Premium
SU‐E‐T‐276: Dose Calculation Accuracy with a Standard Beam Model for Extended SSD Treatments
Author(s) -
Kisling K,
Court L,
Kirsner S,
Nelson C
Publication year - 2015
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 - 10.1118/1.4924638
Subject(s) - beam (structure) , imaging phantom , physics , field size , standard deviation , ionization chamber , computational physics , point (geometry) , field (mathematics) , optics , ionization , mathematics , statistics , geometry , ion , quantum mechanics , pure mathematics
Purpose: While most photon treatments are delivered near 100cm SSD or less, a subset of patients may benefit from treatment at SSDs greater than 100cm. A proposed rotating chair for upright treatments would enable isocentric treatments at extended SSDs. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of the Pinnacle 3 treatment planning system dose calculation for standard beam geometries delivered at extended SSDs with a beam model commissioned at 100cm SSD. Methods: Dose to a water phantom at 100, 110, and 120cm SSD was calculated with the Pinnacle 3 CC convolve algorithm for 6x beams for 5×5, 10×10, 20×20, and 30×30cm 2 field sizes (defined at the water surface for each SSD). PDDs and profiles (depths of 1.5, 12.5, and 22cm) were compared to measurements in water with an ionization chamber. Point‐by‐point agreement was analyzed, as well as agreement in field size defined by the 50% isodose. Results: The deviations of the calculated PDDs from measurement, analyzed from depth of maximum dose to 23cm, were all within 1.3% for all beam geometries. In particular, the calculated PDDs at 10cm depth were all within 0.7% of measurement. For profiles, the deviations within the central 80% of the field were within 2.2% for all geometries. The field sizes all agreed within 2mm. Conclusion: The agreement of the PDDs and profiles calculated by Pinnacle3 for extended SSD geometries were within the acceptability criteria defined by Van Dyk (±2% for PDDs and ±3% for profiles). The accuracy of the calculation of more complex beam geometries at extended SSDs will be investigated to further assess the feasibility of using a standard beam model commissioned at 100cm SSD in Pinnacle3 for extended SSD treatments.