Volume 3, Issue 2

Original research papers

Radiation Protection


Sonja Petkovska, Margarita Ginovska, Hristina Spasevska, Yasin Acarbas

Pages: 110-116

DOI: 10.21175/RadJ.2018.02.018

Received: 3 APR 2018, Received revised: 11 SEP 2018, Accepted: 12 OCT 2018, Published online: 27 DEC 2018

Technological improvements in radiotherapy machines using small fields (SF) have improved mechanical accuracy and stability, as well as dosimetric control. Small fields are nonstandard radiation fields, for which reference dosimetry cannot be reliably performed using the existing protocols. Field size definition, difficulties of accurate measurements, modeling of SF dose calculations in Treatment Planning System (TPSs), calibration protocol establishing, reference condition achievements, are some of the challenges in SF Dosimetry. Small and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) field dosimetry can be very complex – large perturbation effects could make a significant impact on reference dosimetry procedures and output factors. Comparison between different detectors provides valuable information. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the differences of dose profiles and depth dose measured in the same conditions for standard and non-standard radiation fields. Measurements are performed using detectors with different sensitive volumes. Beam quality as well as symmetry and flatness are analyzed. Results from the measurements show that the differences for SF are obvious at the edge of the profiles and in the penumbra region, as well as in the build-up region into depth dose curves. To avoid the uncertainties, for static SF where reference conditions cannot be met and for IMRT fields where delivery conditions are far removed from calibration conditions, the new formalism should be implemented.
  1. F. M. Khan, The Physics of Radiation Therapy, 3rd ed., Philadelphia (PA), USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2003.
    Retrieved from: https://ucrfisicamedica.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/phys-of-radiation-therapy-3-edicion-khan.pdf;
    Retrieved on: Aug. 14, 2018
  2. E. B. Podgorsak, Radiation Physics for Medical Physicists, 2nd ed., Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2006.
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-00875-7
  3. Comprehensive QA for Radiation Oncology, Rep. 46, AAPM, Alexandria (VA), USA, 1994.
    Retrieved from: https://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT_46.PDF;
    Retrieved on: Aug. 18, 2018
  4. AAPM code of practice for radiotherapy accelerators: Reports of AAPM radiation therapy, Rep. 47, AAPM, Alexandria (VA), USA, 1994.
    Retrieved from: https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1118/1.597398;
    Retrieved on: Aug. 18, 2018
  5. Protocol for Clinical Reference Dosimetry of High-Energy Photon and Electron Beams, Rep. 67, AAPM, Alexandria (VA), USA, 1999.
    Retrieved from: https://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT_67.pdf;
    Retrieved on: Aug. 18, 2018
  6. Dosimetry of High-Energy Photon Beams based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water, ICRU Report 64, ICRU, Bethesda (MD), USA, 2000.
    Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/j.1600-0455.2002.4306211.x?needAccess=true;
    Retrieved on: Aug. 18, 2018
  7. Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy, IAEA TRS-398, IAEA, Austria, Vienna, 2006.
    Retrieved from: http://naweb.iaea.org/nahu/DMRP/documents/CoP_V12_2006-06-05.pdf;
    Retrieved on: May 3, 2018
  8. Particular Requirements for the safety of Electron Accelerators in the Range 1MeV to 50MeV, IEC 60601-2-1, International Electrotechnical Commission, Switzerland, Geneva, Jun. 30, 1998.
  9. Calibration of reference dosimeters for external beam radiotherapy, IAEA TRS-469, IAEA, Austria, Vienna, 2009.
    Retrieved from: http://pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/trs469_web.pdf
    Retrieved on: May 3, 2018
  10. PTW products for radiation therapy, PTW, Freiburg, Germany, 2018.
    Retrieved from: http://www.ptw-usa.com/radiation_therapy.html?&cId=3279;
    Retrieved on: May 3, 2018
  11. Absorbed Dose Determination in Small Fields for High Energy Photon Beams, PTW, Freiburg, Germany, 2014.
    Retrieved from: https://www.ptw.de/typo3conf/ext/naw_securedl/secure.php?u=0&file=ZmlsZWFkbWluL2ludGVybmF scy9yYWRfdGhlcmFweS9BYnNvcmJlZF9Eb3NlX0RldGVybWluYXRpb25fU21hbGxfRmllbGRzX05vdGV fZW5fNTYwMjEwMDNfMDIucGRm&t=1528631687&hash=05a8fc5510cf429395f4bb1d8250736d
    Retrieved on: May 3, 2018
  12. J. Herzen, M. Todorovic, F. Cremers, D. Albers, R. Schmidt, “Dosimetric Evaluation of a 2D pixel ionization chamber for implementation in clinical routine,” Phy. Med. Biol., vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1197 – 1208, Feb. 2007.
    DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/52/4/023
    PMid: 17264380
  13. A. J. D. Scott et al., “Characterizing the influence of detector density on dosimeter response in non-equilibrium small photon fields,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 57, no. 14, pp. 4461 – 4476, Jun. 2012.
    DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/14/4461
    PMid: 22722374
  14. M. M. Aspradakis et al., Small Field MV Photon Dosimetry, Rep. 103, IPEM, York, UK, 2010.
    Retrieved from: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/42/026/42026419.pdf;
    Retrieved on: Aug. 18, 2018
  15. D. Cyarnecki, K. Zink, “Monte Carlo calculated correction factors for diodes and ion chambers in small photon fields,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 2431 – 2444, Apr. 2013.
    DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/8/2431
    PMid: 23514734
  16. P. Francescon et al., “Calculation of k(Q(clin), Q(msr))(f(clin),f(msr)) for several small detectors and for two linear accelerators using Monte Carlo simulations,” Med. Phys., vol. 38,no. 12, pp. 6513 – 6527, Dec. 2011.
    DOI: 10.1118/1.3660770
    PMid: 22149834