A two-dimensional matrix correction for off-axis portal dose prediction errors.

PURPOSE

This study presents a follow-up to a modified calibration procedure for portal dosimetry published by Bailey et al. ["An effective correction algorithm for off-axis portal dosimetry errors," Med. Phys. 36, 4089-4094 (2009)]. A commercial portal dose prediction system exhibits disagreement of up to 15% (calibrated units) between measured and predicted images as off-axis distance increases. The previous modified calibration procedure accounts for these off-axis effects in most regions of the detecting surface, but is limited by the simplistic assumption of radial symmetry.

METHODS

We find that a two-dimensional (2D) matrix correction, applied to each calibrated image, accounts for off-axis prediction errors in all regions of the detecting surface, including those still problematic after the radial correction is performed. The correction matrix is calculated by quantitative comparison of predicted and measured images that span the entire detecting surface. The correction matrix was verified for dose-linearity, and its effectiveness was verified on a number of test fields. The 2D correction was employed to retrospectively examine 22 off-axis, asymmetric electronic-compensation breast fields, five intensity-modulated brain fields (moderate-high modulation) manipulated for far off-axis delivery, and 29 intensity-modulated clinical fields of varying complexity in the central portion of the detecting surface.

RESULTS

Employing the matrix correction to the off-axis test fields and clinical fields, predicted vs measured portal dose agreement improves by up to 15%, producing up to 10% better agreement than the radial correction in some areas of the detecting surface. Gamma evaluation analyses (3 mm, 3% global, 10% dose threshold) of predicted vs measured portal dose images demonstrate pass rate improvement of up to 75% with the matrix correction, producing pass rates that are up to 30% higher than those resulting from the radial correction technique alone. As in the 1D correction case, the 2D algorithm leaves the portal dosimetry process virtually unchanged in the central portion of the detector, and thus these correction algorithms are not needed for centrally located fields of moderate size (at least, in the case of 6 MV beam energy).

CONCLUSION

The 2D correction improves the portal dosimetry results for those fields for which the 1D correction proves insufficient, especially in the inplane, off-axis regions of the detector. This 2D correction neglects the relatively smaller discrepancies that may be caused by backscatter from nonuniform machine components downstream from the detecting layer.