose verification of IMRT and VMAT. The MatriXX doses were measured with a 10° step for gantry angles (θ) of 0°–180°, and a 1° step for lateral angles of 90°–110° in a phantom, with a 30×10 cm2 field for 6 MV and 10 MV photons. The MatriXX doses were also calculated under the same conditions by the Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm. The CFs for the angular dependence of MatriXX were obtained as a function of θ from the ratios of MatriXX‐measured doses to MC‐calculated doses, and normalized at θ=0°. The corrected MatriXX were validated with different fields, various simple plans, and clinical treatment plans. The dose distributions were compared with those of MC calculations and film. The absolute doses were also compared with ionization chamber and MC‐calculated doses. The angular dependence of MatriXX showed over‐responses of up to 6% and 4% at θ=90° and under‐responses of up to 15% and 11% at 92°, and 8% and 5% at 180° for 6 MV and 10 MV photons, respectively. At 92°, the CFs for the off‐axis detectors were larger by up to 7% and 6% than those for the central detectors for 6 MV and 10 MV photons, respectively, and were within 2.5% at other gantry angles. For simple plans, MatriXX doses with angular correction were within 2% of those measured with the ionization chamber at the central axis and off‐axis. For clinical treatment plans, MatriXX with angular correction agreed well with dose distributions calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS) for gamma evaluation at 3% and 3 mm. The angular dependence corrections of MatriXX were useful in improving the measurement accuracy of composite dose verification of IMRT and VMAT.PACS number: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Van Esch et al (20) considered the angular dependence of a 2D ionization chamber array (Seven29, PTW‐Freiburg, Germany) by using a dedicated octagonal phantom (OCTAVIUS, PTW). Jursinic et al (24) modified a 2D diode array (MapCHECK, Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL) by considering the angular dependence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Angular dependence correction of MatriXX and its application to composite dose verification

Shimohigashi

Araki

Tominaga

et al. 2012

“…Also, the decreasing supply of film and photographic chemicals makes it necessary to find other alternatives. ( 5 , 6 ) …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…( 4 ) Recently, several authors have pointed out the current trend to move to digital imaging. This trend has resulted in a decline in the availability of films and chemical processors, ( 5 , 6 ) which led us to look for alternative methods for this type of control.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A method to enhance spatial resolution of a 2D ion chamber array for quality control of MLC

Moreno

Venencia

Garrigo

et al. 2011

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

“…Electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) have also been tested for in vivo dosimetry purposes (12) . In phantom, verification of the treatment plan in three dimensions (3D) can be carried out successfully using Delta 4 (Scandidos AB, Uppsala, Sweden), (23) ArcCHECK (Sun Nuclear Corp.), 5 , 24 , 25 , 26 and Octavius (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) (27) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beam perturbation characteristics of a 2D transmission silicon diode array, Magic Plate

Alrowaili

Lerch

Petasecca

et al. 2016

The main objective of this study is to demonstrate the performance characteristics of the Magic Plate (MP) system when operated upstream of the patient in transmission mode (MPTM). The MPTM is an essential component of a real‐time QA system designed for operation during radiotherapy treatment. Of particular interest is a quantitative study into the influence of the MP on the radiation beam quality at several field sizes and linear accelerator potential differences. The impact is measured through beam perturbation effects such as changes in the skin dose and/or percentage depth dose (PDD) (both in and out of field). The MP was placed in the block tray of a Varian linac head operated at 6, 10 and 18 MV beam energy. To optimize the MPTM operational setup, two conditions were investigated and each setup was compared to the case where no MP is positioned in place (i.e., open field): (i) MPTM alone and (ii) MPTM with a thin passive contamination electron filter. The in‐field and out‐of‐field surface doses of a solid water phantom were investigated for both setups using a Markus plane parallel (Model N23343) and Attix parallel‐plate, MRI model 449 ionization chambers. In addition, the effect on the 2D dose distribution measured by the Delta4 QA system was also investigated. The transmission factor for both of these MPTM setups in the central axis was also investigated using a Farmer ionization chamber (Model 2571A) and an Attix ionization chamber. Measurements were performed for different irradiation field sizes of 5×5 cm2 and 10×10 cm2. The change in the surface dose relative to dmax was measured to be less than 0.5% for the 6 MV, 10 MV, and 18 MV energy beams. Transmission factors measured for both set ups (i & ii above) with 6 MV, 10 MV, and 18 MV at a depth of dmax and a depth of 10 cm were all within 1.6% of open field. The impact of both the bare MPTM and the MPTM with 1 mm buildup on 3D dose distribution in comparison to the open field investigated using the Delta4 system and both the MPTM versions passed standard clinical gamma analysis criteria. Two MPTM operational setups were studied and presented in this article. The results indicate that both versions may be suitable for the new real‐time megavoltage photon treatment delivery QA system under development. However, the bare MPTM appears to be slightly better suited of the two MP versions, as it minimally perturbs the radiation field and does not lead to any significant increase in skin dose to the patient.PACS number(s): 87.50.up, 87.53.Bn, 87.55.N, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc.