High-Energy Photon Standard Dosimetry Data: A Quality Assurance Tool Jessica R. Lowenstein, Stephen F. Kry, Andrea Molineu, Paola Alvarez, J. Francisco.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 4 Radiation Dosimeters
Advertisements

F. Foppiano, M.G. Pia, M. Piergentili Medical Linac IEEE NSS, October 2004, Rome, Italy
Ionization Chamber Array for External Beam Radiotherapy
RapidArc plan verification using ArcCHECK™
Commissioning an Anthropomorphic Spine and Lung Phantom for Remote Dose Verification of Institutions Participating in RTOG 0631 Douglas Caruthers, M.S.;
Slice Thickness Interpolation: The effect of interpolated slice thickness on the 2D vs 3D gamma results are shown in Table 3 for the QA data set only.
FDA-QA-DAS/2010 FDA’s Public Meeting: Device Improvements to Reduce the Number of Under-doses, Over-doses, and Misaligned Exposures from Therapeutic Radiation.
Challenges in Credentialing Institutions and Participants in Advanced Technology Clinical Trials Geoffrey Ibbott, David Followill, Andrea Molineu, Jessica.
Photon Beam Monitor-Unit Calculations
Algorithms used in heterogeneous dose calculations show systematic error as measured with the Radiological Physics Center’s anthropomorphic thorax phantom.
Maria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland 8th ECMP, Athens, Dosimetry audits in radiotherapy.
Evaluation of the characteristics of TLD LiF:Mg.Ti-100 Powder: A Measure of Consistency Between Multiple Batches of Powder Paola Alvarez,Jose Francisco.
DOSIMETRY PROTOCOLS.
Kilovoltage X-ray Dosimetry
Quality Assurance: Manufacturer & Clinical Aspects  Alan Cohen, M.S. DABR  Paul Naine, MSc. MIPEM  Jim Schewe, PhD, DABMP Accuray Incorporated Elekta.
Innovation/Impact: By designing a simulated human shaped (anthropomorphic) plastic phantom with targets, organs at risk (OAR) and heterogeneities, the.
Introduction Modern radiation therapies such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volume modulated arc therapy (VMAT) demand from dose calculation.
Food and Drug Administration Public Meeting June 9-10: Quality Assurance of Therapeutic Medical Devices In Radiation Oncology Nabil Adnani, Ph.D., DABR.
Electron Beams: Physical Principles and Dosimetry
Quality Control Rad T 110.
Dosimetric evaluation of a new design MOSFET detector Per H. Halvorsen* & Stephanie Parker University of North Carolina.
Results The measured-to-predicted dose ratio criteria used by the RPC to credential institutions is , however for this work, a criteria of
TWO FIELD BREAST PLAN VS. OPTIMIZED CONFORMAL BREAST PLAN: COMPARISON OF PLAN PARAMETERS Authors: Borko Basarić, Ozren Čudić, Milan Teodorović, Borislava.
Quality Control in Radiation Therapy, A New Concept: Dosimetry Check
Better Outcomes Through Technology. Patient Specific QA Tools.
Introduction Ion recombination is approximately corrected for in the Task-Group-51 protocol by P ion, which is calculated by a two-voltage measurement.
Patient Plan Results: Table 3 shows the ratio of the Pinnacle TPS calculation to the DPM recalculation for the mean dose from selected regions of interest.
Radiation Protection in Radiotherapy
In vivo dosimetry Eirik Malinen Eva Stabell Bergstrand Dag Rune Olsen.
Comparison of Clinical Parameters for Proton Therapy in the United States Paige Summers, MS.
Surface dose prediction and verification for IMRT plans using line dose profiles † Ronald E. Berg, † Michael S. Gossman and ‡ Stephen J. Klash † Erlanger.
IMRT QA Plan Site 5%/3mm3%/3mm2%/2mm 0% noise1% noise2% noise0% noise1% noise2% noise0% noise1% noise2% noise HN
CT physics and instrumentation
The RPC Proton Therapy Approval Process
Application of a 2-D ionization chamber array for dose verification of dynamic IMRT with a micro-MLC Fujio ARAKI, PhD 1, S. TAJIRI 2, H. TOMINAGA 2, K.
Introduction Commercial implementations of the convolution/superposition (C/S) method make several approximations, which can lead to dose calculation inaccuracies.
Institute for Advanced Radiation Oncology
Commissioning of an Optically-Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) system for remote dosimetry audits J.F. Aguirre, P. Alvarez, C. Amador, A. Tailor, D. Followill,
Medical Accelerator F. Foppiano, M.G. Pia, M. Piergentili
Radiological Physics Center David Followill, Ph.D. and RPC Staff.
The Radiological Physics Center’s Anthropomorphic Quality Assurance Phantom Program Carrie F. Amador, Nadia Hernandez, Andrea Molineu, Paola Alvarez, and.
Araki F. Ikegami T. and Ishidoya T.
Investigation of 3D Dosimetry for an Anthropomorphic Spine Phantom R. Grant 1,2, G. Ibbott 1, J. Yang 1, J. Adamovics 3, D Followill 1 (1)M.D. Anderson.
AIR CORE SCINTILLATION DOSIMETER SUMMARY We have shown that Cerenkov light can be reduced to a negligible level in scintillation dosimetry by using an.
Development and Implementation of a Remote Audit Tool for High Dose Rate (HDR) 192 Ir Brachytherapy Using Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dosimetry Kevin.
S Scarboro 1,2, D Cody 1,2, D Followill 1,2, P Alvarez 1, M McNitt-Gray 3, D Zhang 3, L Court 1,2, S Kry 1,2 * 1 UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
Xoft Routine Per Article Manufacturing Testing of the Axxent ® Source S. Axelrod, T.W. Rusch, M. Powell; Xoft, Inc., Fremont, CA  Purpose: To select sources.
K. Pulliam, MS 1,2., D Followill, PhD 2., L Court, PhD 2., L Dong, PhD 3., M Gillin, PhD 2., K Prado, PhD 3., S Kry, PhD 2 1 The University of Texas Graduate.
Introduction The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) anthropomorphic quality assurance (QA) phantom program is one tool the RPC uses to remotely audit institutions.
F. Foppiano, M.G. Pia, M. Piergentili
TLD POSTAL DOSE QUALITY AUDIT FOR 6MV AND 15MV PHOTON BEAMS IN RADIOTHERAPY CLINICAL PRACTICE Sonja Petkovska 1, Margarita Ginovska 2, Hristina Spasevska.
If information seems to be missing, make any reasonable assumptions. 1.A target has an areal density of 2.3 g/cm 2 and a thickness of 0.8 inch. What is.
Monitor Unit Calculations for External Photon and Electron Beams
The Effects of Small Field Dosimetry on the Biological Models Used In Evaluating IMRT Dose Distributions Gene Cardarelli,PhD, MPH.
MCS overview in radiation therapy
Adapting A Clinical Medical Accelerator For Primary Standard Dosimetry
AAPM TG-51 Protocol (Med Phys 26: , 1999)
E. Mezzenga 1, E. Cagni 1, A. Botti 1, M. Orlandi 1, W.D. Renner 2, M. Iori 1 1. Medical Physics Unit, ASMN-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Italy 2. MathResolution.
Qing Liang, PhD Medical Physicist Mercy Health System, Janesville, WI
Methods & Materials (continued)
CHAPTER 3 DOSE DETERMINATION FOR EXTERNAL BEAMS
Beam quality correction factors for linear accelerator with and without flattening filter Damian Czarnecki1,3, Philip von Voigts-Rhetz1, Björn Poppe3,
Electron Beam Therapy.
Characterization of the Xoft AXXENT™ X-ray Source
Linac Commissioning Overview
Left Posterior Superior Right Anterior Inferior
Insert tables Insert figure
Ch 10. A System of Dosimetric Calculations
Hot and cold spots are common problems associated with planning:
GHG meeting at ESTRO36 May, 2017
Presentation transcript:

High-Energy Photon Standard Dosimetry Data: A Quality Assurance Tool Jessica R. Lowenstein, Stephen F. Kry, Andrea Molineu, Paola Alvarez, J. Francisco Aguirre, Paige Summer and David Followill Department of Radiation Physics The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas Methods and Materials: The RPC through has accumulated high-energy photon dosimetry data for over 3851 photon beams. Measurements were made during on-site audits to institutions participating in NCI funded cooperative clinical trials for 44 years using a 0.6cc cylindrical ionization chamber placed within the RPC’s water tank. Measurements were made on Varian, Siemens, and Elekta/Philips accelerators for 11 different energies from 68 models of accelerators. We have measured percent depth dose, output factors, and off-axis factors for 129 different accelerator model/energy combinations for which we have 5 or more sets of measurements. Fro 86 of these combinations we have measurements on ten or more machines. The RPC analyzed these data and determined the “standard data” for each model/energy combination. The RPC defines “standard data” as the mean value of 5 or more sets of dosimetry data or agreement with published depth dose data (within 2%). The wedge and tray data come from 1898 Varian, Siemens and Philips/Elekta accelerators since Results: Support: Work supported by PHS grant CA10953 awarded by NCI, DHHS Conclusions: The RPC standard data can be used as a redundant quality assurance tool to assist Medical Physicists to have confidence in their clinical data to within 2%. The next step is for the RPC to provide a way for institutions to submit data to the RPC to determine if their data agrees with the standard data as a redundant check. Should you desire to compare your institutions machine data with our standard data please contact the RPC. Results: The wedge transmission data for the manufacturer’s standard wedges on most makes and models of accelerators exhibit a Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation of  2%. The distribution of the wedge transmission factor data is often bimodal exhibiting more than one standard factor for each wedge angle. Some of the wedge transmission data for differing makes and models of accelerators for a specific manufacturer, dependent on energy and wedge angles, are in good agreement. The tray transmission data, is not dependent on make and model of accelerator, but rather the beam energy. Accelerators of the same Make/Model/energy combination have the same dosimetric properties in terms of depth dose data and FSD. b. d. Purpose: Describe the Radiological Physics Center’s (RPC) extensive standard dosimetry data set determined from on-site measurements. The analysis of these standard data indicates that for modern accelerator models, the dosimetry data for a particular model/energy are within  2%. The RPC has always found accelerators of the same make/model/energy combination have the same dosimetric properties in terms of depth dose, field size dependence and off-axis factors. Because of this consistency, the RPC can assign standard data for percent depth dose, average output factors and off-axis factors for a given combination of energy and accelerator make and model. Table 6: This is a subset of the RPC standard percent depth dose data for several different make/model/energy combinations. Measurements were made on a series of Varian, Siemens and Elekta/Philips accelerators. The make and models of those listed here reflect those in current use and most often seen by the RPC. Varian – Clinac 2100C, 2100CD, 2300CD, 21EX, 23EX, 21iX, 23iX, Novalis and Trilogy Siemens – Mevatron KD, MD, KD2, MD2, MXE, Oncor, Primart, and Primus Elekta/Philips – SL 75, Precise, and Synergy Nominal energies from MV, wedge angles from 15° – 60 ° (Upper, EDW, virtual and universal), thin and thick trays. The RPC tray transmission factor (TF) is defined as: The RPC wedge transmission factor (WTF) is defined as: At 100 cm SSD/SAD in a water phantom. The WTF’s ionization readings are averaged over heel-in and heel-out wedge orientations (if applicable) and centering of the ion chamber is assured by measurements in multiple collimator orientations. *Note: prior to January 2000, for energies < 15 MeV, depth is 5 cm and for energies ≥ 15 MV, depth is 7 cm. Table 5: This is an example of the RPC standard output and in-air Off Axis Factors for one make/model/energy combination. Standard Data References: 1M. Peterson and R. Golden, Radiology, 103:675 (1972) 2P.J. Biggs, K. P. Doppke, J.C. Leong, and M.D. Russell, Medical Physics, 9:753 (1982) 3British Journal of Radiology, Supplement #11 4British Journal of Radiology, Supplement #17 5W.H. Barnes, D.B. Hammond, G.G. Janik, “Beam characteristics of the Clinac 2500”, Presented at Varian User’s Group meeting (1983) (Available from RPC) 6D.P. Fontenla. J.J. Napoli, and C.S. Chui, Medical Physics, 19:343 (1992) 7C.W. Coffey, II, J.L. Beach, D.J. Thompson, and M. Mendiondo, Medical Physics, 7:716 (1980) 8R.L. Dixon, R.E. Ekstrand, and W.J. Huff, Int J Rad Onc Bio Phys, 2:585 (1977) 9M.S.A.L. Al-Ghazi, B. Arjune, J.A. Fiedler, and P.D. Sharma, Medical Physics, 15:250 (1988) 10J.A. Purdy, W.B. Harms, and S. Fivozinsky, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care (Nov 1980) 11D.O. Findley, B.W. Forell, and P.S. Wong, Medical Physics, 14:270 (1987) 12B. Keller, D. Bassano, C. Mathewson, and P. Rubin, Int J Rad Onc Bio Phys, 1:69 (1975) 13J.R. Palta, J.A. Meyer, and K.R. Hogstrom, Medical Physics, 11:717 (1984) 14J.R. Palta, K. Ayyanger, I. Daftari, and N. Suntharalingham, Medical Physics, 17:106 (1990) 15J.E. Aldrich and J.W. Andrew, Medical Physics, 12:619 (1985) Table 4:This is the RPC standard tray factor data for several different make/model/energy combinations. Table 1: This is a subset of the RPC standard wedge data for several different model/energy combinations for Varian linear accelerators. Table 2: This is a subset of the RPC standard wedge data for several different model/energy combinations for Siemens linear accelerators. Table 3: This is a subset of the RPC standard wedge data for several different model/energy combinations for Elekta/Philips linear accelerators. Results: