Cargando…
Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities
The purpose of this study is to compare performance of several dosimetric methods in heterogeneous phantoms irradiated by 6 and 18 MV beams. Monte Carlo (MC) calculations were used, along with two versions of Acuros XB, anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), EBT2 film, and MOSkin dosimeters. Percen...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690181/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26699322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i5.5589 |
_version_ | 1783279549645062144 |
---|---|
author | Alhakeem, Eyad A. AlShaikh, Sami Rosenfeld, Anatoly B. Zavgorodni, Sergei F. |
author_facet | Alhakeem, Eyad A. AlShaikh, Sami Rosenfeld, Anatoly B. Zavgorodni, Sergei F. |
author_sort | Alhakeem, Eyad A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The purpose of this study is to compare performance of several dosimetric methods in heterogeneous phantoms irradiated by 6 and 18 MV beams. Monte Carlo (MC) calculations were used, along with two versions of Acuros XB, anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), EBT2 film, and MOSkin dosimeters. Percent depth doses (PDD) were calculated and measured in three heterogeneous phantoms. The first two phantoms were a [Formula: see text] solid‐water slab that had an air‐gap of [Formula: see text]. The third phantom consisted of [Formula: see text] solid water slabs, two [Formula: see text] slabs of lung, and one [Formula: see text] solid water slab. Acuros XB, AAA, and MC calculations were within 1% in the regions with particle equilibrium. At media interfaces and buildup regions, differences between Acuros XB and MC were in the range of [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text]. MOSkin and EBT2 measurements agreed to MC calculations within [Formula: see text] , except for the first centimeter of buildup where differences of 4.5% were observed. AAA did not predict the backscatter dose from the high‐density heterogeneity. For the third, multilayer lung phantom, 6 MV beam PDDs calculated by all TPS algorithms were within 2% of MC. 18 MV PDDs calculated by two versions of Acuros XB and AAA differed from MC by up to 2.8%, 3.2%, and 6.8%, respectively. MOSkin and EBT2 each differed from MC by up to 2.9% and 2.5% for the 6 MV, and by [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for the 18 MV beams. All dosimetric techniques, except AAA, agreed within 3% in the regions with particle equilibrium. Differences between the dosimetric techniques were larger for the 18 MV than the 6 MV beam. MOSkin and EBT2 measurements were in a better agreement with MC than Acuros XB calculations at the interfaces, and they were in a better agreement to each other than to MC. The latter is due to their thinner detection layers compared to MC voxel sizes. PACS numbers: 87.55.K‐, 87.55.kd, 87.55.km, 87.53.Bn, 87.55.k |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5690181 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56901812018-04-02 Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities Alhakeem, Eyad A. AlShaikh, Sami Rosenfeld, Anatoly B. Zavgorodni, Sergei F. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The purpose of this study is to compare performance of several dosimetric methods in heterogeneous phantoms irradiated by 6 and 18 MV beams. Monte Carlo (MC) calculations were used, along with two versions of Acuros XB, anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), EBT2 film, and MOSkin dosimeters. Percent depth doses (PDD) were calculated and measured in three heterogeneous phantoms. The first two phantoms were a [Formula: see text] solid‐water slab that had an air‐gap of [Formula: see text]. The third phantom consisted of [Formula: see text] solid water slabs, two [Formula: see text] slabs of lung, and one [Formula: see text] solid water slab. Acuros XB, AAA, and MC calculations were within 1% in the regions with particle equilibrium. At media interfaces and buildup regions, differences between Acuros XB and MC were in the range of [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text]. MOSkin and EBT2 measurements agreed to MC calculations within [Formula: see text] , except for the first centimeter of buildup where differences of 4.5% were observed. AAA did not predict the backscatter dose from the high‐density heterogeneity. For the third, multilayer lung phantom, 6 MV beam PDDs calculated by all TPS algorithms were within 2% of MC. 18 MV PDDs calculated by two versions of Acuros XB and AAA differed from MC by up to 2.8%, 3.2%, and 6.8%, respectively. MOSkin and EBT2 each differed from MC by up to 2.9% and 2.5% for the 6 MV, and by [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for the 18 MV beams. All dosimetric techniques, except AAA, agreed within 3% in the regions with particle equilibrium. Differences between the dosimetric techniques were larger for the 18 MV than the 6 MV beam. MOSkin and EBT2 measurements were in a better agreement with MC than Acuros XB calculations at the interfaces, and they were in a better agreement to each other than to MC. The latter is due to their thinner detection layers compared to MC voxel sizes. PACS numbers: 87.55.K‐, 87.55.kd, 87.55.km, 87.53.Bn, 87.55.k John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5690181/ /pubmed/26699322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i5.5589 Text en © 2015 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Radiation Oncology Physics Alhakeem, Eyad A. AlShaikh, Sami Rosenfeld, Anatoly B. Zavgorodni, Sergei F. Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities |
title | Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities |
title_full | Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities |
title_fullStr | Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities |
title_short | Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities |
title_sort | comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690181/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26699322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i5.5589 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT alhakeemeyada comparativeevaluationofmoderndosimetrytechniquesnearlowandhighdensityheterogeneities AT alshaikhsami comparativeevaluationofmoderndosimetrytechniquesnearlowandhighdensityheterogeneities AT rosenfeldanatolyb comparativeevaluationofmoderndosimetrytechniquesnearlowandhighdensityheterogeneities AT zavgorodnisergeif comparativeevaluationofmoderndosimetrytechniquesnearlowandhighdensityheterogeneities |