Are Small Field Detector Correction Factors Strongly Dependent On Machine-Specific Characteristics?

Damien C Mathew, Sean Tanny, E Ishmael Parsai, Nicholas Sperling

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstract

Abstract

The current small field dosimetry formalism utilizes quality correction factors to compensate for the difference in detector response relative to dose deposited in water. The correction factors are defined on a machine-specific basis for each beam quality and detector combination. Some research has suggested that the correction factors may only be weakly dependent on machine-to-machine variations, allowing for determinations of class-specific correction factors for various accelerator models. This research examines the differences in small field correction factors for three detectors across two Varian Truebeam accelerators to determine the correction factor dependence on machine-specific characteristics.
Output factors were measured on two Varian Truebeam accelerators for equivalently tuned 6 MV and 6 FFF beams. Measurements were obtained using a commercial plastic scintillation detector (PSD), two ion chambers, and a diode detector. Measurements were made at a depth of 10 cm with an SSD of 100 cm for jaw-defined field sizes ranging from 3×3 cm(2) to 0.6×0.6 cm(2), normalized to values at 5×5cm(2). Correction factors for each field on each machine were calculated as the ratio of the detector response to the PSD response. Percent change of correction factors for the chambers are presented relative to the primary machine.
The Exradin A26 demonstrates a difference of 9% for 6×6mm(2) fields in both the 6FFF and 6MV beams. The A16 chamber demonstrates a 5%, and 3% difference in 6FFF and 6MV fields at the same field size respectively. The Edge diode exhibits less than 1.5% difference across both evaluated energies. Field sizes larger than 1.4×1.4cm2 demonstrated less than 1% difference for all detectors.
Preliminary results suggest that class-specific correction may not be appropriate for micro-ionization chamber. For diode systems, the correction factor was substantially similar and may be useful for class-specific reference conditions.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages3191
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2015
EventAmerican Association of Medical Physics 2015 Annual Meeting - Anaheim, CA, United States
Duration: Jul 13 2015Jul 17 2016

Conference

ConferenceAmerican Association of Medical Physics 2015 Annual Meeting
CountryUnited States
CityAnaheim, CA
Period7/13/157/17/16

Fingerprint

plastic
detector
ionization
ion
energy
water
dose

Bibliographical note

Med. Phys. 42, 3191 (2015)

Keywords

  • Dosimetry
  • output factors
  • Ionization chamber
  • Scintillation detectors

Cite this

Mathew, D. C., Tanny, S., Parsai, E. I., & Sperling, N. (2015). Are Small Field Detector Correction Factors Strongly Dependent On Machine-Specific Characteristics?. 3191. Abstract from American Association of Medical Physics 2015 Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, United States. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4923795

Are Small Field Detector Correction Factors Strongly Dependent On Machine-Specific Characteristics? / Mathew, Damien C; Tanny, Sean; Parsai, E Ishmael; Sperling, Nicholas.

2015. 3191 Abstract from American Association of Medical Physics 2015 Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, United States.

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstract

Mathew, DC, Tanny, S, Parsai, EI & Sperling, N 2015, 'Are Small Field Detector Correction Factors Strongly Dependent On Machine-Specific Characteristics?' American Association of Medical Physics 2015 Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, United States, 7/13/15 - 7/17/16, pp. 3191. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4923795
Mathew DC, Tanny S, Parsai EI, Sperling N. Are Small Field Detector Correction Factors Strongly Dependent On Machine-Specific Characteristics?. 2015. Abstract from American Association of Medical Physics 2015 Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, United States. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4923795
Mathew, Damien C ; Tanny, Sean ; Parsai, E Ishmael ; Sperling, Nicholas. / Are Small Field Detector Correction Factors Strongly Dependent On Machine-Specific Characteristics?. Abstract from American Association of Medical Physics 2015 Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, United States.
@conference{9b0064fda4484bb1986a1f14fae6e869,
title = "Are Small Field Detector Correction Factors Strongly Dependent On Machine-Specific Characteristics?",
abstract = "The current small field dosimetry formalism utilizes quality correction factors to compensate for the difference in detector response relative to dose deposited in water. The correction factors are defined on a machine-specific basis for each beam quality and detector combination. Some research has suggested that the correction factors may only be weakly dependent on machine-to-machine variations, allowing for determinations of class-specific correction factors for various accelerator models. This research examines the differences in small field correction factors for three detectors across two Varian Truebeam accelerators to determine the correction factor dependence on machine-specific characteristics.Output factors were measured on two Varian Truebeam accelerators for equivalently tuned 6 MV and 6 FFF beams. Measurements were obtained using a commercial plastic scintillation detector (PSD), two ion chambers, and a diode detector. Measurements were made at a depth of 10 cm with an SSD of 100 cm for jaw-defined field sizes ranging from 3×3 cm(2) to 0.6×0.6 cm(2), normalized to values at 5×5cm(2). Correction factors for each field on each machine were calculated as the ratio of the detector response to the PSD response. Percent change of correction factors for the chambers are presented relative to the primary machine.The Exradin A26 demonstrates a difference of 9{\%} for 6×6mm(2) fields in both the 6FFF and 6MV beams. The A16 chamber demonstrates a 5{\%}, and 3{\%} difference in 6FFF and 6MV fields at the same field size respectively. The Edge diode exhibits less than 1.5{\%} difference across both evaluated energies. Field sizes larger than 1.4×1.4cm2 demonstrated less than 1{\%} difference for all detectors.Preliminary results suggest that class-specific correction may not be appropriate for micro-ionization chamber. For diode systems, the correction factor was substantially similar and may be useful for class-specific reference conditions.",
keywords = "Dosimetry, output factors, Ionization chamber, Scintillation detectors",
author = "Mathew, {Damien C} and Sean Tanny and Parsai, {E Ishmael} and Nicholas Sperling",
note = "Med. Phys. 42, 3191 (2015); American Association of Medical Physics 2015 Annual Meeting ; Conference date: 13-07-2015 Through 17-07-2016",
year = "2015",
month = "6",
doi = "http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4923795",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "3191",

}

TY - CONF

T1 - Are Small Field Detector Correction Factors Strongly Dependent On Machine-Specific Characteristics?

AU - Mathew, Damien C

AU - Tanny, Sean

AU - Parsai, E Ishmael

AU - Sperling, Nicholas

N1 - Med. Phys. 42, 3191 (2015)

PY - 2015/6

Y1 - 2015/6

N2 - The current small field dosimetry formalism utilizes quality correction factors to compensate for the difference in detector response relative to dose deposited in water. The correction factors are defined on a machine-specific basis for each beam quality and detector combination. Some research has suggested that the correction factors may only be weakly dependent on machine-to-machine variations, allowing for determinations of class-specific correction factors for various accelerator models. This research examines the differences in small field correction factors for three detectors across two Varian Truebeam accelerators to determine the correction factor dependence on machine-specific characteristics.Output factors were measured on two Varian Truebeam accelerators for equivalently tuned 6 MV and 6 FFF beams. Measurements were obtained using a commercial plastic scintillation detector (PSD), two ion chambers, and a diode detector. Measurements were made at a depth of 10 cm with an SSD of 100 cm for jaw-defined field sizes ranging from 3×3 cm(2) to 0.6×0.6 cm(2), normalized to values at 5×5cm(2). Correction factors for each field on each machine were calculated as the ratio of the detector response to the PSD response. Percent change of correction factors for the chambers are presented relative to the primary machine.The Exradin A26 demonstrates a difference of 9% for 6×6mm(2) fields in both the 6FFF and 6MV beams. The A16 chamber demonstrates a 5%, and 3% difference in 6FFF and 6MV fields at the same field size respectively. The Edge diode exhibits less than 1.5% difference across both evaluated energies. Field sizes larger than 1.4×1.4cm2 demonstrated less than 1% difference for all detectors.Preliminary results suggest that class-specific correction may not be appropriate for micro-ionization chamber. For diode systems, the correction factor was substantially similar and may be useful for class-specific reference conditions.

AB - The current small field dosimetry formalism utilizes quality correction factors to compensate for the difference in detector response relative to dose deposited in water. The correction factors are defined on a machine-specific basis for each beam quality and detector combination. Some research has suggested that the correction factors may only be weakly dependent on machine-to-machine variations, allowing for determinations of class-specific correction factors for various accelerator models. This research examines the differences in small field correction factors for three detectors across two Varian Truebeam accelerators to determine the correction factor dependence on machine-specific characteristics.Output factors were measured on two Varian Truebeam accelerators for equivalently tuned 6 MV and 6 FFF beams. Measurements were obtained using a commercial plastic scintillation detector (PSD), two ion chambers, and a diode detector. Measurements were made at a depth of 10 cm with an SSD of 100 cm for jaw-defined field sizes ranging from 3×3 cm(2) to 0.6×0.6 cm(2), normalized to values at 5×5cm(2). Correction factors for each field on each machine were calculated as the ratio of the detector response to the PSD response. Percent change of correction factors for the chambers are presented relative to the primary machine.The Exradin A26 demonstrates a difference of 9% for 6×6mm(2) fields in both the 6FFF and 6MV beams. The A16 chamber demonstrates a 5%, and 3% difference in 6FFF and 6MV fields at the same field size respectively. The Edge diode exhibits less than 1.5% difference across both evaluated energies. Field sizes larger than 1.4×1.4cm2 demonstrated less than 1% difference for all detectors.Preliminary results suggest that class-specific correction may not be appropriate for micro-ionization chamber. For diode systems, the correction factor was substantially similar and may be useful for class-specific reference conditions.

KW - Dosimetry

KW - output factors

KW - Ionization chamber

KW - Scintillation detectors

U2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4923795

DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4923795

M3 - Abstract

SP - 3191

ER -