N. Suntharalingam

Dosimetric characteristics of a commercial multileaf collimator

The dosimetric characteristics of a multileaf collimator (MLC) retrofitted to a SL25 linear accelerator have been investigated. Central-axis depth dose, surface dose, penumbra, beam flatness and symmetry, field size factors, beam transmission through leaves and/or diaphragms, and leakage between the leaves were measured. Quantitative measurements of all beam parameters show good agreement with the design specifications of the manufacturer. No changes were observed in flatness, symmetry, penumbra, and penetration for both 6- and 25-MV photon beams when compared to the values for the standard collimator. No significant differences were observed in the penumbra as a function of leaf position. Transmission measurements in areas shielded by either X diaphragms or leaves plus diaphragms are less than 1% of dose within open field. The average leakage between leaves is about 2.5% for 6-MV and 3.5% for 25-MV photon beams. The peak value of the leakage at any point between leaves is less than 5%. The dosimetric features of shaped fields using the MLC are comparable to those of alloy shaped fields with the standard SL25 collimator.

Dosimetric properties of megavoltage grid therapy

PURPOSEnGrid therapy is a technique used to deliver a high dose of radiation (15-20 Gy) in a single fraction to many small volumes within a large treatment field. This treatment modality is used for the palliative treatment of large, deeply seated tumors, which have either been treated to tolerance with conventional radiation, or, due to massive tumor bulk, would most likely not benefit from a conventional course of radiation therapy. As the dose distribution from megavoltage grid therapy differs significantly from that of conventional radiation therapy (i.e., many large dose gradients exist within the tumor volume), we have measured various dosimetric properties inherent in this unique treatment modality.nnnMETHODS AND MATERIALSnThe grid is a 16 x 16 array of 1-cm diameter holes in a 7-cm thick piece of custom blocking material. The ratio of shielded to open surface area is 1:1. Depth dose, valley-to-peak ratios, and output factors for this square array grid were measured in a water phantom for several field sizes, as well as for a 1-cm diameter narrow beam using 6 MV and 25 MV photon beams.nnnRESULTSnThe depth dose curves for the grid fields lie between those for an open portal and a narrow beam. For the 6-MV beam at dmax, the ratios of the doses delivered to the center of the shielded regions to that under the center of the holes, expressed as valley-to-peak ratios, range from 15 to 40%. At 10 cm, the ratios increase to between 25 and 45%. At 25 MV at both dmax and 10 cm, the valley-to-peak ratios are between 40 and 60%. The output factors, 0.89 for 6 MV and 0.77 for 25 MV, do not depend on field size.nnnCONCLUSIONnMegavoltage grid therapy is a unique treatment modality where the dose is delivered differentially to a large volume in one fraction. Characterization of the dosimetric properties has allowed clinical implementation of the grid.

Anisotropy of an 192iridium high dose rate source measured with a miniature ionization chamber.

The anisotropy of a high dose rate (HDR) 192Ir source was measured in air and in water using a miniature (0.147 cm3) ionization chamber. Measurements were made at a distance of 5 cm from the source center at polar angles from 10 degrees-170 degrees. The anisotropy was found to be less pronounced in water, and the anisotropy is asymmetric about the transverse axis. The results agree with previous ionization chamber and TLD measurements to within +/- 4%. Mean anisotropy factors were determined at each angle from all existing data at 5 cm distance, and compared to published Monte Carlo calculations, and to the values used in the microSelectron HDR brachytherapy planning system (BPS). The Monte Carlo photon transport code appears to systematically underestimate the anisotropy factor by up to 4% in the forward direction and overestimate it by up to 3% in the backward direction. The mean anisotropy factors also indicate that the BPS systematically underestimates the anisotropy factor by up to 3% in the forward direction, and overestimates it by up to 15% in the backward direction. However, the 15% difference occurs at 180 degrees where it is not likely to be clinically significant.

Experimental determination of fluence correction factors at depths beyond dmax for a Farmer type cylindrical ionization chamber in clinical electron beams

Recently, it has been recommended that electron beam calibrations be performed at a new reference depth [Burns et al., Med. Phys. 23, 383 (1996)] given by dref = 0.6R50-0.1 cm, where R50 is the depth of 50% depth dose. In order to calibrate electron beams at dref with a Farmer type cylindrical ionization chamber, the values of the perturbation correction factors Pwall and Pfl at dref are required. Using a parallel plate Holt chamber as a reference chamber, the product PwallPfl has been determined for a 6.1-mm-diameter PTW cylindrical ionization chamber at dref as a function of R50 of clinical electron beams (6 < or = nominal energy E < or = 22 MeV). Assuming that Pwall for the PTW chamber is unity in electron beams, the measured Pfl values ranged from 0.96 to 0.98 as the energy is increased. These results are in close agreement with recently reported calculated values. Determination of dref requires the knowledge of R50. A relation between I50 and R50 is given in the IAEA Protocol [TRS No. 277 (IAEA, Vieńna, 1987), pp. 1-98] for broad beams at SSD = 100 cm. It has been shown experimentally that the equation R50 = 1.029 x I50-0.063 cm, derived by Ding et al. [Med. Phys. 22, 489 (1995)] from Monte Carlo simulations of realistic clinical electron beams, can be used satisfactorily to obtain R50 from I50, where I50 is the depth of 50% ionization. The largest difference between the measured value of R50 and that calculated by using the above equation has been found to be about 1 mm at 22 MeV.

Experimental determination of depth‐scaling factors and central axis depth dose for clinical electron beams

Depth‐scaling factors ρeff for clear polystyrene and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantoms have been determined experimentally as a function of nominal electron‐beam energy in the range 6 to 22 MeV. Values of ρeff have been calculated from the ratio ρeff = R u2009wat50 / R u2009med50 , where R u2009wat50 and R u2009med50 are the measured depths of 50% ionization in electron solid water and plastic (clear polystyrene and PMMA) phantoms, respectively. Measurements were made using an Attix chamber in an electron solid water phantom, a Holt chamber in a clear polystyrene phantom, and a Markus chamber in a PMMA phantom. The average value of measured ρ u2009polyeff was found to be 0.999 ± 0.009. This is higher than the value of 0.975 recommended by Task Group 25 (TG‐25) of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) by 2.5%. Depending on energy, the maximum differences between the AAPM TG‐25‐recommended and the measured values lie in the range 1% to 3.5%. Similarly, the average value of measured ρ u2009PMMAeff was found to be 1.168 ± 0.023. This is higher than the AAPM TG‐25‐recommended value of 1.115, by 5%. Depending on energy, the maximum differences between the AAPM TG‐25‐recommended and the measured values lie in the range 3% to 8%. Central axis depth dose curves in water were generated for 6, 15, and 20 MeV electron beams from measured depth‐ionization data in PMMA and clear polystyrene phantoms following the recommendations of the AAPM TG‐25 report and using both TG‐25‐recommended and experimentally determined values of depth‐scaling factors ρeff. For both phantoms, either the TG‐25‐recommended value or the experimentally determined values of ρeff yielded agreement to within about 2 mm among all depth doses in water at the depths of clinical relevance.

Radiation oncology. Programs for the present and future

Radiation oncology in 1984 continues to make major advances in the multidisciplinary clinical programs. This has been possible by virtue of the radiation oncologist, who is an active participant in these clinical programs. The changing role for the radiation oncologist has dictated a greater participation in the primary management of the patients disease process and also participation in multidisciplinary research programs.

A generalized film technique for the verification of vertex fields used in the treatment of brain tumors

With the availability of commercial three-dimensional (3D)-treatment planning systems, more and more treatment plans call for the use of noncoplanar conformal beams for the treatment of brain tumors. However, techniques for the verification of many noncoplaner beams, such as vertex fields which involve any combination of gantry, collimator, and table angles, do not exist. The purpose of this work is to report on the results of an algorithm and a technique that have been developed for the verification of noncoplanar vertex fields used in the treatment of brain tumors. This technique is applicable to any geometric orientation of the beam, i.e., a beam orientation that consists of any combination of gantry, table, and collimator rotations. The method consists of superimposing a central plane image of a correctly magnified vertex field on a lateral or oblique field port film. To achieve this, the 3D coordinates of the projection of the isocenter onto the film for lateral (or oblique) as well as the vertex fields are determined and then appropriately matched. Coordinate transformation equations have been developed that enable this matching precisely. A film holder has been designed such that a film cassette can be secured rigidly along the side rails of the treatment table. The technique for taking a patient treatment setup verification film consists of two steps. In the first step, the gantry, table, and collimator angles for the lateral (or oblique) field are set and the usual double exposures are made; the first exposure corresponds to that of the treatment portal with the isocenter clearly identified and the second one a larger radiation field so that the peripheral anatomy is visible on the film. In the next step, the gantry, table, and collimator angles are positioned for the vertex field and the table is moved laterally and vertically and the film longitudinally to a position that will enable precise matching of the isocenter on the film. A third exposure is then taken with the vertex portal. What is seen on the film is a superposition of a central plane image of the vertex field onto the image of the lateral or oblique field. This technique has been used on 60 patients treated with noncoplanar fields for brain tumors. In all of these cases, the coincidence of the projection of the isocenter for the lateral (or oblique) and the vertex fields was found to be within 3 mm.

Quality assurance in radiation therapy: Future plans in physics

Modern day radiation therapy has seen the impact of high technology resulting in more sophisticated computer augmented treatment delivery systems, treatment planning procedures and diagnostic imaging techniques. Much work has already been reported in the area of physics efforts related to quality assurance in radiation therapy. Future efforts in physics will have to address the new developments in each component of the whole radiation treatment process. Certain new developments, using both computer and imaging technologies, show promise in providing tools to verify the accuracy of the delivered radiation treatment. Areas receiving careful attention are: integration and registration of information from multiple sources of diagnostic studies; validation of the accuracy of treatment planning systems; assessment of relative merits of alternate dose distributions; improvement of portal and verification film image quality; real time monitoring using light emitting screens and coupled with TV systems; monitoring of treatment and machine parameters using record and verify computer systems. The medical physics community, primarily through the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), will continue the development of methodologies for technology transfer in the area of quality assurance. Committees and task groups within the AAPM will address the new developments impacting on quality assurance and prepare appropriate protocols and documents to assist the practicing physicist. By necessity, the national Radiological Physics Center (RPC) and the regional Centers for Radiological Physics (CRP) will have to take a major role in the development of new quality assurance programs.