Two‐dimensional ionization chamber arrays for IMRT plan verification

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 119 instructed institutions to use a low‐dose threshold of 10% or a region of interest determined by the jaw setting when they collected gamma analysis quality assurance (QA) data for the planar dose distribution. However, there are no clinical data to quantitatively demonstrate the impact of the low‐dose threshold on the gamma index. Therefore, we performed a gamma analysis with various low‐dose thresholds in the range of 0% to 15% according to both global and local normalization and different acceptance criteria (3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm). A total of 30 treatment plans — 10 head and neck, 10 brain, and 10 prostate cancer cases — were randomly selected from the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). For the gamma analysis, a calculated portal image was acquired through a portal dose calculation algorithm in the Eclipse TPS, and a measured portal image was obtained using an electronic portal‐imaging device. Then, the gamma analysis was performed using the Portal Dosimetry software (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The gamma passing rate (%GP) for the global normalization decreased as the low‐dose threshold increased, and all low‐dose thresholds led to %GP values above 95% for both the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. However, for the local normalization, %GP for a low‐dose threshold of 10% was 7.47%, 10.23%, and 6.71% greater than the low‐dose threshold of 0% for head and neck, brain, and prostate for the 3%/3 mm criteria, respectively. The results indicate that applying the low‐dose threshold to global normalization does not have a critical impact on patient‐specific QA results. However, in the local normalization, the low‐dose threshold level should be carefully selected because the excluded low‐dose points could cause the average %GP to increase rapidly.PACS number: 87.55.Qr

1 % / 1 mm

criterion, and (b) the acceptable level of %GP for the

1 % / 1 mm

criterion should differ from those values for the

3 % / 3 mm

and

2 % / 2 mm

criteria 36 , 37 , 38 . Thus, a careful approach to gamma analysis with the

1 % / 1 mm

acceptance criterion should be taken.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gamma analysis dependence on specified low‐dose thresholds for VMAT QA

Song

Kim

Park

et al. 2015

“…However, another problem of MatriXX is its spatial resolution. Poppe et al (16) and Herzen et al (17) suggested a convolution correction method that considers the response function of each detector. This method might enhance the verification results for dose distribution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Shimohigashi

Araki

Tominaga

et al. 2012

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

“…Since certain measurement tasks, such as acquiring percent depth‐dose curves or the localization scan at the beginning of a CT examination, are done with a stationary X‐ray tube, these detectors can still be used. General physical properties of the 2D‐Array seven29 have been investigated and described by Poppe et al 29 , 30 , 31 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computed tomography dosimetry with high‐resolution detectors commonly used in radiotherapy — an energy dependence study

Liebmann

Poppe

Boetticher

2015

Self Cite

New methods of dosimetry in computed tomography (CT) X‐ray fields require the use of high‐resolution detectors instead of pencil‐type ionization chambers typically used for CT dose index (CTDI) measurements. This paper presents a study on the suitability of a wide range of ionization chambers, diodes, and a two‐dimensional detector array, used primarily in radiation therapy, for CT and cone‐beam CT dosimetry. Specifically, the energy dependence of these detectors from 50 kVp up to 125 kVp is reported. All measurements were performed in reference to a calibrated diode for use in this energy region. The radiation quality correction factors provided by the manufacturer were used, depending on the measured half‐value layer (HVL) for the particular X‐ray beam. Our study demonstrated the general usability of thimble ionization chambers. These thimble ionization chambers showed a maximum variation in energy response of 5%. Ionization chambers with even smaller sensitive volume, and which exhibit similar variation in energy dependence, can be used if higher spatial resolution is required. Furthermore, the investigated detectors are better suited for dosimetry at CT and CBCT units than conventional large volume or flat detectors, due to their rotational symmetry. Nevertheless, a flat detector can be used for certain measurement tasks, such as the acquisition of percent depth‐dose curves or beam profiles for nonrotating beams, which are important for beam characterization.PACS numbers: 87.57.uq, 87.56.Da, 87.57.Q‐