ABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the virtual wedge (VW) dosimetric parameters with the ionization chamber array Matrixxenvlution.Methods Using Matrixxenvlution and solid water to measure and calculate Siemens accelerator's VW angle and VW factors of different fields and compare the wedge field dose distribution to that of treatment planning system (TPS) by gamma analysis,summarized the measurement results of 50 times.Results The γ pass rate (3 mm/ 3％) of 15° and 30° VW in both direction were (91.47 ± 1.76)％,(92.99 ± 1.54)％ and (93.27 ± 1.24)％,(93.27 ± 1.68)％,respectively,with the increase of filed size and the VW angle,but for 20 cm ×20 cm field and VW 60°,the result was not very good.The largest angle deviation ＜ 2° except small field size and wedge angle,VW factors were approximately equal to 1,the maximum deviation was no more than 0.05,plan dose distribution and the measured dose distribution have good consistency except large field with large wedge angle.Conclusions Matrixxenvlution used in the measurement of VW dosimetric parameters which can obtain all parameters for angle calculation and dose plane analysis with only once positioning,and become more rapid,convenient,economical and practical one of quality assurance tools for VW dose verification.
ABSTRACT
ObjectiveTo compare the accuracy of enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) models of adaptive convolution algorithm (ACA) in Pinnacle3 9.0 and anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA),and pencil beam convolution (PBC) algorithms in Eclipse7.3 treatment planning systems (TPS).MethodsTo evaluate the accuracy of the three algorithm models,we compared actual measurement values with TPS calculation values of EDW wedge factors under for different fields in which Varian-21EX 6 MV X-ray was applied,and also compared the actual dose distribution profile with that of TPS.ResultsThe deviations of EDW wedge factors of symmetry fields and asymmetric fields are within 2.8％ and 19.4％ for ACA in Pinnacle3 9.0.Meanwhile,the deviations are 1.0％ and 2.0％ for AAA,1.2％ and 3.0％ for PBC in Eclipse7.3.The deviations between measurement and calculation of all fields profile for ACA is within 3％ and within 2.7％ for AAA within 4.0％ for PBC in wedge direction.For the dose distributions,we evaluated the pass rates of three algorithms using gamma analysis.The gamma pass rates among all the three algorithms in symmetry and asymmetric fields are above 87％ and 85％ respectively.After the removal of the penumbra zone,the pass rates among all the three algorithms are above 96％ in symmetry fields,and above 95％ in asymmetric fields,respectively.Conclusions AAA and PBC algorithms in symmetric and asymmetric fields can meet the need of clinical applications.While,wedge factor of ACA should not be used in clinical due to its greater error in asymmetric fields.
ABSTRACT
For clinical implementation of Enhanced Dynamic Wedge (EDW), it is necessary to adequately analyze and commission its dosimetric properties in comparison to common physical metal wedge (MTW). This study was implemented with the essential measurements of parameters for clinical application, such as percentage depth dose, peripheral dose, surface dose, effective wedge factor, and wedge profile. In addition, through the comparison study of EDW with open and MTW, the analysis was performed to characterize the EDW. We also compared EDW dose profiles of measured values using chamber array 24 (CA24) with calculated values using radiation treatment planning system. PDDs of EDW showed good agreements between 0.2~0.5% of open beam, but 2% differences with MTW. In the result of the measurements of peripheral dose, it was shown that MTW was about 1% higher than open field and EDW. The surface doses of 60degrees MTW showed 10% lower than the others. We found that effective wedge factor of EDW had linear relationships according to Y jaw sizes and was independent of X jaw sizes and was independent of X jaw sizes and asymmetric Y jaw opening. In comparison with measured values and calculate values from Golden-STT based radiation treatment planning system (RTP system), it showed very good agreement within difference of 1%. It could be concluded that EDW is a very reliable and useful tool as a beam modification substitute for conventional MTW.
Subject(s)
JawABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We have compared the characteristics of Siemens virtual wedge device with physical wedges for clinical application. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We investigated the characteristics and physical wedges for various wedge angles (15,30,45,and 60 degrees)using 6- and 15MV photon beams. Wedge factors were measured in water using an ion chamber for various field sizes and depths. In case of virtual wedge device, as upper jaw moves during irradiation, wedge angles were estimated by accumulated doses. These measurements were performed at off-axis points perpendicular to beam central axis in water for a 15Cm x20Cm radiation field size at the depth of 10Cm. Surface doses without and with virtual or physical wedges were measured using a parallel plate ion chamber at surface. Field size was15Cmx20Cm and a polystyrene phantom was used. RESULT: For various field sizes, virtual and physical wedge factors were changed by maximum 2.1%and 3.9%, respectively. For various depths, virtual and physical wedge factors were changed by maximum 1.9% and 2.9%, respectively. No major difference was found between the virtual and physical wedge angles and the difference was within 0.5 degrees. Surface dose with physical wedge was reduced by maximum 20% (x-ray beam : 6 MV, Wedge angle: 45 degrees, SSD; 80 Cm) relative to one with virtual wedge or without wedge. CONCLUSION: comparison of the characteristics of Siemens virtual wedge device with physical wedges was performed.Depth dependence of virtual wedge factor was smaller than of physical wedge factor. Virtual and physical wedge factors were nearly independent of field size. The accuracy of virtual and physical wedge angles was excellent. Surface dose was found to be reduced using physical wedge.
Subject(s)
Axis, Cervical Vertebra , Jaw , Polystyrenes , Silver Sulfadiazine , WaterABSTRACT
PURPOSE: In general. The wedge factors which are used clinical practives are ignored of dependency on field sizes and depths. In this present, we investigated systematically the depth and field size dependency to determine the absorbed dose more accurately. METHODS: The wedge factors for each wedge filter were measured at various depth (depth of Dmax, 5cm, 10cm, and 15cm) and field sizes (5 X 5cm, 10 X 10cm, 15 X 15cm, 20 X 20 cm) by using 4-,6-, and 10-MV X rays. By convention, wedge factors are determined by taking the ratio of the central axis ionization readings when the wedge filter is in place to those of the open field in same field size and measurement depth. In this present work, we determined the wedge factors for 4-, 6-, and 10-MV X rays from Clinac 600C and 2100C linear accelerators (manufactured by Varian Associates, Inc., Palo Alto, CA). To confirm that the wedge was centered., measurements were done with the two possible wedge position and various collimator orientations. RESULTS: The standard deviations of measured values are within 0.3% and the depth dependence of wedge factor is greater for the lower energies. Especially, the variation of wedge factor is no less than 5% for 4- and 6- MV X rays with more than 45degree wedge filter. But there seems to be a small dependence on field size. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show a dependence on the point of measurement. There also seems to be a small dependence on field size. And so, we should consider the depth and field size dependence in determining the wedge factors. If one wedge factor were to be used for each wedge filter, it seems that the measurement for a 10cm X 10cm field size at a depth of 10cm would be a reasonable choice.
Subject(s)
Axis, Cervical Vertebra , Fibrinogen , Particle Accelerators , ReadingABSTRACT
ObjectiveTo study the characteristics of wedge factor of enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) on Varian 600C linear accelerator . MethodsEnhanced dynamic wedge factors (EDWFs) of different jaw settings were measured on a Varian 600C linear accelerator with FARMER 2570 dosimeter and 2571 0.6 ml Thimble ion chamber. At the same time,equations were used to compute EDWFs of symmetric and asymmetric fields and off axis points. The same measurements were carried out on 30 degree physical wedge in contrast to EDW. The accelerator's jaw position was described according to IEC radiotherapy equipment coordinate standard. Results The EDWFs of symmetric field decreased smoothly while the field size increased. Under the same field,EDWFs decreased as the wedge angle increased and the increasing extent became apparent when the field became larger. In off axis fields formed by the upper independent jaws,only the EDWFs of 60 degree had the tendency to increase when the field center moved toward the toe of the wedge,the rest gave the opposite results. The EDWFs of fixed points varied only by 0.5 percent when the fixed jaw remained at the same place and the moving jaw and lower jaws stayed at different positions. But the WF of 30 degree physical wedge increased by 2.9 percent when the lower jaw settings increased from 4 cm to 40 cm. The EDWFs derived from analytic equations for symmetric and asymmetric fields coincided well with measured results. But at off-axis points,the differences between calculated values and measured data were apparent. ConclusionsThe curve of EDWF versus field size is very smooth. The EDWF of fixed point only depends on the position of the stationary upper jaw,and is affected little by the moving upper jaw and lower jaws. The EDWFs of off axis fields are much more complex than those of physical wedge; it shouldn't be confused in clinical application. The conversion method of rectangular field to square field is of no use when EDW field is confronted. Analytic methods are highly conformal with the calculation of EDWFs of symmetric and asymmetric fields.