Abstract

Objectives. The purpose of this study is to present data from the clinical commissioning of an Xstrahl 150 x-ray unit used for superficial radiotherapy, Methods. Commissioning tasks included vendor acceptance tests, timer reproducibility, linearity and end-effect measurements, half-value layer (HVL) measurements, inverse square law verification, head-leakage measurements, and beam output calibration. In addition, percent depth dose (PDD) curves were determined for different combinations of filter/kV settings and applicators. Automated PDD water phantom scans were performed utilizing four contemporary detectors: a microDiamond detector, a microSilicon detector, an EDGE detector, and a PinPoint ionization chamber. The measured PDD data were compared to the published values in BJR Supplement 25, Results. The x-ray unit’s mechanical, safety, and radiation characteristics were within vendor-stated specifications. Across sixty commissioned x-ray beams, the PDDs determined in water using solid state detectors were in excellent agreement with the BJR 25 data. For the lower (<100 kVp) and medium-energy (≥100 kVp) superficial beams the average agreement was within [−3.6,+0.4]% and [−3.7,+1.4]% range, respectively. For the high-energy superficial (low-energy orthovoltage) x-rays at 150 kVp, the average difference for the largest 20 × 20 cm2 collimator was (−0.7 ± 1.0)%, Conclusions. This study presents machine characterization data collected for clinical use of a superficial x-ray unit. Special focus was placed on utilizing contemporary detectors and techniques for the relative PDD measurements using a motorized water phantom. The results in this study confirm that the aggregate values published in the BJR 25 report still serve as a valid benchmark when comparing data from site-specific measurements, or the reference data for clinical utilization without such measurements, Advances in knowledge. This paper presents comprehensive data from the acceptance and commissioning of a modern kilovoltage superficial x-ray radiotherapy machine. Comparisons between the PDD data measured in this study using different detectors and BJR 25 data are highlighted.

Full Text
Paper version not known

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.