Advertisement

On beam quality and flatness of radiotherapy megavoltage photon beams

  • Murshed HossainEmail author
  • Jeffrey Rhoades
Scientific Paper

Abstract

Ratio of percentage depth dose (PDD) at two depths, PDD at a depth of 10 cm (PDD10), and beam flatness are monitored regularly for radiotherapy beams for quality assurance. The purpose of this study is to understand the effects of changes in one of these parameters on the other. Is it possible to monitor only the beam flatness and not PDD? The investigation has two components. Naturally occurring i.e., unintended changes in PDD ratio and in-plane flatness for 6 and 10 MV photon beams for one particular Siemens Artiste Linac are monitored for a period of about 4 years. Secondly, deliberate changes in the beam parameters are induced by changing the bending magnet current (BMI). Relationships between various beam parameters for unintended changes as well as deliberate changes are characterized. Long term unintentional changes of PDD ratio are found to have no systematic trend. The flatness in the inplane direction for 6 and 10 MV beams show slow increase of 0.43 and 0.75 % respectively in about 4 years while the changes in the PDD ratio show no such trend. Over 10 % changes in BMI are required to induce changes in the beam quality indices at 2 % level. PDD ratio for the 10 MV beam is found to be less sensitive, while the depth of maximum dose, dmax, is more sensitive to the changes in BMI compared to the 6 MV beam. Tolerances are more stringent for PDD10 than PDD ratio for the 10 MV beam. PDD ratio, PDD10, and flatness must be monitored independently. Furthermore, off axis ratio alone cannot be used to monitor flatness. The effect of beam quality change in the absolute dose is clinically insignificant.

Keywords

Photon beam quality Percentage depth dose Percentage depth dose ratio Beam flatness 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the physicists, who have generated the data during their monthly QA, used in this work. Constructive comments by Dr. Robert Price and Dr. Charlie Ma are gratefully acknowledged. The authors do not have any conflict of interest. This publication was supported by grant number P30 CA006927 from the National Cancer Institute, NIH. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health.

References

  1. 1.
    Gao S, Balter PA, Rose M, et al (2013) Measurement of changes in linear accelerator photon energy through flatness variation using an ion chamber array. Med Phys 40(4): 042101-1-4Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Speight RJ, Esmail A, Weston SJ (2011) Quality assurance of electron and photon beam energy using the BQ-Check phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys 12(2):239–244Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kutcher GJ, Coia L, Gillin M et al (1994) Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM radiation therapy committee task group 40. Med Phys 21(4):381–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J et al (2009) Task group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys 36(9):4197–4212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hossain M (2014) Output trends, characteristics, and measurements of three megavoltage radiotherapy linear accelerators. J Appl Clin Med Phys 15(4):4783PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM et al (1999) AAPM’s TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams. Med Phys 26(9):1847–1870CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fox Chase Cancer CenterPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.UnityPoint Health Trinity Cancer CenterMolineUSA

Personalised recommendations