Correction factors for ionization chamber dosimetry in CyberKnife: machine-specific, plan-class, and clinical fields.
Słowa kluczowe
Abstrakcyjny
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this work is the application of the formalism for ionization chamber reference dosimetry of small and nonstandard fields [R. Alfonso, P. Andreo, R. Capote, M. S. Huq, W. Kilby, P. Kjäll, T. R. Mackie, H. Palmans, K. Rosser, J. Seuntjens, W. Ullrich, and S. Vatnitsky, "A new formalism for reference dosimetry of small and nonstandard fields," Med. Phys. 35, 5179-5186 (2008)] to the CyberKnife robotic radiosurgery system. Correction factors for intermediate calibration fields, a machine-specific reference field (msr) and two plan-class specific reference fields (pcsr), have been studied. Furthermore, the applicability of the new formalism to clinical dosimetry has been analyzed through the investigation of two clinical treatments.
METHODS
PTW31014 and Scanditronix-Wellhofer CC13 ionization chamber measurements were performed for the fields under investigation. Absorbed dose to water was determined using alanine reference dosimetry, and experimental correction factors were calculated from alanine to ionization chamber readings ratios. In addition, correction factors were calculated for the intermediate calibration fields and one of the clinical treatment fields using the Monte Carlo method and these were compared with the experimental values.
RESULTS
Overall correction factors deviating from unity by approximately 2% were obtained from both measurements and simulations, with values below and above unity for the studied intermediate calibration fields and clinical fields for the ionization chambers under consideration. Monte Carlo simulations yielded correction factors comparable with those obtained from measurements for the machine-specific reference field, although differences from 1% to 3.3% were observed between measured and calculated correction factors for the composite intermediate calibration fields. Dose distribution inhomogeneities are thought to be responsible for such discrepancies.
CONCLUSIONS
The differences found between overall correction factors associated with the proposed intermediate calibration fields and the clinical fields under investigation show that depending on the clinical field and the detector used, either a machine-specific reference field or a plan-class specific reference field is more representative for the clinical field. Given the experimental and numerical uncertainties and the small number of clinical fields considered in this study the significance of these observations is limited and it remains unclear for the CyberKnife if there would be a significant gain in using a pcsr field rather than a msr field as reference field for relative dosimetry.
