Premium
SU‐F‐T‐582: Small Field Dosimetry in Radiosurgery Collimators with a Stealth Chamber
Author(s) -
Azcona J,
Barbes B
Publication year - 2016
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 - 10.1118/1.4956767
Subject(s) - collimator , dosimetry , imaging phantom , radiosurgery , ionization chamber , linear particle accelerator , optics , diode , nuclear medicine , physics , materials science , aperture (computer memory) , beam (structure) , optoelectronics , medicine , radiation therapy , acoustics , ion , quantum mechanics , ionization
Purpose: The extraction of a reference signal for measuring small fields in scanning mode can be problematic. In this work we describe the use of a transmission chamber in small field dosimetry for radiosurgery collimators and compare TMR curves obtained with stereotactic diode and microionization chamber. Methods: Four radiosurgery cones of diameters 5, 10, 12.5, and 15mm supplied by Elekta Medical were commissioned in a 6MV FFF beam from an Elekta Versa linac. A transmission chamber manufactured by IBA (Stealth chamber) was attached to the lower part of the collimators and used for PDD and profile measurements in scanning mode with a Scanditronix stereotactic diode. It was also used for centering the stereotactic diode in the water tank to measure TMR and output factors, by integrating the signal. TMR measurements for all collimators and the OF for the largest collimator were also acquired on a polystyrene PTW 29672 phantom with a PTW PinPoint 3D chamber 0.016 cm3 volume. Results: Measured TMR with diode and microionization chamber agreed very well with differences larger than 1% only for depths above 15cm, except the smaller collimator, for which differences were always smaller than 2%. Calculated TMR were significantly different (up to 7%) from measured TMR. The differences are attributed to the change in response of the diode with depth, because the effective field aperture varies with depth. Furthermore, neglecting the ratio of phantom‐scatter factors in the conversion formula also contributes to this difference. OF measured with diode and chamber showed a difference of 3.5%. Conclusion: The transmission chamber overcomes the problem of extracting a reference signal and is of great help for small field commissioning. Calculating TMR from PDD is strongly discouraged. Good agreement was found when comparing measurements of TMR with stereotactic diode in water with measurements with microionization chamber in polystyrene.