Premium
SU‐E‐T‐506: Dosimetric Verification of Photon MLC Delivered Electron Fields for Implementing MERT On An Artiste Linac
Author(s) -
Jin L,
Eldib A,
Fan J,
Li J,
Wang L,
Ma C
Publication year - 2014
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 - 10.1118/1.4888839
Subject(s) - linear particle accelerator , imaging phantom , dosimetry , radiation treatment planning , nuclear medicine , monte carlo method , photon , physics , photon energy , materials science , cathode ray , electron , radiation therapy , optics , beam (structure) , medical physics , nuclear physics , medicine , mathematics , radiology , statistics
Purpose: To verify the dose accuracy of photon MLC delivered electron fields for implementing energy‐intensity modulated electron radiotherapy (MERT) on an Artiste linac. Methods: It was proposed to deliver MERT on an Artiste linac at a short SSD (60 cm) to reduce beam penumbra caused by electron scatters. An in‐house developed Monte Carlo (MC)‐based dose calculation/optimization planning code was used for treatment planning. Our previous study showed that the measured dose distribution of a breast plan showed good agreement with the calculations in low‐medium dose regions while the differences in high dose regions were outstanding. A continuous work found that the discrepancy is mainly caused by improper modeling in MC for the single focused MLC in the Artiste which was simplified as double focused in the previous MC simulations. With this remodeled MLC in the calculations, an energy‐intensity modulated electron plan using 6, 9, 12 and 15 MeV was generated for a breast treatment on a breast phantom at a 60 cm SSD and recalculated regarding a solid water phantom. For a test study, four of MLC segments (each with a different energy) generated in the plan were delivered to the phantom and a film measurement was performed at the depth of 2 cm. The measured 2D dose distribution was then compared with calculations. Results: For composite doses of the four segments, measured 2D dose distributions overall agree well with the calculations (3mm/3%) in most area. The separate measurement for a single MLC segment for each of energies also showed the consistence with the calculations. Conclusion: After remodeling MLC in the MC calculations, the measured dose distribution for a subset of MLC segments from a MERT plan showed good agreement. Further detailed verification for the full plan will be the work in the next step.