Back
 IJMPCERO  Vol.6 No.1 , February 2017
Measurement and Analysis of PDDs Profile and Output Factors for Small Field Sizes by cc13 and Micro-Chamber cc01
Abstract: Small radiation fields are abundantly used in modern radiotherapy techniques like in IMRT and SRS. In order to commission these techniques, dosimetric data for small fields is required. The purpose of this study is to compare dosimetric measurements with two different ion chambers cc13, and cc01 for smaller fields. Dosimetric measurements are beam profile, output factor, pdds, and collimator factor. Dosimetric data is acquired in water phantom for two different photon beam energies 6 MV and 15 MV with zero gantry angle. In beam profiles cc13 chamber, measure wider penumbra as compare to cc01. And this wider measurement of penumbra occurs for smaller as well as for larger field sizes. Accumulated relative error in the measurement of penumbra for number of field sizes and 6 MV at dmax, and at 10 cm depth are 34.32% and 27.72% respectively. Accumulated relative error in the measurement of penumbra for number of field sizes and 15 MV at dmax, and at 10 cm depth are 28.49% and 23.92%. In case of output factor for smaller fields cc13 underestimates the output factor relative to cc01, with non-linear increase for smaller fields. But for larger fields, this increase in output factor is almost linear difference of two chambers is decreased. For very smaller fields <2 cm × 2 cm, relative error in output factor of cc13 and cc01 is greater than 5% and rapidly increases with decreasing field size. But for lager fields, this relative error is negligible. In measurement of pdds after the buildup region difference occurs in the response of two chambers cc13 and cc01 for smaller fields. For field sizes ≤2 cm × 2 cm average cc13-cc01 at various depths 30 cm, 40 cm, 50 cm, 60 cm, 70 cm, and 80 cm is almost greater than 0.5 cm. And similarly as output factor, this difference (cc13-cc01) increases with field size decreasing.
Cite this paper: Nasir, M. , Amjad, N. , Razzaq, A. and Siddique, T. (2017) Measurement and Analysis of PDDs Profile and Output Factors for Small Field Sizes by cc13 and Micro-Chamber cc01. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, 6, 36-56. doi: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2017.61005.
References

[1]   Palta, J.R. (2003) Linear Accelerator Acceptance Testing and Commissioning. Medical Physics, 30, 1356-1357. Ste 1 No 1, 2 Huntington Quadrangle, Melville, NY, 11747-4502. USA: American Association Physicists Medicine American Institute Physics.

[2]   Sharma, S. (2014) Challenges of Small Photon Field Dosimetry Are Still Challenging. Journal of Medical Physics, 39, 131-132.
https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-6203.138998

[3]   Wuerfel, J. (2013) Dose Measurements in Small Fields. Medical Physics International, 1, 81-90.

[4]   Laub, W.U. and Wong, T. (2003) The Volume Effect of Detectors in the Dosimetry of Small Fields Used in IMRT. Medical Physics, 30, 341-347.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1544678

[5]   Wilcox, E.E. and Daskalov, G.M. (2007) Evaluation of GAFCHROMIC® EBT Film for CyberKnife® Dosimetry. Medical Physics, 34, 1967-1974.
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2734384

[6]   Calcina, C.S.G., de Oliveira, L.N., de Almeida, C.E. and de Almeida, A. (2007) Dosimetric Parameters for Small Field Sizes Using Fricke Xylenol Gel, Thermoluminescent and Film Dosimeters, and an Ionization Chamber. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 52, 1431-1439.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/52/5/014

[7]   Chen, L., Chen, L.-X., Sun, H.-Q., Huang, S.-M., Sun, W.-Z., Gao, X.-W., et al. (2009) Measurements and Comparisons for Data of Small Beams of Linear Accelerators. Chinese Journal of Cancer, 28, 272-276.

 
 
Top