Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of scanning resolution, detector choice and detector orientation to be used for accurate and time-efficient commissioning of a 6MV clinical linear accelerator

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Radiation and Environmental Biophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study is aimed at exploring different scanning parameters, detectors and their orientations for time-efficient and accurate commissioning of a 6 MV clinical linear accelerator (LINAC). Beam profiles and percentage depth dose (PDD) curves were measured with a PTW dosimetry diode, a PTW Semiflex and a PinPoint ion chamber in different orientations. To acquire beam data, equidistant (step size of 0.5 mm, 1 mm, 2 mm and 3 mm) and fanline (step size of 2–0.5 mm, 2–1 mm, 3–0.5 mm and 3-1 mm) scanning modes were employed and data measurement time was recorded. Scan time per measurement point was also varied (0.2 s, 0.5 s and 1.0 s) to investigate its effect on the accuracy and acquisition time of beam data. Accuracy of the measured data was analyzed on the basis of the variation between measured data and data modeled by a treatment planning system. Beam profiles (particularly in penumbra region) were found to be sensitive to variation in scanning resolution and showed an improved accuracy with decrease in step size, while PDD curves were affected negligibly. The accuracy of beam data obtained with the PTW dosimetry diode and the PinPoint ion chamber was higher than those obtained with the PTW Semiflex ion chamber for small fields (2 × 2 cm2 and 3 × 3 cm2). However, the response of the PTW diode and the PinPoint ion chamber was significantly indifferent in these fields. Furthermore, axial orientation of the PTW Semiflex ion chamber improved accuracy of profiles and PDDs as compared to radial orientation, while such a difference was not significant for the PinPoint ion chamber. It is concluded that a scan time of 0.2 s/point with a fanline scanning resolution of 2–1 mm for beam profiles and 3 mm for PDDs are most favorable in terms of accuracy and time efficiency. For small fields (2 × 2 cm2 and 3 × 3 cm2), a PinPoint ion chamber in radial orientation or a dosimetry diode in axial orientation are recommended for both beam profiles and PDDs. If a PinPoint ion chamber and a PTW dosimetry diode are not available, a Semiflex ion chamber in axial orientation may be used for small fields.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that supports the findings of this study are available from coresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  • Abdelaal AM, Attalla EM, Elshemey WM (2017) Dose estimation outside radiation field using Pinpoint and Semiflex ionization chamber detectors. Radiat Phys Chem 139:120–125

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Agostinelli S, Garelli S, Piergentili M, Foppiano F (2008) Response to high-energy photons of PTW31014 PinPoint ion chamber with a central aluminum electrode. Med Phys 35:3293–3301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora V (2016) An investigation of the polarity effects in small field based on the orientation of the micro ionization chamber. University of Toledo, Toledo

    Google Scholar 

  • Baghani HR, Robatjazi M, Mahdavi SR, Aghdam SRH (2019) Evaluating the performance characteristics of some ion chamber dosimeters in high dose per pulse intraoperative electron beam radiation therapy. Phys Med 58:81–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baghani HR, Andreoli S, Robatjazi M (2021) Performance characteristics of some cylindrical ion chamber dosimeters in Megavoltage (MV) photon beam according to TRS-398 dosimetry protocol. Radiat Phys Chem 180:109299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajwa S, Gul A, Ahmed S, Kakakhel MB (2020) Monte Carlo commissioning of radiotherapy LINAC—Introducing an improved methodology. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 25:720–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caprile P, Venencia CD, Besa P (2007) Comparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil-beam convolution. J Appl Clin Med Phys 8:47–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casar B, Gershkevitsh E, Mendez I, Jurković S, Saiful Huq M (2020) Output correction factors for small static fields in megavoltage photon beams for seven ionization chambers in two orientations—perpendicular and parallel. Med Phys 47:242–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang KS, Yin FF, Nie KW (1996) The effect of detector size to the broadening of the penumbra—a computer simulated study. Med Phys 23:1407–1411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das IJ, Cheng CW, Watts RJ, Ahnesjö A, Gibbons J, Li XA, Lowenstein J, Mitra RK, Simon WE, Zhu TC (2008) Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM. Med Phys 35:4186–4215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, LoSasso TJ, Mechalakos JG, Mihailidis D, Molineu A, Palta JR, Ramsey CR, Salter BJ (2009) IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys 36:5359–5373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraass B, Doppke K, Hunt M, Kutcher G, Starkschall G, Stern R, Van Dyke J (1998) American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys 25:1773–1829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gete E, Teke T, Kwa W (2012) Evaluation of the AAA treatment planning algorithm for SBRT lung treatment: comparison with Monte Carlo and homogeneous pencil beam dose calculations. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 43:26–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groppo DP, Saraiva CW, Caldas LV (2020) Determination of the penumbra width of Elekta SRS cone collimator for 6 MV FF and 6 MV FFF energies using gradient-based edge detection. Radiat Phys Chem 167:108319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gul A, Kakakhel MB, Amjad N, Razzaq A, Mirza SM (2019) Feasibility of linear diode array based small field data acquisition for 6 MV & 15 MV photon beams–an intercomparison with micro ion chamber. Radiat Phys Chem 162:146–152

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Gul A, Fukuda S, Mizuno H, Taku N, Kakakhel MB, Mirza SM (2020) Feasibility study of using stereotactic field diode for field output factors measurement and evaluating three new detectors for small field relative dosimetry of 6 and 10 MV photon beams. J Appl Clin Med Phys 21:23–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gul A, Kakakhel MB, Mirza SM (2021) Assessment of skin doses in small field radiotherapy for 6 MV photons and beam spectral analysis at skin surface: an EGSnrc based Monte Carlo study. Radiat Environl Biophys 60:299–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann L, Alber M, Söhn M, Elstrøm UV (2018) Validation of the Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm versus Monte Carlo for clinical treatment plans. Med Phys 45:3909–3915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAEA (2008) Setting up a radiotherapy programme: clinical, medical physics, radiation protection and safety aspects, Internat. Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

  • Konefał A, Bakoniak M, Orlef A, Maniakowski Z, Szewczuk M (2015) Energy spectra in water for the 6 MV X-ray therapeutic beam generated by Clinac-2300 linac. Radiat Meas 72:12–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laub WU, Wong T (2003) The volume effect of detectors in the dosimetry of small fields used in IMRT. Med Phys 30:341–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Looe HK, Büsing I, Tekin T, Brant A, Delfs B, Poppinga D, Poppe B (2018) The polarity effect of compact ionization chambers used for small field dosimetry. Med Phys 45:5608–5621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens C, De Wagter C, De Neve W (2000) The value of the PinPoint ion chamber for characterization of small field segments used in intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 45:2519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKerracher C, Thwaites D (1999) Assessment of new small-field detectors against standard-field detectors for practical stereotactic beam data acquisition. Phys Med Biol 44:2143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmans H, Andreo P, Huq MS, Seuntjens J, Christaki KE, Meghzifene A (2018) Dosimetry of small static fields used in external photon beam radiotherapy: summary of TRS-483, the IAEA–AAPM international code of practice for reference and relative dose determination. Med Phys 45:e1123–e1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palta JR (2003) Linear accelerator acceptance testing and commissioning. Med Phys 30:1356–1357

    Google Scholar 

  • Parwaie W, Refahi S, Ardekani MA, Farhood B (2018) Different dosimeters/detectors used in small-field dosimetry: pros and cons. J Med Signals Sens 8:195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saidani I, Salem LB, Besbes M (2018) 34A Small field dosimetry for electron beams using four types of detectors. Phys Med: Eur J Med Phys 56:55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smilowitz JB, Das IJ, Feygelman V, Fraass BA, Kry SF, Marshall IR, Mihailidis DN, Ouhib Z, Ritter T, Snyder MG (2015) AAPM medical physics practice guideline 5. a.: commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations—megavoltage photon and electron beams. J Appl Clin Med Phys 16:14–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterpin E, Tomsej M, De Smedt B, Reynaert N, Vynckier S (2007) Monte Carlo evaluation of the AAA treatment planning algorithm in a heterogeneous multilayer phantom and IMRT clinical treatments for an Elekta SL25 linear accelerator. Med Phys 34:1665–1677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka Y, Akino Y, Mizuno H, Isono M, Masai N, Yamamoto T (2020) Impact of detector selections on inter-institutional variability of flattening filter-free beam data for TrueBeam™ linear accelerators. J Appl Clin Med Phys 21:36–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varian Reference Guide (2015) Eclipse photon and electron algorithms reference guide. Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  • Venselaar J, Welleweerd H, Mijnheer B (2001) Tolerances for the accuracy of photon beam dose calculations of treatment planning systems. Radiother Oncol 60:191–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Basic Sciences, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila, 47080, Pakistan

    Deeba Azhar

  2. Institute of Nuclear Medicine, Oncology and Radiotherapy (INOR), Abbottabad, 22010, Pakistan

    Attia Gul & Muhammad Mubashar Hussain

  3. Institute of Physics, Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, 63100, Pakistan

    Muhamad Arshad Javid

  4. Atomic Energy Cancer Hospital NORI, Islamabad, 44080, Pakistan

    Nazia Neelam Shehzadi

Authors
  1. Deeba Azhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Attia Gul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muhamad Arshad Javid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Muhammad Mubashar Hussain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nazia Neelam Shehzadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Attia Gul.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors claim that there is no conflit of any interests to disclose for this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Azhar, D., Gul, A., Javid, M.A. et al. Evaluation of scanning resolution, detector choice and detector orientation to be used for accurate and time-efficient commissioning of a 6MV clinical linear accelerator. Radiat Environ Biophys 62, 83–96 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-022-01008-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-022-01008-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation