Premium
SU‐E‐T‐74: Effect of Energy and Field Size On Angular Dependence of a 2D Diode Array
Author(s) -
Jin H,
Keeling V,
Ahmad S
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4814509
Subject(s) - physics , calibration , detector , truebeam , isocenter , optics , linear particle accelerator , beam (structure) , quantum mechanics , imaging phantom
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of energy and field size on directional response (angular dependence) of 2D diode array detector, Sun Nuclear MapCHECK 2. Methods: The MapCHECK 2 with MapPHAN‐MC2 (a solid water block with water equivalent buildup of 5.0 cm above and below the detector plane) was irradiated using the Varian TrueBEAM STx for six different energies (6MV, 6MV‐FFF (Flattening Filter Free), 8MV, 10MV, 10MV‐FFF, and 15MV) and three field sizes (3cm×3cm, 5cm×5cm, and 10cm×10cm) for every 10 degree. The angular dependence was investigated by comparing these dose measurements with the corresponding dose calculations by the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). A mean dose difference ((Measurement‐Plan)/Planx100%) at the comparison points (5 points (1cm×1cm) around the isocenter for 3cm×3cm; 13 points (2cm×2cm) for 5cm×5cm and 10cm×10cm fields) was computed. In addition, dependence of calibration on field size was investigated by calibrating MapCHECK 2 with the standard calibration field of 10cm×10cm and a small field size of 3cm×3cm. Results: The angular dependence was substantial at 90+/−20° and 270+/−20° (mostly >5% for all energies except 15MV). The maximum differences decreased substantially with increasing energies (e.g., for 3cm×3cm at 270°, 53.3+/−3.1% (6MV‐FFF), 37.8+/−2.3% (6MV), 23.2+/−2.0% (8MV), 19.2+/−2.0% (10MV‐FFF), 9.7+/−2.3% (10MV), −0.1+/−2.0% (15MV)). The FFF beams showed higher angular dependence than conventional beams (∼10%). The standard calibration using 10cm×10cm field underestimated dose for the 3cm×3cm field by ∼2%. The calibration dependence on field size was approximately 1% smaller using FFF beams. The 15MV beam relatively did not show any substantial angular response. This is probably due to low response of diode to high energy scattered radiation. Conclusion: The MapCHECK QA for IMAT (RapidArc or VMAT) with beam incident angles around 90° and 270° should be carefully examined because of the directional response and underdosing of diode for small beam segments.