<p>To determine the optimum value of head scatter correction factor (<InlineEquation ID="IEq1"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\:{S}_{c}^{corr}\)</EquationSource> </InlineEquation>) used in Radcalc software. The head scatter factors for a selection of multi-leaf collimator fields were measured on a Varian TrueBeam Edge and TrueBeam linear accelerators using an ionisation chamber in a mini-phantom. Radcalc calculated the head scatter values for the same fields. Radcalc calculates head scatter as <InlineEquation ID="IEq2"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\:{S}_{c}=\:{S}_{c}^{mlc}+{S}_{c}^{corr}({S}_{c}^{open}-{S}_{c}^{mlc})\)</EquationSource> </InlineEquation>. The head scatter value from Radcalc was recorded when the value of <InlineEquation ID="IEq3"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\:{S}_{c}^{corr}\)</EquationSource> </InlineEquation> was set to 0 or 1. An optimum value of <InlineEquation ID="IEq4"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\:{S}_{c}^{corr}\)</EquationSource> </InlineEquation> was obtained by minimising the sum of the differences between measured and calculated. The optimum values of <InlineEquation ID="IEq5"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\:{S}_{c}^{corr}\)</EquationSource> </InlineEquation>, for each linear accelerator type, were applied to clinical patient volume modulated arc therapy calculations. Minimising the summed differences yielded optimum values of <InlineEquation ID="IEq6"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\:{S}_{c}^{corr}\)</EquationSource> </InlineEquation> of 0.149 and 0.276 for the TrueBeam Edge and the TrueBeam datasets respectively. Applying these values to 100 clinical patient volume modulated arc therapy plans, for each linear accelerator type, reduced the mean difference between the primary calculation and the independent check from 0.55 ± 0.95% (µ ± σ) to −0.11 ± 0.85% for the TrueBeam Edge and from 0.79 ± 1.16% to 0.24 ± 0.90% for the TrueBeam plans compared to when a generic Sc value of 0.675 was used. Using optimal values of <InlineEquation ID="IEq7"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\:{S}_{c}^{corr}\:\)</EquationSource> </InlineEquation>in Radcalc, determined by measurement, reduced the mean monitor unit difference when compared to the primary calculation of a treatment planning system compared to using the standard value of 0.675.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Measurement and application of the optimum value of head scatter correction factors in Radcalc for 6MV photon beams from varian linear accelerators

  • Neil Richmond,
  • Katie Chester,
  • Craig Macdougall

摘要

To determine the optimum value of head scatter correction factor ( \(\:{S}_{c}^{corr}\) ) used in Radcalc software. The head scatter factors for a selection of multi-leaf collimator fields were measured on a Varian TrueBeam Edge and TrueBeam linear accelerators using an ionisation chamber in a mini-phantom. Radcalc calculated the head scatter values for the same fields. Radcalc calculates head scatter as \(\:{S}_{c}=\:{S}_{c}^{mlc}+{S}_{c}^{corr}({S}_{c}^{open}-{S}_{c}^{mlc})\) . The head scatter value from Radcalc was recorded when the value of \(\:{S}_{c}^{corr}\) was set to 0 or 1. An optimum value of \(\:{S}_{c}^{corr}\) was obtained by minimising the sum of the differences between measured and calculated. The optimum values of \(\:{S}_{c}^{corr}\) , for each linear accelerator type, were applied to clinical patient volume modulated arc therapy calculations. Minimising the summed differences yielded optimum values of \(\:{S}_{c}^{corr}\) of 0.149 and 0.276 for the TrueBeam Edge and the TrueBeam datasets respectively. Applying these values to 100 clinical patient volume modulated arc therapy plans, for each linear accelerator type, reduced the mean difference between the primary calculation and the independent check from 0.55 ± 0.95% (µ ± σ) to −0.11 ± 0.85% for the TrueBeam Edge and from 0.79 ± 1.16% to 0.24 ± 0.90% for the TrueBeam plans compared to when a generic Sc value of 0.675 was used. Using optimal values of \(\:{S}_{c}^{corr}\:\) in Radcalc, determined by measurement, reduced the mean monitor unit difference when compared to the primary calculation of a treatment planning system compared to using the standard value of 0.675.