Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:38:44.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study of enhanced dynamic wedge dosimetry using a 2D ion chamber array detector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2015

S. A. Syam Kumar ,
P. Aparna ,
P. T. Anjana ,
C. P. Aswathi  and
G. P. Sitha
S. A. Syam Kumar*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Physics, Malabar Cancer Centre, Thalassery, Kerala, India
P. Aparna
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Calicut, Thenhippalam, Kerala, India
P. T. Anjana
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Calicut, Thenhippalam, Kerala, India
C. P. Aswathi
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Calicut, Thenhippalam, Kerala, India
G. P. Sitha
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Calicut, Thenhippalam, Kerala, India
*
Correspondence to: Dr Surendran Nair Ambika Devi Syam Kumar, Department of Radiation Oncology, Malabar Cancer Centre, Thalasseri, Kerala, India. Tel: +91 9961443954; E-mail: skppm@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this work was to study the dosimetric properties of the enhanced dynamic wedge using a Seven29 ion chamber array. The PTW Seven29 ion chamber array and solid water phantoms were used for the study. Primarily, the solid water phantoms with the two-dimensional (2D) array were scanned using a computed tomography scanner at different depths. Using these scanned images, planning was performed for different wedge angles at 6 and 15 MV. A dose of 100 CGy was delivered in each case. For each delivery, the required monitoring units (MUs) were calculated. Using the same setup with a Varian Clinac iX, the calculated MU was delivered for different wedge angles. Subsequently, the different wedged dose distributions that had been obtained were analysed using Verisoft software. A shoulder-like region was observed in the profile; this region reduced as depth increased. The percentage deviation between the planned and measured doses at the shoulder region fell within the range of 0·9–4·3%. The standard deviation between planned and measured doses at shoulder region in the profile fell within 0·08±0·02 at different depths. The standard deviations between planned and measured wedge factors for different depths (2·5, 5, 10 and 15 cm) were 0·0021, 0·0007, 0·0050 and 0·0001 for 6 MV and 0·0024, 0·0191, 0·0013 and 0·0005 for 15 MV, respectively. On the basis of the studies that we performed, it can be concluded that the 2D ion chamber array is a good tool for enhanced dynamic wedge dosimetry.

Keywords

dose profileenhanced dynamic wedgesolid water phantomtreatment planning systemwedge factor2D array
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 394 - 402
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Ahmad, M, Hussain, A, Muhammad, W, Abbas, S Q, Matiullah, R. Studying wedge factors and beam profiles for physical and enhanced dynamic wedges. JMP 2009; 35: 35–40.Google Scholar
2.Kijewski, P Ket al. Wedge-shaped dose distribution by computer controlled collimator motion. Med Phys 1978; 5: 426–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Leavitt, D D, Martin, M, Moeller, J H, Lee, W L. Dynamic wedge field techniques through computer controlled collimator motion and dose delivery. Med Phys 1990; 17: 87–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Rutonjski, L, Kuzmanović, Z, Baucal, M, Petrović, B L, Teodorović, M. The quality assurance of Varian enhanced dynamic wedges using Daily QA Check 2. Arch Oncol 2008; 16: 7–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Chang, S X, Gibbons, J P. Clinical implementation of non-physical wedges. AAPM 1999; 1–13.Google Scholar
6.Salk, J, Blank, P, Machold, U, Rau, E, Schneider, E, Röttinger, E M. Department of Radiotherapy, University of Ulm, Germany. Physical aspects in the clinical implementation of the enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW). http://www.uni-ulm.de/~jsalk/edw/edw.pdfGoogle Scholar
7.Allahverdi, M, Mohammadkarim, A, Esfehani, M, Nedaie, H, Shirazi, A, Geraily, G. Evaluation of off-axis wedge correction factor using diode dosimeters for estimation of delivered dose in external radiotherapy. JMP 2011; 37: 32–39.Google Scholar
8.Robertson, T H, Webb, C T. Analysis of off-axis enhanced dynamic wedge dosimetry using a 2D array. http://cms.bsu.edu/academics/collegesanddepartments/physicsandastronomy/researchcommunity/studentresearchprojects (student research thesis from ball state university). 2008; 1–4.Google Scholar
9.Buzdar, S A, Khan, M A, Nazir, A, Gadhi, M A, Nizamani, A H, Saleem, H. Effect of change in orientation of enhanced dynamic wedges on radiotherapy treatment dose. IJART 2013; 2: 496–500.Google Scholar
10.Prado, K Let al. Enhanced dynamic wedge factors at off-axis points in asymmetric fields. J App Clin Med Phys 2003; 4: 75–84.Google ScholarPubMed
11.Popescu, A, Lai, K, Singer, K, Phillips, M. Wedge factor dependence with depth, field size, and nominal distances: a general computational rule. Med Phys 1999; 26: 541–549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Tailor, R C, Followill, D S, Hanson, W F. A first order approximation of field-size and depth dependence of wedge transmission. Med Phys 1998; 25: 241–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Liu, C, Li, Z, Palta, J R. Characterizing output for the Varian enhanced dynamic wedge field. Med Phys 1998; 25: 64–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Zhu, X R, Gillin, M T, Jursinic, P A, Lopez, F, Grimm, D F, Rownd, J J. Comparison of dosimetric characteristics of siemens virtual and physical wedges. Med Phys 2000; 26: 2267–2277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Palta, J R, Daftari, I, Suntharalingam, N. Field size dependence of wedge factors. Med Phys 1998; 15: 624–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Gibbons, J P. Calculation of enhanced dynamic wedge factors for symmetric and asymmetric photon fields. Med Phys 1998; 25: 1411–1418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Sehti, A, Leybovich, L B, Dogan, N, Glasgow, G P. Elimination of field size dependence of enhanced dynamic wedge factors. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45: 3359–3365.Google Scholar
18.Leavitt, D D, Lee, W L, Gaffney, D K, Moeller, J H, O’Rear, J H. Dosimetric parameters of enhanced dynamic wedge for treatment planning and verification. Med Dosim 1997; 22: 177–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.McCullough, E C, Gortney, J, Blackwell, R C. A depth dependence determination of wedge transmission factor for 4-10 MV photon beams. Med Phys 1998; 15: 621–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar