Oliver Steffen Dohm

A virtual photon energy fluence model for Monte Carlo dose calculation.

The presented virtual energy fluence (VEF) model of the patient-independent part of the medical linear accelerator heads, consists of two Gaussian-shaped photon sources and one uniform electron source. The planar photon sources are located close to the bremsstrahlung target (primary source) and to the flattening filter (secondary source), respectively. The electron contamination source is located in the plane defining the lower end of the filter. The standard deviations or widths and the relative weights of each source are free parameters. Five other parameters correct for fluence variations, i.e., the horn or central depression effect. If these parameters and the field widths in the X and Y directions are given, the corresponding energy fluence distribution can be calculated analytically and compared to measured dose distributions in air. This provides a method of fitting the free parameters using the measurements for various square and rectangular fields and a fixed number of monitor units. The next step in generating the whole set of base data is to calculate monoenergetic central axis depth dose distributions in water which are used to derive the energy spectrum by deconvolving the measured depth dose curves. This spectrum is also corrected to take the off-axis softening into account. The VEF model is implemented together with geometry modules for the patient specific part of the treatment head (jaws, multileaf collimator) into the XVMC dose calculation engine. The implementation into other Monte Carlo codes is possible based on the information in this paper. Experiments are performed to verify the model by comparing measured and calculated dose distributions and output factors in water. It is demonstrated that open photon beams of linear accelerators from two different vendors are accurately simulated using the VEF model. The commissioning procedure of the VEF model is clinically feasible because it is based on standard measurements in air and water. It is also useful for IMRT applications because a full Monte Carlo simulation of the treatment head would be too time-consuming for many small fields.

Investigation of photon beam output factors for conformal radiation therapy - Monte Carlo simulations and measurements

The purpose of this study was to investigate beam output factors (OFs) for conformal radiation therapy and to compare the OFs measured with different detectors with those simulated with Monte Carlo methods. Four different detectors (diode, diamond, pinpoint and ionization chamber) were used to measure photon beam OFs in a water phantom at a depth of 10 cm with a source-surface distance (SSD) of 100 cm. Square fields with widths ranging from 1 cm to 15 cm were observed; the OF for the different field sizes was normalized to that measured at a 5 cm x 5 cm field size at a depth of 10 cm. The BEAM/EGS4 program was used to simulate the exact geometry of a 6 MV photon beam generated by the linear accelerator, and the DOSXYZ-code was implemented to calculate the OFs for all field sizes. Two resolutions (0.1 cm and 0.5 cm voxel size) were chosen here. In addition, to model the detector four kinds of material, water, air, graphite or silicon, were placed in the corresponding voxels. Profiles and depth dose distributions resulting from the simulation show good agreement with the measurements. Deviations of less than 2% can be observed. The OF measured with different detectors in water vary by more than 35% for 1 cm x 1 cm fields. This result can also be found for the simulated OF with different voxel sizes and materials. For field sizes of at least 2 cm x 2 cm the deviations between all measurements and simulations are below 3%. This demonstrates that very small fields have a bad effect on dosimetric accuracy and precision. Finally, Monte Carlo methods can be significant in determining the OF for small fields.

The use of plane-parallel chambers in electron dosimetry without any cross-calibration.

Current dosimetry protocols from AAPM, DIN and IAEA recommend a cross-calibration for plane-parallel chambers against a calibrated thimble chamber for electron dosimetry. The rationale for this is the assumed chamber-to-chamber variation of plane-parallel chambers and the large uncertainty in the wall perturbation factor (p(wall)60Co)pp at 60Co for plane-parallel chambers. We have confirmed the results of other authors that chamber-to-chamber variation of the investigated chambers of types Roos, Markus, Advanced Markus and Farmer is less than 0.3%. Starting with a calibration factor for absorbed dose to water and on the basis of the three dosimetry protocols AAPM TG-51, DIN 6800-2 (slightly modified) and IAEA TRS-398, values for (p(wall)60Co)Roos of 1.024 +/- 0.005, (p(wall)60Co)Markus of 1.016 +/- 0.005 and (p(wall)60Co)Advanced Markus of 1.014 +/- 0.005 have been determined. In future this will permit electron dosimetry with the above-listed plane-parallel chambers having a calibration factor N(D, w)60Co without the necessity for cross-calibration against a thimble chamber.

Craniospinal Radiotherapy in an Advanced Technique

Background and Purpose:Whole craniospinal irradiation cannot be achieved in one field at a normal treatment distance for adults. The aim of this newly developed technique is to minimize problems of matching fields and to maximize precision of craniospinal radiotherapy.Patients and Methods:Twelve patients (3–59 years) had craniospinal irradiation in supine position. The head was treated with lateral opposed isocentric fields with collimator rotation and isocentric table rotation. Using an extended source-skin distance of 160 cm only one dorsal field is necessary to cover the whole spinal axis. To avoid systematic under- or overdosage, junction field edges were moved twice by 1.5 cm. Treatment planning was performed based on CT scans. For visual verification of field matching an additional line laser was first adjusted to the caudal edge of one lateral light field and then checked against the light field of the spinal field under the table.Results:Control films show good homogeneity in the junction between lateral and vertical fields. Reproducibility of table movements is acceptable. Total time needed for one fraction is about 15–20 min.Conclusion:The described technique is now well established, feasible and leads to less risk of dose uncertainties.Hintergrund und Ziel:Die gesamte Neuroachse kann bei Erwachsenen und üblichen Bestrahlungsabständen nicht mit einem einzigen Feld behandelt werden. Es ist das Ziel dieser neu entwickelten Bestrahlungstechnik, die Feldanschlussproblematik zu minimieren und gleichzeitig die Präzision einer kraniospinalen Bestrahlung zu maximieren.Patienten und Methodik:Zwölf Patienten (3–59 Jahre alt) wurden kraniospinal in Rückenlage bestrahlt. Die Hirnbestrahlung erfolgte mit seitlichen, isozentrischen Gegenfeldern unter Kollimator- und isozentrischer Tischauswinkelung. Bei vergrößertem Fokus-Haut-Abstand von 160 cm genügte ein einziges dorsales Stehfeld zur Spinalkanalabdeckung. Zur Vermeidung systematischer Unter- oder Überdosierungen wurde der Feldanschluss zweimal um je 1,5 cm verschoben. Die Bestrahlungsplanung erfolgte CT-basiert. Zur visuellen Überprüfung des Feldanschlusses wurde ein zusätzlicher Strichlaser zunächst auf den kaudalen Lichtfeldrand eines der beiden lateralen Felder ausgerichtet und anschließend mit dem kranialen Lichtfeldrand des Spinalfelds unterhalb des Patiententischs verglichen.Ergebnisse:Kontrollfilme zeigen eine gute Homogenität im Übergangsbereich zwischen lateralem Gegenfeld und vertikalem Feld. Die Reproduzierbarkeit der Tischverschiebung ist akzeptabel. Eine Fraktion benötigt insgesamt ca. 15–20 min.Schlussfolgerung:Die beschriebene Bestrahlungstechnik ist mittlerweile etabliert, gut durchführbar und reduziert das Risiko von Dosisschwankungen.

Electron dosimetry based on the absorbed dose to water concept: a comparison of the AAPM TG-51 and DIN 6800-2 protocols.

The dosimetry protocols DIN 6800-2 and AAPM TG-51, both based on the absorbed dose to water concept, are compared in their theoretical background and in their application to electron dosimetry. The agreement and disagreement in correction factors and energy parameters used in both protocols will be shown and discussed. Measurements with three different types of ionization chambers were performed and evaluated according to both protocols. As a result the perturbation correction factor P(60Co)wall for the Roos chamber was determined to 1.024 +/- 0.5%.

Off-axis chamber response in the depth of photon dose maximum

Measurements as well as Monte Carlo simulations are presented to investigate the deviation between the dose to water and the value measured by an ionization chamber. These deviations are evaluated at different depths (1.5 and 10 cm) and at an off-axis position of 15 cm. It is shown that an ionization chamber can produce a measuring signal, which is up to 2.5% too low, compared to the dose, when measurements are performed at shallow depths and far off-axis. The reason for this underresponse is found in the variation of the wall correction factor. As a result of the variation of the radiation spectra with depth and position the dose to the air volume, which originates from the wall, varies and therefore changes the wall correction factor.

Praktische Elektronendosimetrie: Ein Vergleich verschiedener Bauarten von Ionisationskammern*

Zusammenfassung Seit in der Norm DIN 6800-2 aus dem Jahre 1997 die Markus-Kammer nicht mehr zur Verwendung empfohlen wird, bestehen mancherorts Unsicherheiten uber die Anwendung alternativer Kammern in der Elektronendosimetrie. Wir haben daher einen Vergleich zwischen Ionisationskammern unterschiedlicher Bauart vorgenommen. Speziell die weitverbreiteten Farmer- und Roos-Kammern wurden mit der Markus-Kammer bezuglich Polaritatseffekt, Exemplarstreuung sowie der Abweichung der gemessenen Dosis von der mit der Roos-Kammer ermittelten Dosis verglichen. Die Roos-Kammer wurde dabei als ideale Bragg-Gray-Kammer angenommen. Fur die untersuchten Flachkammern wurde der Feldstorungs-Korrektionsfaktor bei 60 Co-Gammastrahlung experimentell zu 1,029 ± 0,5 % (Roos-Kammer) sowie 1,018 ± 0,5 % (Markus-Kammer) bestimmt. Ferner konnte festgestellt werden, dass Roos-Kammern keine grosere Exemplarstreuung als Farmer-Kammern haben. Ebenso deuten die Ergebnisse darauf hin, dass Farmer-Kammern bei Elektronenenergien oberhalb 6 MeV eingesetzt werden konnten.Since Markus chambers are no longer recommended in the 1997 DIN 6800-2 version there are uncertainties as to the use of alternative chamber types for electron dosimetry. Therefore, we performed a comparison between different types of ionization chambers. In particular, the widespread Farmer and Roos chambers were compared with the Markus chamber for polarity effect, chamber-to-chamber variation, and deviations of the measured absorbed dose relative to the value obtained with the Roos chamber (which is regarded as an ideal Bragg-Gray-chamber). The perturbation correction factor at 60Co radiation was determined experimentally as 1,029 +/- 0.5% (Roos chamber) and 1,018 +/- 0.5% (Markus chamber) for the investigated plane-parallel chambers. In addition, we could show that the Roos chambers do not have a larger chamber-to-chamber variation than the Farmer chambers. Likewise, our results suggest that Farmer chambers could be used for electron energies above 6 MeV.

Experimental determination of pCo perturbation factors for plane-parallel chambers

For plane-parallel chambers used in electron dosimetry, modern dosimetry protocols recommend a cross-calibration against a calibrated cylindrical chamber. The rationale for this is the unacceptably large (up to 3-4%) chamber-to-chamber variations of the perturbation factors (pwall)Co, which have been reported for plane-parallel chambers of a given type. In some recent publications, it was shown that this is no longer the case for modern plane-parallel chambers. The aims of the present study are to obtain reliable information about the variation of the perturbation factors for modern types of plane-parallel chambers, and-if this variation is found to be acceptably small-to determine type-specific mean values for these perturbation factors which can be used for absorbed dose measurements in electron beams using plane-parallel chambers. In an extensive multi-center study, the individual perturbation factors pCo (which are usually assumed to be equal to (pwall)Co) for a total of 35 plane-parallel chambers of the Roos type, 15 chambers of the Markus type and 12 chambers of the Advanced Markus type were determined. From a total of 188 cross-calibration measurements, variations of the pCo values for different chambers of the same type of at most 1.0%, 0.9% and 0.6% were found for the chambers of the Roos, Markus and Advanced Markus types, respectively. The mean pCo values obtained from all measurements are [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]; the relative experimental standard deviation of the individual pCo values is less than 0.24% for all chamber types; the relative standard uncertainty of the mean pCo values is 1.1%.

Air density correction in ionization dosimetry

Air density must be taken into account when ionization dosimetry is performed with unsealed ionization chambers. The German dosimetry protocol DIN 6800-2 states an air density correction factor for which current barometric pressure and temperature and their reference values must be known. It also states that differences between air density and the attendant reference value, as well as changes in ionization chamber sensitivity, can be determined using a radioactive check source. Both methods have advantages and drawbacks which the paper discusses in detail. Barometric pressure at a given height above sea level can be determined by using a suitable barometer, or data downloaded from airport or weather service internet sites. The main focus of the paper is to show how barometric data from measurement or from the internet are correctly processed. Therefore the paper also provides all the requisite equations and terminological explanations. Computed and measured barometric pressure readings are compared, and long-term experience with air density correction factors obtained using both methods is described.

Ionization chamber correction factors for MR-linacs

Previously, readings of air-filled ionization chambers have been described as being influenced by magnetic fields. To use these chambers for dosimetry in magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT), this effect must be taken into account by introducing a correction factor k B. The purpose of this study is to systematically investigate k B for a typical reference setup for commercially available ionization chambers with different magnetic field strengths. The Monte Carlo simulation tool EGSnrc was used to simulate eight commercially available ionization chambers in magnetic fields whose magnetic flux density was in the range of 0-2.5 T. To validate the simulation, the influence of the magnetic field was experimentally determined for a PTW30013 Farmer-type chamber for magnetic flux densities between 0 and 1.425 T. Changes in the detector response of up to 8% depending on the magnetic flux density, on the chamber geometry and on the chamber orientation were obtained. In the experimental setup, a maximum deviation of less than 2% was observed when comparing measured values with simulated values. Dedicated values for two MR-linac systems (ViewRay MRIdian, ViewRay Inc, Cleveland, United States, 0.35 T/ 6 MV and Elekta Unity, Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden, 1.5 T/7 MV) were determined for future use in reference dosimetry. Simulated values for thimble-type chambers are in good agreement with experiments as well as with the results of previous publications. After further experimental validation, the results can be considered for definition of standard protocols for purposes of reference dosimetry in MRgRT.