Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T12:51:09.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dosimetric comparison of photon beam profile characteristics for different treatment parameters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Qurat-ul-ain Shamsi ,
Maria Atiq ,
Atia Atiq ,
Saeed Ahmad Buzdar ,
Khalid Iqbal  and
Muhammad Mazhar Iqbal
Qurat-ul-ain Shamsi*
Affiliation:
Physics Department, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan
Maria Atiq
Affiliation:
Physics Department, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan
Atia Atiq
Affiliation:
Physics Department, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan
Saeed Ahmad Buzdar
Affiliation:
Physics Department, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab, Pakistan
Khalid Iqbal
Affiliation:
Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan
Muhammad Mazhar Iqbal
Affiliation:
Nishtar Medical College Hospital, Multan, Pakistan
*
Correspondence to: Qurat-ul-ain Shamsi, Physics Department, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Punjab 63100, Pakistan. Tel: 0622875063. E-mail: annieshamsi86@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose

To deliver radiation doses with higher accuracy, radiation treatment through megavoltage photon beams from linear accelerators, is accepted widely for treating malignancies. Before calibrating the linear accelerators, it is essential to make a complete analysis of all photon beam profile parameters. The main objective of this exploration was to investigate the 6 and 15 MV photon beam profile characteristics to improve the accuracy of radiation treatment plans.

Methods

In this exploration, treatment parameters like depth, field size and beam energy were varied to observe their effect on dosimetric characteristics of beam profiles in a water phantom, generated by linear accelerator Varian Clinac.

Results

The results revealed that Dmax and Dmin decreased with increasing depth but increased with increasing field sizes. Both left and right penumbras increased with increasing depth, field size and energy. Homogeneity increased with field size but decreased with depth. Symmetry had no dependence on depth, energy and field size.

Conclusion

All the characteristics of photon beam dosimetry were analysed and the characteristics like homogeneity and symmetry measured by an ion chamber in a water phantom came within clinically acceptable level of 3 and 103%, respectively, thus fulfilled the requirements of standard linear accelerator specifications. This exploration can be extended to the determination of beam profile characteristics of electron and photon beams of other energies at various depths and field sizes for designing optimum treatment plans.

Keywords

6 and 15 MV photon beam profileshomogeneitylinear acceleratorsymmetry
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 444 - 450
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Deng, J, Feng, Y, Ma, C, Yin, F F. Novel technologies for improved treatment outcome and patient safety in cancer radiotherapy. BioMed Res Int 2016; 2016: Article ID 3016454.Google Scholar
2. Sahoo, S K, Mukharjee, R. Study on Variation of Quality Assurance data of a Linear Accelerator after Thirteen years Operation for Cancer Treatment. Euro J Pharm Med Res 2016; 3 (2): 177–180.Google Scholar
3. Fogliata, A, Garcia, R, Knoos, T et al. Definition of parameters for quality assurance of flattening filter free (FFF) photon beams in radiation therapy. Med. Phys 2012; 39: 6455–6464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Barnes, M P, Greer, P B. Time-resolved beam symmetry measurement for VMAT commissioning and quality assurance. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2016; 17 (2): 220–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Nath, R, Biggs, P J, Bova, F J et al. AAPM code of practice for radiotherapy accelerators: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Task Group No. 45. Med Phys 1994; 21 (7): 1093–1121.Google Scholar
6. Pathak, P, Mishra, P K, Singh, M, Mishra, P K. Analytical study of flatness and symmetry of electron beam with 2D array detectors. J Cancer Sci Ther 2015; 7: 294–301.Google Scholar
7. Klein, EE, Hanley, J, Bayouth, J et al. Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys. 2009; 36 (9): 4197–4212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Khan, F M, Gibbons, J P. Khan’s the Physics of Radiation Therapy. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2014.Google Scholar
9. Clivio, A, Nicolini, G, Vanetti, E, Fogliata, A, Cozzi, L. Commissioning and early experience with a new-generation low-energy linear accelerator with advanced delivery and imaging functionalities. Radiat Oncol 2011; 6: 129.Google Scholar
10. Xhafa, B, Mulaj, T, Hodolli, G, Nafezi, G. Dose distribution of photon beam by Siemens linear accelerator. Int J Med Phys Clin Eng Radiat Oncol 2014; 3: 67–70.Google Scholar
11. Shende, R, Gupta, G, Patel, G, Kumar, S. Commissioning of TrueBeamTM medical linear accelerator: quantitative and qualitative dosimetric analysis and comparison of flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter free (FFF) Beam. Int J Med Phys Clin Eng Radiat Oncol 2016; 5: 51–69.Google Scholar
12. Hussain, M, Rhoades, J. On beam quality and flatness of radiotherapy megavoltage photon beams. Australas Phy Eng Sci Med 2016; 39 (1): 135–145.Google Scholar
13. Das, I J, Cheng, C W, Watts, R J et al. Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM. Med Phys 2008; 35: 4186–4215.Google Scholar
14. Aletti, P. ed. Recommendations for a Quality Assurance Programme in External Radiotherapy: Report. Nancy, France: Garant Publishers, Centre Alexis Vautrin, 1995.Google Scholar
15. Kouloulias, V E, Poortmans, P, Antypas, C, Kappas, C, Sandilos, P. Field flatness and symmetry of photon beams: review of the current recommendations. Technol Health Care 2003; 11 (4): 283–288.Google Scholar
16. Galiano, E, Joly, T, Wiebe, F. Proposed definitions for isodose flatness and symmetry in clinical radiotherapy beams. Appl Radiat Isot 2004; 61 (6): 1361–1366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Zhang, Y, Feng, Y, Ming, X, Deng, J. Energy modulated photon radiotherapy: a Monte Carlo feasibility study. BioMed Res Int 2016; Article ID 7319843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Lopez, P O, Rajan, G, Podgorsak, E B. Radiation protection and safety in radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol Phys 2005; 549–609.Google Scholar