Formalisms for MU calculations, ESTRO booklet 3 versus NCS report 12

Although the relevance and importance of quality assurance and quality control in radiotherapy is generally accepted, only recently, methods for monitor unit (MU) calculation and verification have been addressed in recognized recommendations, published by the European Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) and by the Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry (Dutreix A, Bjärngard BE, Bridier A, Mijnheer B, Shaw JE, Svensson H. Monitor unit calculation for high-energy photon beams. Physics for clinical radiotherapy. ESTRO Booklet No. 3. Leuven: Garant, 1997; Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry (NCS). Determination and use of scatter correction factors of megavoltage photon beams. NCS report 12. Deift: NCS, 1998). Both documents are based on the same principles: (i) the separation of the output factor into a head and a volume (or phantom) scatter component; (ii) the use of a so-called mini-phantom to measure and verify the head scatter component; and (iii) the recommendation to use a single reference depth of 10 cm for all photon beam qualities. However, there are substantial differences between the approach developed in the IAEA-ESTRO task group and the NCS approach for MU calculations, which might lead to confusion and/or misinterpretation if both reports are used simultaneously or if data from the NCS report is applied in the algorithms of the ESTRO report without careful consideration. The aim of the present paper is to discuss and to clearly point out these differences (e.g. field size definitions, phantom scatter parameters, etc.). Additionally, corresponding quantities in the two reports are related where possible and several aspects concerning the use of a mini-phantom (e.g. size, detector position, composition) are addressed

On the practice of the clinical implementation of enhanced dynamic wedges

Practical aspects of the clinical implementation of enhanced dynamic wedges (EDW) replacing manual wedges are presented and discussed extensively. A comparison between measured and calculated data is also presented. Relative dose distributions and wedge factors were calculated with a commercially available treatment planning system and measured in a water-phantom and with an ionization chamber. Wedge factor calculations and measurements were also compared with an independent method of wedge factor calculations available from the literature. Aspects of the clinical implementation, such as safety and quality assurance, were evaluated. Measurements and calculations agreed very well and were slightly better than results of previous studies. Profiles and percentage depth doses (PDDs) agreed within 1% to 1.5% and within 0.5%, respectively. Measured and calculated wedge factors ratios agreed within 0.5% to 1%. Calculated and measured EDW dose distributions showed excellent agreement, both relative and absolute. However, for safe and practical use, specific aspects need to be taken into consideration. Once the treatment planning system is commissioned properly, the clinical implementation of EDW is rather straightforward

Inhalation anesthesia and shielding devices to allow accurate preclinical irradiation of mice with clinical linac-based systems: Design and dosimetric characteristics

This technical note describes two devices to enable accurate irradiation of mice on clinical linac-based systems. To study the effects of radiation in murine, preclinical animal models, controlled and accurate dosing is important. This is not only important when specific volumes need to be irradiated, but also when the whole animal body is irradiated. To enable both purposes, we designed two devices. One device to administer Total Body Irradiation (TBI) simultaneously to six, free walking mice, and a second device, denoted as target box, in which we irradiate specific parts of the mice whilst organs-at-risk (OAR) are protected. In this latter device, we can position the mice in multiple ways. One configuration allows to sedate twelve mice simultaneously by isoflurane inhalation anesthesia and protect the body by lead shielding to allow radiation of the head only. Alternatively, the target box can be used to sedate maximal 4 mice simultaneously to irradiate the flank or paws only. All these setups allow high experimental throughput and thus a minimal occupation of the clinical equipment. As measured, the delivered radiation dosages in the regions of interest were accurate for both devices. In this technical note, we describe the design and build of these devices

Dependence of the tray transmission factor on collimator setting and source-surface distance

When blocks are placed on a tray in megavoltage x-ray beams, generally a single correction factor for the attenuation by the tray is applied for each photon beam quality. In this approach, the tray transmission factor is assumed to be independent of field size and source-surface distance (SSD). Analysis of a set of measurements performed in beams of 13 different linear accelerators demonstrates that there is, however, a slight variation of the tray transmission factor with field size and SSD. The tray factor changes about 1.5% for collimator settings varying between 4 x 4 cm and 40 x 40 cm for a 1 cm thick PMMA tray and approximately 3% for a 2 cm thick PMMA tray. The variation with field size is smaller if the source-surface distance is increased. The dependence on the collimator setting is not different, within the experimental uncertainty of about 0.5% (1 s.d.), for the nominal accelerating potentials and accelerator types applied in this study. It is shown that the variation of the tray transmission factor with field size and source-surface distance can easily be taken into account in the dose calculation by considering the volume of the irradiated tray material and the position of the tray in the beam. A relation is presented which can be used to calculate the numerical value of the tray transmission factor directly. These calculated values can be checked with only a few measurements using a cylindrical beam coaxial miniphantom. (C) 2000 American Association of Physicists in Medicine

Effect of electron contamination on scatter correction factors for photon beam dosimetry

Physical quantities for use in megavoltage photon beam dose calculations which are defined at the depth of maximum absorbed dose are sensitive to electron contamination and are difficult to measure and to calculate. Recently, formalisms have therefore been presented to assess the dose using collimator and phantom scatter correction factors, S(c) and S(p), defined at a reference depth of 10 cm. The data can be obtained from measurements at that depth in a miniphantom and in a full scatter phantom. Equations are presented that show the relation between these quantities and corresponding quantities obtained from measurements at the depth of the dose maximum. It is shown that conversion of S(c) and S(p) determined at a 10 cm depth to quantities defined at the dose maximum such as (normalized) peak scatter factor, (normalized) tissue-air ratio, and vice versa is not possible without quantitative knowledge of the electron contamination. The difference in S(c) at d(max) resulting from this electron contamination compared with S(c) values obtained at a depth of 10 cm in a miniphantom has been determined as a multiplication factor, S(cel), for a number of photon beams of different accelerator types. It is shown that S(cel) may vary up to 5%. Because in the new formalisms output factors are defined at a reference depth of 10 cm, they do not require S(cel) data. The use of S(c) and S(p) values, defined at a 10 cm depth, combined with relative depth-dose data or tissue-phantom ratios is therefore recommended. For a transition period the use of the equations provided in this article and S(cel) data might be required, for instance, if treatment planning systems apply S(c) data normalized at d(max

Comparison of parametrization methods of the collimator scatter correction factor for open rectangular fields of 6-25 MV photon beams

Purpose: To facilitate the use of the collimator scatter correction factor, S(c), parametrization methods that relate S(c) to the field size by fitting were investigated. Materials and methods: S(c) was measured with a mini-phantom for five types of dual photon energy accelerators with energies varying between 6 and 25 MV. Using these S(c)-data six methods of parametrizing S(c) for square fields were compared, including a third-order polynomial of the natural logarithm of the field size normalized to the field size of 10 cm2. Also five methods of determining S(c) for rectangular fields were considered, including one which determines the equivalent field size by extending Sterling's method. Results: The deviations between measured and calculated S(c)-values were determined for all photon beams and methods investigated in this study. The resulting deviations of the most accurate method varied between 0.07 and 0.42% for square fields and between 0.26 and 0.79% for rectangular fields. A recommendation is given as to how to limit the number of fields for which S(c) should be measured in order to be able to accurately predict it for an arbitrary field size