Premium
MO‐D‐105‐06: Dose‐Area Product as a Method for Small Field Geometric QA
Author(s) -
Nikolic M,
MastersonMcGary M,
Toner S,
Kilby W,
Thomson L,
Colliander S,
Noll M,
Goggin L
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 - 10.1118/1.4815232
Subject(s) - collimator , materials science , dosimetry , optics , cyberknife , sensitivity (control systems) , nuclear medicine , linear particle accelerator , physics , beam (structure) , engineering , radiosurgery , electronic engineering , medicine , radiation therapy
Purpose: To investigate the use of dose‐area product (DAP) as a highresolution tool for QA of small field sizes as an alternative to more complex alternatives such as film or water tank scanning. Method: An 81 mm diameter PTW Bragg Peak parallel plate chamber was used in combination with an Iris variable circular aperture collimator fitted to a CyberKnife System and a vendor‐supplied alignment jig. The Iris collimator is designed to deliver field diameters between 5 mm and 60 mm, with a tolerance of ±0.2 mm. First the sensitivity of the chamber reading to influence parameters (SSD, angle misalignment, lateral displacement, output variation) was investigated. Next the dependency of DAP on field diameter was investigated. Finally the sensitivity of the method to detect small field size changes consistent with the device specification was evaluated. Comparisons were made with film and diode water scans using four CyberKnife systems and three chambers. Results: Expected variations in chamber position/orientation within the jig resulted in measurement changes <0.2%. Measurement variations due to LINAC output changes can be removed by normalising measurements to a fixed collimator reading obtained at the same time. The variation in chamber reading with field size followed a quadratic dependency over the 5mm ‐ 60mm range. The change in chamber reading associated with a 0.2 mm field diameter change ranged from 10% at 5 mm nominal to 0.5% at 60 mm, and was reasonably consistent across tests performed on four units. Measurements were more consistent than routine film tests, and were stable over two years. Conclusion: DAP provides a practical, efficient, robust, and sensitive method for routine QA of field aperture changes as small as ±0.2mm across the field size range 5 mm – 60 mm. The method may also have applications for QA of small fields formed by MLC.