Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl
Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
Wyniki wyszukiwania
Wyszukiwano:
w słowach kluczowych:  small fields
help Sortuj według:

help Ogranicz wyniki do:
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
EN
Purpose: Advanced radiation therapy techniques use small fields in treatment planning and delivery. Small fields have the advantage of more accurate dose delivery, but with the cost of some complications in dosimetry. Different dose calculation algorithms imported in various treatment planning systems (TPSs) which each of them has different accuracy. Monte Carlo (MC) simulation has been reported as one of the accurate methods for calculating dose distribution in radiation therapy. The aim of this study was the evaluation of TPS dose calculation algorithms in small fields against 2 MC codes. Methods: A linac head was simulated in 2 MC codes, MCNPX, and GATE. Then three small fields (0.5×0.5, 1×1 and 1.5×1.5 cm2) were simulated with 2 MC codes, and also these fields were planned with different dose calculation algorithms in Isogray and Monaco TPS. PDDs and lateral dose profiles were extracted and compared between MC simulations and dose calculation algorithms. Results: For 0.5×0.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 2.28, 4.6, 5.3, and 7.4% and with GATE were -0.29, 2.3, 3 and 5% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1×1 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 1.58, 0.6, 1.1 and 1.4% and with GATE were 0.77, 0.1, 0.6 and 0.9% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1.5×1.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 0.82, 0.4, 0.6 and -0.4% and with GATE were 2.38, 2.5, 2.7 and 1.7% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. Conclusions: Different dose calculation algorithms were evaluated and compared with MC simulation in small fields. Mean differences with MC simulation decreased with the increase of field sizes for all algorithms.
EN
Shielded silicon diodes are commonly employed in commissioning of Cyberknife 6 MV photon beams. This study aims to measure output factors, off centered ratio (OCR), percentage depth dose (PDD) of 6 MV photons using shielded and unshielded diodes and to compare with Gafchromic EBT3 film measurements to investigate whether EBT3 could effectively characterize small 6 MV photon beams. Output factors, OCR and PDD were measured with shielded and unshielded silicon detectors in a radiation field analyzer system at reference condition. Water equivalent solid phantom were used while irradiating EBT3 films. From multiuser data, diodes underestimated output factor by 3% for collimator fields ≤ 10 mm, while EBT3 underestimated the output factor by 3.9% for 5 mm collimator. 1D Gamma analysis of OCR between diode and film, results in gamma ≤ 1 for all measured points with 1 mm distance to agreement (DTA) and 1% relative dose difference (DD). Dose at surface is overestimated with diodes compared to EBT3. PDD results were within 2% relative dose values between diode and EBT3 except for 5 mm collimator. Except for small collimator fields of up to 10 mm, results of output factor, OCR, PDD of all detectors used in this study exhibited similar results. Relative dose measurements with Gafchromic EBT3 in this work show that EBT3 films can be used effectively as an independent tool to verify commissioning beam data of small fields only after careful verification of methodology for any systematic errors with appropriate readout procedure.
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.