0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluating dosimetric accuracy of the 6 MV calibration on EBT3 film in the use of Ir‐192 high dose rate brachytherapy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          To evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of EBT3 film calibrated with a 6 MV beam for high dose rate brachytherapy and propose a novel method for direct film calibration with an Ir‐192 source.

          Methods

          The 6 MV calibration was performed in water on a linear accelerator (linac). The Ir‐192 calibration was accomplished by irradiating the film wrapped around a cylinder applicator with an Ir‐192 source. All films were scanned 1‐day post‐irradiation to acquire calibration curves for all three (red, blue, and green) channels. The Ir‐192 calibration films were also used for single‐dose comparison. Moreover, an independent test film under a H.A.M. applicator was irradiated and the 2D dose distribution was obtained separately for each calibration using the red channel data. Gamma analysis and point‐by‐point profile comparison were performed to evaluate the performance of both calibrations. The uncertainty budget for each calibration system was analyzed.

          Results

          The red channel had the best performance for both calibration systems in the single‐dose comparison. We found a significant 4.89% difference from the reference for doses <250 cGy using the 6 MV calibration, while the difference was only 0.87% for doses >600 cGy. Gamma analysis of the 2D dose distribution showed the Ir‐192 calibration had a higher passing rate of 91.9% for the 1 mm/2% criterion, compared to 83.5% for the 6 MV calibration. Most failing points were in the low‐dose region (<200 cGy). The point‐by‐point profile comparison reported a discrepancy of 2%–3.6% between the Ir‐192 and 6 MV calibrations in this low‐dose region. The linac‐ and Ir‐192‐based dosimetry systems had an uncertainty of 4.1% ( k = 2) and 5.66% ( k = 2), respectively.

          Conclusions

          Direct calibration of EBT3 films with an Ir‐192 source is feasible and reliable, while the dosimetric accuracy of 6 MV calibration depends on the dose range. The Ir‐192 calibration should be used when the measurement dose range is below 250 cGy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218.

          Patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are important components of processes designed to identify discrepancies between calculated and delivered radiation doses. Discrepancy tolerance limits are neither well defined nor consistently applied across centers. The AAPM TG-218 report provides a comprehensive review aimed at improving the understanding and consistency of these processes as well as recommendations for methodologies and tolerance limits in patient-specific IMRT QA.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 43. American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM.

              For commissioning a linear accelerator for clinical use, medical physicists are faced with many challenges including the need for precision, a variety of testing methods, data validation, the lack of standards, and time constraints. Since commissioning beam data are treated as a reference and ultimately used by treatment planning systems, it is vitally important that the collected data are of the highest quality to avoid dosimetric and patient treatment errors that may subsequently lead to a poor radiation outcome. Beam data commissioning should be performed with appropriate knowledge and proper tools and should be independent of the person collecting the data. To achieve this goal, Task Group 106 (TG-106) of the Therapy Physics Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine was formed to review the practical aspects as well as the physics of linear accelerator commissioning. The report provides guidelines and recommendations on the proper selection of phantoms and detectors, setting up of a phantom for data acquisition (both scanning and no-scanning data), procedures for acquiring specific photon and electron beam parameters and methods to reduce measurement errors (<1%), beam data processing and detector size convolution for accurate profiles. The TG-106 also provides a brief.discussion on the emerging trend in Monte Carlo simulation techniques in photon and electron beam commissioning. The procedures described in this report should assist a qualified medical physicist in either measuring a complete set of beam data, or in verifying a subset of data before initial use or for periodic quality assurance measurements. By combining practical experience with theoretical discussion, this document sets a new standard for beam data commissioning.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                lhuang1@northwell.edu
                Journal
                J Appl Clin Med Phys
                J Appl Clin Med Phys
                10.1002/(ISSN)1526-9914
                ACM2
                Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1526-9914
                28 February 2022
                May 2022
                : 23
                : 5 ( doiID: 10.1002/acm2.v23.5 )
                : e13571
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Radiation Medicine Center for Advanced Medicine Northwell Health New Hyde Park New York USA
                [ 2 ] Department of Radiation Medicine Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell New Hyde Park New York USA
                [ 3 ] Department of Physics and Astronomy Hofstra University Hempstead New York USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Lyu Huang, Department of Radiation Medicine, Center for Advanced Medicine, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY, 11042, USA.

                Email: lhuang1@ 123456northwell.edu

                Article
                ACM213571
                10.1002/acm2.13571
                9121041
                35226398
                65c06cb2-b734-4d38-b7c5-5fa664804409
                © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 05 February 2022
                : 23 September 2021
                : 07 February 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 9, Tables: 4, Pages: 14, Words: 8614
                Categories
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                May 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.6 mode:remove_FC converted:20.05.2022

                ebt3 film,film calibration,hdr brachytherapy,radiochromic film dosimetry

                Comments

                Comment on this article