Premium
SU‐G‐TeP2‐03: Comparison of Standard Dosimetry Protocol in Japan and AAPM TG‐51 Addendum in Order to Establish Optimal Dosimetry for FFF Beam
Author(s) -
Matsunaga T,
Hayashi N,
Adachi Y,
Nozue M
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 - 10.1118/1.4957038
Subject(s) - dosimetry , truebeam , addendum , ionization chamber , beam (structure) , physics , laser beam quality , calibration , nuclear medicine , optics , ionization , linear particle accelerator , medicine , ion , laser , quantum mechanics , laser beams , political science , law
Purpose: Japan Standard Dosimetry of Absorbed dose to water in external beam radiotherapy (JSDP12) is widely used to measure radiation dose in radiotherapy. However, JSDP12 does not take flattening‐filter‐free (FFF) beam into consideration. In addition, JSDP12 applied TPR20,10 for dose quality index for photon beam. The purpose of this study is to compare JSDP12 with AAPM TG‐51 addendum in order to establish optimal dosimetry procedure for FFF beam. Method: We evaluated the ion‐recombination factor (ks) and the correction factor of radial beam profile (Prp) in FFF beam dosimetry. The ks was introduced by 2 voltages method and verified by Jaffe's plot. The Prp was given by both film measurement and calculation of treatment planning system, and compared them. Next, we compared the dose quality indexes (kQ) between TPR20,10 method and PDD(10)x method. Finally we considered optimal dosimetry protocol for FFF photon beam using JSDP12 with referring TG‐51 addendum protocols. The FFF photon beams of 6 MV (6X‐FFF) and 10 MV (10X‐FFF) from TrueBeam were investigated in this study. Results: The ks for 6X‐FFF and 10X‐FFF beams were 1.005 and 1.010, respectively. The Prp of 0.6 cc ionization chamber for 6X‐FFF and 10X‐FFF beams (Film, TPS) were (1.004, 1.008) and (1.005, 1.008), respectively. The kQ for 6X‐FFF and 10X‐FFF beams (JSDP12, TG‐51 addendum) were (0.9950, 0.9947) and (0.9851, 0.9845), respectively. The most effective factor for uncertainty in FFF photon beam measurement was Prp for JSDP12 formalism. Total dosimetric differences between JSDP12 and TG‐51 addendum for 6X‐FFF and 10X‐FFF were ‐0.47% and ‐0.73%, respectively. Conclusion: The total dosimetric difference between JSDP12 and TG‐51 addendum was within 1%. The introduction of kQ given by JSDP is feasible for FFF photon beam dosimetry. However, we think Prp should be considered for optimal dosimetry procedure even if JSDP12 is used for FFF photon beam dosimetry.