Dataset Information

Empirical modeling of the percent depth dose for megavoltage photon beams.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

This study presents an empirical method to model the high-energy photon beam percent depth dose (PDD) curve by using the home-generated buildup function and tail function (buildup-tail function) in radiation therapy. The modeling parameters n and μ of buildup-tail function can be used to characterize the Collimator Scatter Factor (Sc) either in a square field or in the different individual upper jaw and lower jaw setting separately for individual monitor unit check.

Methods and materials

The PDD curves for four high-energy photon beams were modeled by the buildup and tail function in this study. The buildup function was a quadratic function in the form of [Formula: see text] with the main parameter of d (depth in water) and n, while the tail function was in the form of e-μd and was composed by an exponential function with the main parameter of d and μ. The PDD was the product of buildup and tail function, PDD = [Formula: see text]. The PDD of four-photon energies was characterized by the buildup-tail function by adjusting the parameters n and μ. The Sc of 6 MV and 10 MV can then be expressed simply by the modeling parameters n and μ.

Results

The main parameters n increases in buildup-tail function when photon energy increased. The physical meaning of the parameter n expresses the beam hardening of photon energy in PDD. The fitting results of parameters n in the buildup function are 0.17, 0.208, 0.495, 1.2 of four-photon energies, 4 MV, 6 MV, 10 MV, 18 MV, respectively. The parameter μ can be treated as attenuation coefficient in tail function and decreases when photon energy increased. The fitting results of parameters μ in the tail function are 0.065, 0.0515, 0.0458, 0.0422 of four-photon energies, 4 MV, 6 MV, 10 MV, 18 MV, respectively. The values of n and μ obtained from the fitted buildup-tail function were applied into an analytical formula of Sc = nE(S)0.63μE to get the collimator to scatter factor Sc for 6 and 10 MV photon beam, while nE, μE, S denotes n, μ at photon energy E of field size S, respectively. The calculated Sc were compared with the measured data and showed agreement at different field sizes to within ±1.5%.

Conclusions

We proposed a model incorporating a two-parameter formula which can improve the fitting accuracy to be better than 1.5% maximum error for describing the PDD in different photon energies used in clinical setting. This model can be used to parameterize the Sc factors for some clinical requirements. The modeling parameters n and μ can be used to predict the Sc in either square field or individual jaws opening asymmetrically for treatment monitor unit double-check in dose calculation. The technique developed in this study can also be used for systematic or random errors in the QA program, thus improves the clinical dose computation accuracy for patient treatment.

SUBMITTER: Li XJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8735605 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In the present work, we investigated the accuracy of the electron pencil-beam redefinition algorithm (PBRA) in calculating central-axis percent depth dose in water for rectangular fields. The PBRA energy correction factor C(E) was determined so that PBRA-calculated percent depth dose best matched the percent depth dose measured in water. The hypothesis tested was that a method can be implemented into the PBRA that will enable the algorithm to calculate central-axis percent depth dose in water at a 100-cm source-to-surface distance (SSD) with an accuracy of 2% or 1-mm distance to agreement for rectangular field sizes > or = 2 x 2 cm. Preliminary investigations showed that C(E), determined using a single percent depth dose for a large field (that is, having side-scatter equilibrium), was insufficient for the PBRA to accurately calculate percent depth dose for all square fields > or = 2 x 2 cm. Therefore, two alternative methods for determining C(E) were investigated. In Method 1, C(E), modeled as a polynomial in energy, was determined by fitting the PBRA calculations to individual rectangular-field percent depth doses. In Method 2, C(E) for square fields, described by a polynomial in both energy and side of square W [that is, C = C(E,W)], was determined by fitting the PBRA calculations to measured percent depth dose for a small number of square fields. Using the function C(E,W), C(E) for other square fields was determined, and C(E) for rectangular field sizes was determined using the geometric mean of C(E) for the two measured square fields of the dimension of the rectangle (square root method). Using both methods, PBRA calculations were evaluated by comparison with measured square-field and derived rectangular-field percent depth doses at 100-cm SSD for the Siemens Primus radiotherapy accelerator equipped with a 25 x 25-cm applicator at 10 MeV and 15 MeV. To improve the fit of C(E) and C(E,W) to the electron component of percent depth dose, it was necessary to modify the PBRA's photon depth dose model to include dose buildup. Results showed that, using both methods, the PBRA was able to predict percent depth dose within criteria for all square and rectangular fields. Results showed that second- or third-order polynomials in energy (Methods 1 and 2) and in field size (Method 2) were typically required. Although the time for dose calculation using Method 1 is approximately twice that using Method 2, we recommend that Method 1 be used for clinical implementation of the PBRA because it is more accurate (most measured depth doses predicted within approximately 1%) and simpler to implement.

Project description:Radiographic film dosimetry suffers from its energy dependence in proton dosimetry. This study sought to develop a method of measuring proton beams by the film and to evaluate film response to proton beams for the constancy check of depth dose (DD). It also evaluated the film for profile measurements. To achieve this goal, from DDs measured by film and ion chamber (IC), calibration factors (ratios of dose measured by IC to film responses) as a function of depth in a phantom were obtained. These factors imply variable slopes (with proton energy and depth) of linear characteristic curves that relate film response to dose. We derived a calibration method that enables utilization of the factors for acquisition of dose from film density measured at later dates by adapting to a potentially altered processor condition. To test this model, the characteristic curve was obtained by using EDR2 film and in-phantom film dosimetry in parallel with a 149.65 MeV proton beam, using the method. An additional validation of the model was performed by concurrent film and IC measurement perpendicular to the beam at various depths. Beam profile measurements by the film were also evaluated at the center of beam modulation. In order to interpret and ascertain the film dosimetry, Monte Carlos simulation of the beam was performed, calculating the proton fluence spectrum along depths and off-axis distances. By multiplying respective stopping powers to the spectrum, doses to film and water were calculated. The ratio of film dose to water dose was evaluated. Results are as follows. The characteristic curve proved the assumed linearity. The measured DD approached that of IC, but near the end of the spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP), a spurious peak was observed due to the mismatch of distal edge between the calibration and measurement films. The width of SOBP and the proximal edge were both reproducible within a maximum of 5mm; the distal edge was reproducible within 1 mm. At 5 cm depth, the dose was reproducible within 10%. These large discrepancies were identified to have been contributed by film processor uncertainty across a layer of film and the misalignment of film edge to the frontal phantom surface. The deviations could drop from 5 to 2 mm in SOBP and from 10% to 4.5% at 5 cm depth in a well-controlled processor condition(i.e., warm up). In addition to the validation of the calibration method done by the DD measurements, the concurrent film and IC measurement independently validated the model by showing the constancy of depth-dependent calibration factors. For profile measurement, the film showed good agreement with ion chamber measurement. In agreement with the experimental findings, computationally obtained ratio of film dose to water dose assisted understanding of the trend of the film response by revealing relatively large and small variances of the response for DD and beam profile measurements, respectively. Conclusions are as follows. For proton beams, radiographic film proved to offer accurate beam profile measurements. The adaptive calibration method proposed in this study was validated. Using the method, film dosimetry could offer reasonably accurate DD constancy checks, when provided with a well-controlled processor condition. Although the processor warming up can promote a uniform processing across a single layer of the film, the processing remains as a challenge.