Skip to main content
Log in

A comparison between direct TMR measurements and TMRs calculated from PDDs using BJR Supplement 25 data for flattened and unflattened photon beams

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study assessed the validity of the conversion from percentage depth dose (PDD) to tissue maximum ratio (TMR) using BJR Supplement 25 data for flattened and flattening filter free (FFF) beams. PDD and TMR scans for a variety of field sizes were measured in water using a Sun Nuclear Corporation 3D SCANNER™ on a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator in 6 MV, 10 MV and 6 MV FFF beams. The BJR Supplement 25 data was used to convert the measured PDDs to TMRs and these were compared with the directly measured TMR data. The TMR plots calculated from PDD were within 1 % for the 10 MV and 6 MV flattened beams, for field sizes 3 cm × 3 cm to 40 cm × 40 cm inclusive, at depths measured beyond the depth of maximum dose. The disagreement between the measured and calculated TMR plots for the 6 MV FFF beam increased with depth and field size to a maximum of 1.7 % for a 40 cm × 40 cm field. The results found in this study indicate that the BJR Supplement 25 data should not be used for field sizes larger than 20 cm × 20 cm at depths greater than 15 cm for the 6 MV FFF beam. It is advised that PDD to TMR conversion for FFF beams should be done with phantom scatter ratios appropriate to FFF beams, or the TMR should be directly measured if required.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dutreix A, Bjärngard BE, Bridier A, Mijnheer B, Shaw JE, Svensson H (1997) Monitor unit calculation for high energy photon beams. European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Physics for Clinical Radiotherapy Booklet No. 3

  2. Khan FM (2003) The physics of radiation therapy, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  3. Standard Imaging Inc (2012) IMSure QA™ software version 3.4 user manual, DOC #8-496-06

  4. Andreo P, Burns DT, Hohlfeld K, Huq MS, Kanai T, Laitano F, Smythe VG, Vynckier S (2000) Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy, IAEA Technical Report Series No. 398, Vienna

  5. Das IJ, Cheng CW, Watts RJ, Ahnesjö A, Gibbons J, Gibbons J, Li XA, Lowenstein J, Mitra RK, Simon WE, Zhu TC (2008) Accelerated beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM. Med Phys 35(9):4186–4215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sun Nuclear Corporation (2014) SNC dosimetry™ software reference guide rev J-2, document 1230067

  7. Purdy JA (1977) Relationship between tissue-phantom ratio and percentage depth dose. Med Phys 4(1):66–67

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. van Gasteren JJM, Heukelom S, Jager HN, Mijnheer BJ, van der Laarse R, van Kleffens HJ, Vanselaar JLM, Westermann CF (1998) Determination and use of scatter correction factors of megavoltage photon beams. Report 12 of the Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry

  9. Day MJ, Aird EGA (1996) Central axis depth dose data for use in radiotherapy. Br J Radiol Suppl 25:84–151

  10. Dalaryd M, Knöös T, Ceberg C (2014) Combining tissue-phantom ratios to provide a beam-quality specifier for flattening filter free photon beams. Med Phys 41:111716. doi:10.1118/1.4898325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vassiliev ON, Titt U, Kry SF, Pönisch F, Cillin MT, Mohan R (2006) Monte Carlo study of photon fields from a flattening filter-free clinical accelerator. Med Phys 33(4):820–827

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chung H, Prado KL, Yi BY (2014) An analytical formalism to calculate phantom scatter factors for flattening filter free (FFF) mode photon beams. Phys Med Biol 59:951–960

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kragl G, Wetterstedt S, Knäusl B, Lind M, McCavana P, Knöös T, McClean B, Georg D (2009) Dosimetric characteristics of 6 and 10 MV unflattened photon beams. Radiother Oncol 93:141–146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kinsey E, Guerrero M, Prado K, Yi B (2012) SU-E-T-38: are the calculation methods for determining tissue-maximum ratios from percent depth dose valid for flattening filter-free photon beams? Med Phys 39:3711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Blanpain B, Mercier D (2009) The delta envelope: a technique for dose distribution comparison. Med Phys 36(3):797–808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Richmond N, Allen V, Daniel J, Dacey R, Walker C (2015) A comparison of phantom scatter from flattened and flattening filter free high-energy photon beams. Med Dosim 40:58–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Genesis CancerCare Queensland is party to a reference site agreement with Sun Nuclear Corporation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Sutherland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sutherland, B., Middlebrook, N., Kairn, T. et al. A comparison between direct TMR measurements and TMRs calculated from PDDs using BJR Supplement 25 data for flattened and unflattened photon beams. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 38, 503–507 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-015-0359-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-015-0359-0

Keywords

Navigation