Abstract
Proven conventional dosimetry techniques do not provide accuracy and precision in the measurement of inverse planned intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) fields. Dynamic and step‐and‐shoot multileaf collimation (DMLC/SMLC) challenge current ionization chamber dosimetry practices. Ionization chamber performance in these fields is evaluated for three cylindrical chambers of varying volumes (PinPoint (PP): 0.015 cm3, IC10: 0.13 cm3, Farmer type NE2571 (FT): 0.69 cm3) in terms of measurement reproducibility, dose measurement linearity, and IMRT dose measurements. Fifty IMRT patient specific quality assurance dose measurements were performed with each chamber. DMLC measurements are compared between chambers, and to dose calculations from a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) that used a finite size pencil‐beam model (FSPB). Ten SMLC measurements are compared to Monte Carlo simulations available in the TPS. The three chambers demonstrated adequate measurement reproducibility characteristics for both open and DMLC fields, with each chamber able to perform within 2% (2SD) for DMLC fields. Both smaller volume chambers over responded (>5%) when irradiated with a small number of monitor units in open fields. FT and IC10 chambers demonstrated dose linearity in DMLC fields down to 10 monitor units, while dose linearity for the PP chamber broke down at 100 monitor units. The evaluation of 50 DMLC treatment plan quality assurance procedures revealed that the FT chamber measurements were closest to the FSPB calculated values (FSPB:1.0,FT:0.973±0.044,IC10:0.963±0.048,PP:0.944±0.071). Quality assurance plans calculated independently with Monte Carlo more closely matched chamber measurements (FSPB: 1.0, MC: 0.97, FT: 0.95). Measurements of absorbed dose to water in IMRT fields are highly chamber and IMRT plan dependent.PACS number: 87.55.Gh; 87.55.km; 87.55.Qr; 87.56.Fc; 87.56.N‐
Highlights
242 Fraser et al.: Characterizing IC for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) QA measurement equipment and techniques
The percentage uncertainty on intrasession measurements ranged up to 0.2% for the open field and up to 1.0% for the dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) field
It was demonstrated that different chambers respond individually to DMLC field conditions where the larger volume chamber consistently measured lower doses than the smaller volume chambers
Summary
242 Fraser et al.: Characterizing IC for IMRT QA measurement equipment and techniques. The use of ionization chambers for the dose verification process in IMRT involves issues particular to the dosimetry of dynamically delivered small fields, varying dose rates, and the summation of multiple low MU segments. Detector characteristics, such as energy dependence, the size of the collecting volume, charge leakage, design, and materials are important considerations.[5,6] In addition, IMRT dosimetry conditions are radically different from the open field conditions under which the chambers are calibrated, and may invalidate the use of such calibration factors in these radiation beams. Measurements from one chamber were evaluated against the TPS pencil-beam algorithm and the TPS Monte Carlo (MC) code for ten SMLC plans
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
