Gao Song, Balter Peter A, Rose Mark, Simon William E
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016 Nov 8;17(6):242-253. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i6.6454.
In extension of a previous study, we compared several photon beam energy metrics to determine which was the most sensitive to energy change; in addition to those, we accounted for both the sensitivity of each metric and the uncertainty in determining that metric for both traditional flattening filter (FF) beams (4, 6, 8, and 10 MV) and for flattening filter-free (FFF) beams (6 and 10 MV) on a Varian TrueBeam. We examined changes in these energy metrics when photon energies were changed to ± 5% and ± 10% from their nominal energies: 1) an attenuation-based metric (the percent depth dose at 10 cm depth, PDD(10)) and, 2) profile-based metrics, including flatness (Flat) and off-axis ratios (OARs) measured on the orthogonal axes or on the diagonals (diagonal normalized flatness, FDN). Profile-based metrics were measured near dmax and also near 10 cm depth in water (using a 3D scanner) and with ioniza-tion chamber array (ICA). PDD(10) was measured only in water. Changes in PDD, OAR, and FDN were nearly linear to the changes in the bend magnet current (BMI) over the range from -10% to +10% for both FF and FFF beams: a ± 10% change in energy resulted in a ± 1.5% change in PDD(10) for both FF and FFF beams, and changes in OAR and FDN were > 3.0% for FF beams and > 2.2% for FFF beams. The uncertainty in determining PDD(10) was estimated to be 0.15% and that for OAR and FDN about 0.07%. This resulted in minimally detectable changes in energy of 2.5% for PDD(10) and 0.5% for OAR and FDN. We found that the OAR- or FDN- based metrics were the best for detecting energy changes for both FF and FFF beams. The ability of the OAR-based metrics determined with a water scanner to detect energy changes was equivalent to that using an ionization chamber array. We recommend that OAR be measured either on the orthogonal axes or the diagonals, using an ionization chamber array near the depth of maximum dose, as a sensitive and efficient way to confirm stability of photon beam energy.
在之前一项研究的拓展中,我们比较了几种光子束能量指标,以确定哪种指标对能量变化最敏感;除此之外,我们还考虑了每种指标的灵敏度以及在瓦里安TrueBeam直线加速器上确定传统均整滤过(FF)束(4、6、8和10兆伏)和无均整滤过(FFF)束(6和10兆伏)的该指标时的不确定性。我们研究了光子能量从其标称能量变化±5%和±10%时这些能量指标的变化情况:1)一种基于衰减的指标(10厘米深度处的百分深度剂量,PDD(10)),以及2)基于射野的指标,包括在正交轴或对角线上测量的平整度(Flat)和离轴比(OAR)(对角归一化平整度,FDN)。基于射野的指标在水中最大剂量深度(dmax)附近以及10厘米深度附近进行测量(使用三维扫描仪),并使用电离室阵列(ICA)进行测量。PDD(10)仅在水中测量。对于FF束和FFF束,在-10%至+10%的范围内,PDD、OAR和FDN的变化与弯转磁铁电流(BMI)的变化几乎呈线性关系:能量±10%的变化导致FF束和FFF束的PDD(10)变化±1.5%,FF束的OAR和FDN变化>3.0%,FFF束的变化>2.2%。确定PDD(10)的不确定性估计为0.15%,OAR和FDN的不确定性约为0.07%。这导致PDD(10)的最小可检测能量变化为2.5%,OAR和FDN为0.5%。我们发现基于OAR或FDN的指标对于检测FF束和FFF束的能量变化是最佳的。用水扫描仪确定的基于OAR的指标检测能量变化的能力与使用电离室阵列相当。我们建议在最大剂量深度附近使用电离室阵列在正交轴或对角线上测量OAR,作为确认光子束能量稳定性的一种灵敏且有效的方法。