Open AccessA comparison of methods for monitoring photon beam energy constancy
Author(s) -
Gao Song,
Balter Peter A.,
Rose Mark,
Simon William E.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1120/jacmp.v17i6.6454
Subject(s) - truebeam , flatness (cosmology) , optics , flattening , photon energy , physics , beam (structure) , ionization chamber , attenuation , range (aeronautics) , photon , scanner , energy (signal processing) , computational physics , linear particle accelerator , ionization , materials science , ion , cosmology , quantum mechanics , astronomy , composite material
In extension of a previous study, we compared several photon beam energy metrics to determine which was the most sensitive to energy change; in addition to those, we accounted for both the sensitivity of each metric and the uncertainty in determining that metric for both traditional flattening filter (FF) beams (4, 6, 8, and 10 MV) and for flattening filter‐free (FFF) beams (6 and 10 MV) on a Varian TrueBeam. We examined changes in these energy metrics when photon energies were changed to ± 5 % and ± 10 % from their nominal energies: 1) an attenuation‐based metric (the percent depth dose at 10 cm depth, PDD(10)) and, 2) profile‐based metrics, including flatness (Flat) and off‐axis ratios (OARs) measured on the orthogonal axes or on the diagonals (diagonal normalized flatness,F DN ). Profile‐based metrics were measured neard maxand also near 10 cm depth in water (using a 3D scanner) and with ionization chamber array (ICA). PDD(10) was measured only in water. Changes in PDD, OAR, andF DNwere nearly linear to the changes in the bend magnet current (BMI) over the range from − 10 % to +10% for both FF and FFF beams: a ± 10 % change in energy resulted in a ± 1.5 % change in PDD(10) for both FF and FFF beams, and changes in OAR andF DNwere > 3.0 % for FF beams and > 2.2 % for FFF beams. The uncertainty in determining PDD(10) was estimated to be 0.15% and that for OAR andF DNabout 0.07%. This resulted in minimally detectable changes in energy of 2.5% for PDD(10) and 0.5% for OAR andF DN . We found that the OAR‐ or FDN‐ based metrics were the best for detecting energy changes for both FF and FFF beams. The ability of the OAR‐based metrics determined with a water scanner to detect energy changes was equivalent to that using an ionization chamber array. We recommend that OAR be measured either on the orthogonal axes or the diagonals, using an ionization chamber array near the depth of maximum dose, as a sensitive and efficient way to confirm stability of photon beam energy. PACS number(s): 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc