Comparison of ionization chambers of various volumes for IMRT absolute dose verification

被引:66
作者
Leybovich, LB [1 ]
Sethi, A [1 ]
Dogan, N [1 ]
机构
[1] Loyola Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, Maywood, IL 60153 USA
关键词
IMRT; absolute dose verification; ionization chambers;
D O I
10.1118/1.1536161
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
IMRT plans are usually verified by phantom measurements: dose distributions are measured using film and the absolute dose using an ionization chamber. The measured and calculated doses are compared and planned MUs are modified if necessary. To achieve a conformal dose distribution, IMRT fields are composed of small subfields, or "beamlets." The size of beamlets is on the order of 1 X 1 cm(2). Therefore, small chambers with sensitive volumes less than or equal to0.1 cm(3) are generally used for absolute dose verification. A dosimetry system consisting of an electrometer, an ion chamber, and connecting cables may exhibit charge leakage. Since chamber sensitivity is proportional to volume, the effect of leakage on the measured charge is relatively greater for small chambers. Furthermore, the charge contribution from beamlets located at significant distances from the point of measurement may be below the small chambers threshold and hence not detected. On the other hand, large (0.6 cm3) chambers used for the dosimetry of conventional external fields are quite sensitive. Since these chambers are long, the electron fluence through them may not be uniform ("temporal" uniformity may not exist in the chamber volume). However, the cumulative, or "spatial" fluence distribution (as indicated by calculated IMRT dose distribution) may become uniform at the chamber location when the delivery of all IMRT fields is completed. Under the condition of "spatial" fluence uniformity, the charge collected by the large chamber may accurately represent the absolute dose delivered by IMRT to the point of measurement. In this work, 0.6, 0.125, and 0.009 cm(3) chambers were used for the absolute dose verification for tomographic and step-and-shoot IMRT plans. With the largest, 0.6 cm 3 chamber, the measured dose was equal to calculated within 0.5%; when no leakage corrections were made. Without leakage corrections, the error of measurement with a 0.125 cm(3) chamber was 2.6% (tomographic IMRT) and 1.5% (step-and-shoot IMRT). When doses measured by a 0.125 cm 3 chamber were corrected for leakage, the difference between the calculated and measured doses reduced to 0.5%. Leakage corrected doses obtained with the 0.009 cm 3 chamber were within 1.5%-1.7% of calculated doses. Without leakage corrections, the measurement error was 16% (tomographic IMRT) and 7% (step-and-shoot IMRT). (C) 2003 American; Association of Physicists in Medicine.
引用
收藏
页码:119 / 123
页数:5
相关论文
共 12 条
  • [1] Relative profile and dose verification of intensity-modulated radiation therapy
    Chang, JW
    Mageras, GS
    Chui, CS
    Ling, CC
    Lutz, W
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2000, 47 (01): : 231 - 240
  • [2] A treatment planning comparison of 3D conformal therapy, intensity modulated photon therapy and proton therapy for treatment of advanced head and neck tumours
    Cozzi, L
    Fogliata, A
    Lomax, A
    Bolsi, A
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2001, 61 (03) : 287 - 297
  • [3] CURRAN B, 1997, THEORY PRACTICE INTE, P75
  • [4] Clinical delivery of intensity modulated conformal radiotherapy for relapsed or second-primary head and neck cancer using a multileaf collimator with dynamic control
    De Neve, W
    De Gersem, W
    Derycke, S
    De Meerleer, G
    Moerman, M
    Bate, MT
    Van Duyse, B
    Vakaet, L
    De Deene, Y
    Mersseman, B
    De Wagter, C
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 1999, 50 (03) : 301 - 314
  • [5] Reduction of cardiac and lung complication probabilities after breast irradiation using conformal radiotherapy with or without intensity modulation
    Hurkmans, CW
    Cho, BCJ
    Damen, E
    Zijp, L
    Mijnheer, BJ
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2002, 62 (02) : 163 - 171
  • [6] Improvement of tomographic intensity modulated radiotherapy dose distributions using periodic shifting of arc abutment regions
    Leybovich, LB
    Dogan, N
    Sethi, A
    Krasin, MJ
    Emami, B
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2000, 27 (07) : 1610 - 1616
  • [7] Phantoms for IMRT dose distribution measurement and treatment verification
    Low, DA
    Gerber, RL
    Mutic, S
    Purdy, JA
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1998, 40 (05): : 1231 - 1235
  • [8] Quantitative dosimetric verification of an IMRT planning and delivery system
    Low, DA
    Mutic, S
    Dempsey, JF
    Gerber, RL
    Bosch, WR
    Perez, CA
    Purdy, JA
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 1998, 49 (03) : 305 - 316
  • [9] Quality assurance of serial tomotherapy for head and neck patient treatments
    Low, DA
    Chao, KSC
    Mutic, S
    Gerber, RL
    Perez, CA
    Purdy, JA
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1998, 42 (03): : 681 - 692
  • [10] Dosimetric verification of the dynamic intensity-modulated radiation therapy of 92 patients
    Tsai, JS
    Wazer, DE
    Ling, MN
    Wu, JK
    Fagundes, M
    DiPetrillo, T
    Kramer, B
    Koistinen, M
    Engler, MJ
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1998, 40 (05): : 1213 - 1230