Assessment of the setup dependence of detector response functions for mega-voltage linear accelerators.

PURPOSE

Accurate modeling of beam profiles is important for precise treatment planning dosimetry. Calculated beam profiles need to precisely replicate profiles measured during machine commissioning. Finite detector size introduces perturbations into the measured profiles, which, in turn, impact the resulting modeled profiles. The authors investigate a method for extracting the unperturbed beam profiles from those measured during linear accelerator commissioning.

METHODS

In-plane and cross-plane data were collected for an Elekta Synergy linac at 6 MV using ionization chambers of volume 0.01, 0.04, 0.13, and 0.65 cm3 and a diode of surface area 0.64 mm2. The detectors were orientated with the stem perpendicular to the beam and pointing away from the gantry. Profiles were measured for a 10 x 10 cm2 field at depths ranging from 0.8 to 25.0 cm and SSDs from 90 to 110 cm. Shaping parameters of a Gaussian response function were obtained relative to the Edge detector. The Gaussian function was deconvolved from the measured ionization chamber data. The Edge detector profile was taken as an approximation to the true profile, to which deconvolved data were compared. Data were also collected with CC13 and Edge detectors for additional fields and energies on an Elekta Synergy, Varian Trilogy, and Siemens Oncor linear accelerator and response functions obtained. Response functions were compared as a function of depth, SSD, and detector scan direction. Variations in the shaping parameter were introduced and the effect on the resulting deconvolution profiles assessed.

RESULTS

Up to 10% setup dependence in the Gaussian shaping parameter occurred, for each detector for a particular plane. This translated to less than a +/- 0.7 mm variation in the 80%-20% penumbral width. For large volume ionization chambers such as the FC65 Farmer type, where the cavity length to diameter ratio is far from 1, the scan direction produced up to a 40% difference in the shaping parameter between in-plane and cross-plane measurements. This is primarily due to the directional difference in penumbral width measured by the FC65 chamber, which can more than double in profiles obtained with the detector stem parallel compared to perpendicular to the scan direction. For the more symmetric CC13 chamber the variation was only 3% between in-plane and cross-plane measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors have shown that the detector response varies with detector type, depth, SSD, and detector scan direction. In-plane vs. cross-plane scanning can require calculation of a direction dependent response function. The effect of a 10% overall variation in the response function, for an ionization chamber, translates to a small deviation in the penumbra from that of the Edge detector measured profile when deconvolved. Due to the uncertainties introduced by deconvolution the Edge detector would be preferable in obtaining an approximation of the true profile, particularly for field sizes where the energy dependence of the diode can be neglected. However, an averaged response function could be utilized to provide a good approximation of the true profile for large ionization chambers and for larger fields for which diode detectors are not recommended.