使用电子门户成像装置进行小场地测量。

IF 1.3 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express Pub Date : 2024-07-16 DOI:10.1088/2057-1976/ad5a9e
A Aziz Sait, S A Yoganathan, Glenn W Jones, Tusar Patel, Nikhil Rastogi, S P Pandey, Sunil Mani, Raghavendiran Boopathy
{"title":"使用电子门户成像装置进行小场地测量。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目的/目标 小场测量是一项挑战。尽管许多高分辨率探测器已投入市场,但用于小场剂量测定的 EPID 仍未得到充分开发。本研究旨在评估 EPID 在小场测量中的性能,并为精确的小场剂量测定验证推导出量身定制的校正因子。使用瓦里安 Truebeam 直线加速器测量了不同束流能量(6 MV-FF、6 MV-FFF、10 MV-FF 和 10 MV-FFF)和磁场大小(10 x 10 cm2、5 x 5 cm2、4 x 4 cm2、3 x 3 cm2、2 x 2 cm2、1 x 1 cm2、0.5 x 0.5 cm2)下的输出因子、深度剂量和剖面。测量时,在 EPID 上放置适当深度的丙烯酸板,同时使用带有五点探测器的三维水箱。EPID 测量数据与 W2 塑料闪烁体和其他高分辨率探测器的测量数据进行了比较。分析内容包括输出因子的百分比偏差、PDD 和剖面的百分比差异、全宽全高(FWHM)、平坦区域的最大差异、半影和一维伽马射线。在 STATA 16.2 中使用指数函数和分数多项式拟合方法对输出因子和深度剂量比进行了拟合,并以 W2 闪烁体为参考,得出了相应的公式。使用两台 Truebeam 机器对所建立的校正因子进行了验证。 结果 在比较 EPID 和 W2-PSD(所有场大小和能量)时,输出因子的偏差在 1% 到 15% 之间。深度剂量方面,dmax 以上的百分比差异从 1%到 19%不等。就剖面而言,在 100%-80%区域观察到的最大偏差为 4%。校正因子公式经两台独立的 EPID 验证,匹配度在 3% 以内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Small field measurements using electronic portal imaging device.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express
Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
153
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.
期刊最新文献
Innovative 3D bioprinting approaches for advancing brain science and medicine: a literature review. Assessing Anticancer Properties of PEGylated Platinum Nanoparticles on Human Breast Cancer Cell lines using in-vitro Assays. Prediction of directional solidification in freeze casting of biomaterial scaffolds using physics-informed neural networks. Synthetic CT generation from CBCT based on structural constraint cycle-EEM-GAN Detection of Invasive Ductal Carcinoma by Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy Implementing Gaussian Relaxation-Time Distribution (EIS-GRTD).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1