A Aziz Sait, S A Yoganathan, Glenn W Jones, Tusar Patel, Nikhil Rastogi, S P Pandey, Sunil Mani, Raghavendiran Boopathy
{"title":"Small field measurements using electronic portal imaging device.","authors":"A Aziz Sait, S A Yoganathan, Glenn W Jones, Tusar Patel, Nikhil Rastogi, S P Pandey, Sunil Mani, Raghavendiran Boopathy","doi":"10.1088/2057-1976/ad5a9e","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Purpose/Objective</i>. Small-field measurement poses challenges. Although many high-resolution detectors are commercially available, the EPID for small-field dosimetry remains underexplored. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of EPID for small-field measurements and to derive tailored correction factors for precise small-field dosimetry verification.<i>Material/Methods</i>. Six high-resolution radiation detectors, including W2 and W1 plastic scintillators, Edge-detector, microSilicon, microDiamond and EPID were utilized. The output factors, depth doses and profiles, were measured for various beam energies (6 MV-FF, 6 MV-FFF, 10 MV-FF, and 10 MV-FFF) and field sizes (10 × 10 cm<sup>2</sup>, 5 × 5 cm<sup>2</sup>, 4 × 4 cm<sup>2</sup>, 3 × 3 cm<sup>2</sup>, 2 × 2 cm<sup>2</sup>, 1 × 1 cm<sup>2</sup>, 0.5 × 0.5 cm<sup>2</sup>) using a Varian Truebeam linear accelerator. During measurements, acrylic plates of appropriate depth were placed on the EPID, while a 3D water tank was used with five-point detectors. EPID measured data were compared with W2 plastic scintillator and measurements from other high-resolution detectors. The analysis included percentage deviations in output factors, differences in percentage for PDD and for the profiles, FWHM, maximum difference in the flat region, penumbra, and 1D gamma were analyzed. The output factor and depth dose ratios were fitted using exponential functions and fractional polynomial fitting in STATA 16.2, with W2 scintillator as reference, and corresponding formulae were obtained. The established correction factors were validated using two Truebeam machines.<i>Results</i>. When comparing EPID and W2-PSD across all field-sizes and energies, the deviation for output factors ranged from 1% to 15%. Depth doses, the percentage difference beyond dmax ranged from 1% to 19%. For profiles, maximum of 4% was observed in the 100%-80% region. The correction factor formulae were validated with two independent EPIDs and closely matched within 3%.<i>Conclusion</i>. EPID can effectively serve as small-field dosimetry verification tool with appropriate correction factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":8896,"journal":{"name":"Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/ad5a9e","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose/Objective. Small-field measurement poses challenges. Although many high-resolution detectors are commercially available, the EPID for small-field dosimetry remains underexplored. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of EPID for small-field measurements and to derive tailored correction factors for precise small-field dosimetry verification.Material/Methods. Six high-resolution radiation detectors, including W2 and W1 plastic scintillators, Edge-detector, microSilicon, microDiamond and EPID were utilized. The output factors, depth doses and profiles, were measured for various beam energies (6 MV-FF, 6 MV-FFF, 10 MV-FF, and 10 MV-FFF) and field sizes (10 × 10 cm2, 5 × 5 cm2, 4 × 4 cm2, 3 × 3 cm2, 2 × 2 cm2, 1 × 1 cm2, 0.5 × 0.5 cm2) using a Varian Truebeam linear accelerator. During measurements, acrylic plates of appropriate depth were placed on the EPID, while a 3D water tank was used with five-point detectors. EPID measured data were compared with W2 plastic scintillator and measurements from other high-resolution detectors. The analysis included percentage deviations in output factors, differences in percentage for PDD and for the profiles, FWHM, maximum difference in the flat region, penumbra, and 1D gamma were analyzed. The output factor and depth dose ratios were fitted using exponential functions and fractional polynomial fitting in STATA 16.2, with W2 scintillator as reference, and corresponding formulae were obtained. The established correction factors were validated using two Truebeam machines.Results. When comparing EPID and W2-PSD across all field-sizes and energies, the deviation for output factors ranged from 1% to 15%. Depth doses, the percentage difference beyond dmax ranged from 1% to 19%. For profiles, maximum of 4% was observed in the 100%-80% region. The correction factor formulae were validated with two independent EPIDs and closely matched within 3%.Conclusion. EPID can effectively serve as small-field dosimetry verification tool with appropriate correction factors.
期刊介绍:
BPEX is an inclusive, international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to publishing new research on any application of physics and/or engineering in medicine and/or biology. Characterized by a broad geographical coverage and a fast-track peer-review process, relevant topics include all aspects of biophysics, medical physics and biomedical engineering. Papers that are almost entirely clinical or biological in their focus are not suitable. The journal has an emphasis on publishing interdisciplinary work and bringing research fields together, encompassing experimental, theoretical and computational work.