SU‐E‐T‐413: Dose Verification for Linac‐Based SRS Commissioning and Patient Specific QA

J. wu, Huanmei Wu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) program commissioning is currently relied on Radiological Physics Center (RPC) Head Neck phantom with Thermo Luminescent Dosimeters (TLDs) for dose verification. However, due to the limited accessibility of RPC Head Neck phantom, ongoing QA or patient specific dose verification is not performed in most clinics. In this study, we proposed an SRS dose verification approach for both SRS commissioning and patient specific dose verification with widely available clinical instruments. Methods: SRS treatment plans were imposed onto a 14cm thick conventional solid water phantom (30cm × 30cm), with a PTW micro‐chamber in the middle. Treatment couch angles were renormalized to 90 or 270 degrees for two reasons: 1) micro‐chamber's axis was parallel to gantry rotation axis during all the arc beam delivery, which minimizes the angle dependence effect (axis tilt) of micro‐chamber. 2) Any collision between the cone and conventional solid water phantom would be avoided and there would be minimum attenuation effect from the couch. The arc verification plan was then recalculated and compared to the measured absolute dose by PTW micro‐chamber. An End‐to‐End test with a CyberKnife Head Neck phantom and GAFChromic EBT2 film was utilized as secondary dose delivery verification. Results: Cones with all twelve different sizes in SRS commissioning were tested. For the cone size from 10mm to 30mm, the micro‐chamber measurements agreed with the computer calculations within 3%. However, when the cone size was reduced to 5mm, micro‐chamber measurement was 10% lower than planned dose, indicating underdose effect for small cone size. Additional measurements with Cyberknife head phantom confirmed the dose delivery accuracy was within 5%. Conclusions: A simple SRS dose verification method which only requires micro‐chamber and conventional solid water phantom has been presented and verified. This approach will be valuable for SRS commissioning and ongoing SRS QA.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume39
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2012

Fingerprint

Radiosurgery
Head
Physics
Water
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐T‐413 : Dose Verification for Linac‐Based SRS Commissioning and Patient Specific QA. / wu, J.; Wu, Huanmei.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 39, No. 6, 01.01.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{34e6208de06b474b88381f698f041e1d,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐413: Dose Verification for Linac‐Based SRS Commissioning and Patient Specific QA",
abstract = "Purpose: Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) program commissioning is currently relied on Radiological Physics Center (RPC) Head Neck phantom with Thermo Luminescent Dosimeters (TLDs) for dose verification. However, due to the limited accessibility of RPC Head Neck phantom, ongoing QA or patient specific dose verification is not performed in most clinics. In this study, we proposed an SRS dose verification approach for both SRS commissioning and patient specific dose verification with widely available clinical instruments. Methods: SRS treatment plans were imposed onto a 14cm thick conventional solid water phantom (30cm × 30cm), with a PTW micro‐chamber in the middle. Treatment couch angles were renormalized to 90 or 270 degrees for two reasons: 1) micro‐chamber's axis was parallel to gantry rotation axis during all the arc beam delivery, which minimizes the angle dependence effect (axis tilt) of micro‐chamber. 2) Any collision between the cone and conventional solid water phantom would be avoided and there would be minimum attenuation effect from the couch. The arc verification plan was then recalculated and compared to the measured absolute dose by PTW micro‐chamber. An End‐to‐End test with a CyberKnife Head Neck phantom and GAFChromic EBT2 film was utilized as secondary dose delivery verification. Results: Cones with all twelve different sizes in SRS commissioning were tested. For the cone size from 10mm to 30mm, the micro‐chamber measurements agreed with the computer calculations within 3{\%}. However, when the cone size was reduced to 5mm, micro‐chamber measurement was 10{\%} lower than planned dose, indicating underdose effect for small cone size. Additional measurements with Cyberknife head phantom confirmed the dose delivery accuracy was within 5{\%}. Conclusions: A simple SRS dose verification method which only requires micro‐chamber and conventional solid water phantom has been presented and verified. This approach will be valuable for SRS commissioning and ongoing SRS QA.",
author = "J. wu and Huanmei Wu",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1118/1.4735502",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐413

T2 - Dose Verification for Linac‐Based SRS Commissioning and Patient Specific QA

AU - wu, J.

AU - Wu, Huanmei

PY - 2012/1/1

Y1 - 2012/1/1

N2 - Purpose: Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) program commissioning is currently relied on Radiological Physics Center (RPC) Head Neck phantom with Thermo Luminescent Dosimeters (TLDs) for dose verification. However, due to the limited accessibility of RPC Head Neck phantom, ongoing QA or patient specific dose verification is not performed in most clinics. In this study, we proposed an SRS dose verification approach for both SRS commissioning and patient specific dose verification with widely available clinical instruments. Methods: SRS treatment plans were imposed onto a 14cm thick conventional solid water phantom (30cm × 30cm), with a PTW micro‐chamber in the middle. Treatment couch angles were renormalized to 90 or 270 degrees for two reasons: 1) micro‐chamber's axis was parallel to gantry rotation axis during all the arc beam delivery, which minimizes the angle dependence effect (axis tilt) of micro‐chamber. 2) Any collision between the cone and conventional solid water phantom would be avoided and there would be minimum attenuation effect from the couch. The arc verification plan was then recalculated and compared to the measured absolute dose by PTW micro‐chamber. An End‐to‐End test with a CyberKnife Head Neck phantom and GAFChromic EBT2 film was utilized as secondary dose delivery verification. Results: Cones with all twelve different sizes in SRS commissioning were tested. For the cone size from 10mm to 30mm, the micro‐chamber measurements agreed with the computer calculations within 3%. However, when the cone size was reduced to 5mm, micro‐chamber measurement was 10% lower than planned dose, indicating underdose effect for small cone size. Additional measurements with Cyberknife head phantom confirmed the dose delivery accuracy was within 5%. Conclusions: A simple SRS dose verification method which only requires micro‐chamber and conventional solid water phantom has been presented and verified. This approach will be valuable for SRS commissioning and ongoing SRS QA.

AB - Purpose: Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) program commissioning is currently relied on Radiological Physics Center (RPC) Head Neck phantom with Thermo Luminescent Dosimeters (TLDs) for dose verification. However, due to the limited accessibility of RPC Head Neck phantom, ongoing QA or patient specific dose verification is not performed in most clinics. In this study, we proposed an SRS dose verification approach for both SRS commissioning and patient specific dose verification with widely available clinical instruments. Methods: SRS treatment plans were imposed onto a 14cm thick conventional solid water phantom (30cm × 30cm), with a PTW micro‐chamber in the middle. Treatment couch angles were renormalized to 90 or 270 degrees for two reasons: 1) micro‐chamber's axis was parallel to gantry rotation axis during all the arc beam delivery, which minimizes the angle dependence effect (axis tilt) of micro‐chamber. 2) Any collision between the cone and conventional solid water phantom would be avoided and there would be minimum attenuation effect from the couch. The arc verification plan was then recalculated and compared to the measured absolute dose by PTW micro‐chamber. An End‐to‐End test with a CyberKnife Head Neck phantom and GAFChromic EBT2 film was utilized as secondary dose delivery verification. Results: Cones with all twelve different sizes in SRS commissioning were tested. For the cone size from 10mm to 30mm, the micro‐chamber measurements agreed with the computer calculations within 3%. However, when the cone size was reduced to 5mm, micro‐chamber measurement was 10% lower than planned dose, indicating underdose effect for small cone size. Additional measurements with Cyberknife head phantom confirmed the dose delivery accuracy was within 5%. Conclusions: A simple SRS dose verification method which only requires micro‐chamber and conventional solid water phantom has been presented and verified. This approach will be valuable for SRS commissioning and ongoing SRS QA.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024792925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024792925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4735502

DO - 10.1118/1.4735502

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024792925

VL - 39

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -