Quantification of beam steering with an ionization chamber array

Routine quality assurance for linear accelerators (linacs) usually involves verification of beam steering with a water scanning system. We established a beam steering procedure that uses a 2D ionization chamber array (ICA) and verified the equivalence of beam symmetry between the ICA and a water sca...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2018-05, Vol.19 (3), p.168-176
Hauptverfasser: Gao, Song, Balter, Peter A., Tran, Benjamin, Rose, Mark, Simon, William E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 176
container_issue 3
container_start_page 168
container_title Journal of applied clinical medical physics
container_volume 19
creator Gao, Song
Balter, Peter A.
Tran, Benjamin
Rose, Mark
Simon, William E.
description Routine quality assurance for linear accelerators (linacs) usually involves verification of beam steering with a water scanning system. We established a beam steering procedure that uses a 2D ionization chamber array (ICA) and verified the equivalence of beam symmetry between the ICA and a water scanning system. The ICA calibration accuracy, reproducibility and stability were evaluated and the uncertainty in the measurement of beam symmetry due to the array calibration was examined. Forty‐five photon beams and 80 electron beams across 7 Varian C‐series and 4 TrueBeam linacs were steered in the radial and transverse directions using an ICA. After beam steering, profiles were re‐measured using the ICA and in‐water using a 3D Scanner (3DS). Beam symmetries measured with the ICA and 3DS were compared by (a) calculating the difference in point‐by‐point symmetry, (b) plotting the histogram distribution of the symmetry differences, and (c) comparing ICA and 3DS differences with their respective Varian symmetry protocol analysis. Array calibrations from five different occurrences (2012 to 2016) over six different beams reproduced within 0.5%. The uncertainty in beam symmetry was less than 0.5% due to the uncertainties in the array calibration. After all beams were steered using the ICA, the point‐by‐point symmetry differences between ICA and 3DS at the off‐axis positions of 20% and 80% of field size for all beam profiles indicated that 95% of point‐by‐point symmetry comparisons agreed within 0.7%, and 100% agreed within 1.0%; after steering with the ICA 97.8% of photon beam profiles (88 of 90) and 97.5% of electron beam profiles (156 of 160) had symmetry within 1% when measured with the 3DS. All photon and electron beam profiles had symmetry within 1.1% and 1.2%, respectively, for profiles measured with the 3DS. Our data demonstrate that a calibrated ICA can be used to steer photon and electron beams achieving beam symmetry within 1% when re‐measured with a 3D water scanning system.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/acm2.12315
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2018670692</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2018670692</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3935-822dde1441780a631cf7dc8142ed1907f6fda340c8c245ebb4f2cff37249cf353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90F1LwzAUBuAgipvTG3-AFLwRoTMnSZvmzjH8gokIeh3SNHEZazuTljF_vZ2dIl54dQ6ch5fDi9Ap4DFgTK6ULskYCIVkDw0hIWksBLD9X_sAHYWwwBggo9khGhCRcJ7wbIiun1tVNc46rRpXV1Fto9yoMgqNMd5Vb9HaNfNIVVF3dB-90XNV5sZHynu1OUYHVi2DOdnNEXq9vXmZ3sezp7uH6WQWaypoEmeEFIUBxoBnWKUUtOWFzoARU4DA3Ka2UJRhnWnCEpPnzBJtLeWECW1pQkfoos9d-fq9NaGRpQvaLJeqMnUbJMGQpRyngnT0_A9d1K2vuu8kIWnKBAfOOnXZK-3rELyxcuVdqfxGApbbXuW2V_nVa4fPdpFtXprih34X2QHowdotzeafKDmZPpI-9BP_p4Cn</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2266497174</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quantification of beam steering with an ionization chamber array</title><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Gao, Song ; Balter, Peter A. ; Tran, Benjamin ; Rose, Mark ; Simon, William E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Gao, Song ; Balter, Peter A. ; Tran, Benjamin ; Rose, Mark ; Simon, William E.</creatorcontrib><description>Routine quality assurance for linear accelerators (linacs) usually involves verification of beam steering with a water scanning system. We established a beam steering procedure that uses a 2D ionization chamber array (ICA) and verified the equivalence of beam symmetry between the ICA and a water scanning system. The ICA calibration accuracy, reproducibility and stability were evaluated and the uncertainty in the measurement of beam symmetry due to the array calibration was examined. Forty‐five photon beams and 80 electron beams across 7 Varian C‐series and 4 TrueBeam linacs were steered in the radial and transverse directions using an ICA. After beam steering, profiles were re‐measured using the ICA and in‐water using a 3D Scanner (3DS). Beam symmetries measured with the ICA and 3DS were compared by (a) calculating the difference in point‐by‐point symmetry, (b) plotting the histogram distribution of the symmetry differences, and (c) comparing ICA and 3DS differences with their respective Varian symmetry protocol analysis. Array calibrations from five different occurrences (2012 to 2016) over six different beams reproduced within 0.5%. The uncertainty in beam symmetry was less than 0.5% due to the uncertainties in the array calibration. After all beams were steered using the ICA, the point‐by‐point symmetry differences between ICA and 3DS at the off‐axis positions of 20% and 80% of field size for all beam profiles indicated that 95% of point‐by‐point symmetry comparisons agreed within 0.7%, and 100% agreed within 1.0%; after steering with the ICA 97.8% of photon beam profiles (88 of 90) and 97.5% of electron beam profiles (156 of 160) had symmetry within 1% when measured with the 3DS. All photon and electron beam profiles had symmetry within 1.1% and 1.2%, respectively, for profiles measured with the 3DS. Our data demonstrate that a calibrated ICA can be used to steer photon and electron beams achieving beam symmetry within 1% when re‐measured with a 3D water scanning system.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12315</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29577578</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; beam steering ; beam symmetry ; Calibration ; Data smoothing ; ionization chamber array ; quality assurance ; Quality control ; Scanners ; Sensors ; Software ; Symmetry</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018-05, Vol.19 (3), p.168-176</ispartof><rights>2018 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><rights>2018 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><rights>2018. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3935-822dde1441780a631cf7dc8142ed1907f6fda340c8c245ebb4f2cff37249cf353</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3935-822dde1441780a631cf7dc8142ed1907f6fda340c8c245ebb4f2cff37249cf353</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Facm2.12315$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Facm2.12315$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,1411,11541,27901,27902,45550,45551,46027,46451</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29577578$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gao, Song</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balter, Peter A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tran, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rose, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, William E.</creatorcontrib><title>Quantification of beam steering with an ionization chamber array</title><title>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</title><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><description>Routine quality assurance for linear accelerators (linacs) usually involves verification of beam steering with a water scanning system. We established a beam steering procedure that uses a 2D ionization chamber array (ICA) and verified the equivalence of beam symmetry between the ICA and a water scanning system. The ICA calibration accuracy, reproducibility and stability were evaluated and the uncertainty in the measurement of beam symmetry due to the array calibration was examined. Forty‐five photon beams and 80 electron beams across 7 Varian C‐series and 4 TrueBeam linacs were steered in the radial and transverse directions using an ICA. After beam steering, profiles were re‐measured using the ICA and in‐water using a 3D Scanner (3DS). Beam symmetries measured with the ICA and 3DS were compared by (a) calculating the difference in point‐by‐point symmetry, (b) plotting the histogram distribution of the symmetry differences, and (c) comparing ICA and 3DS differences with their respective Varian symmetry protocol analysis. Array calibrations from five different occurrences (2012 to 2016) over six different beams reproduced within 0.5%. The uncertainty in beam symmetry was less than 0.5% due to the uncertainties in the array calibration. After all beams were steered using the ICA, the point‐by‐point symmetry differences between ICA and 3DS at the off‐axis positions of 20% and 80% of field size for all beam profiles indicated that 95% of point‐by‐point symmetry comparisons agreed within 0.7%, and 100% agreed within 1.0%; after steering with the ICA 97.8% of photon beam profiles (88 of 90) and 97.5% of electron beam profiles (156 of 160) had symmetry within 1% when measured with the 3DS. All photon and electron beam profiles had symmetry within 1.1% and 1.2%, respectively, for profiles measured with the 3DS. Our data demonstrate that a calibrated ICA can be used to steer photon and electron beams achieving beam symmetry within 1% when re‐measured with a 3D water scanning system.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>beam steering</subject><subject>beam symmetry</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Data smoothing</subject><subject>ionization chamber array</subject><subject>quality assurance</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Scanners</subject><subject>Sensors</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Symmetry</subject><issn>1526-9914</issn><issn>1526-9914</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp90F1LwzAUBuAgipvTG3-AFLwRoTMnSZvmzjH8gokIeh3SNHEZazuTljF_vZ2dIl54dQ6ch5fDi9Ap4DFgTK6ULskYCIVkDw0hIWksBLD9X_sAHYWwwBggo9khGhCRcJ7wbIiun1tVNc46rRpXV1Fto9yoMgqNMd5Vb9HaNfNIVVF3dB-90XNV5sZHynu1OUYHVi2DOdnNEXq9vXmZ3sezp7uH6WQWaypoEmeEFIUBxoBnWKUUtOWFzoARU4DA3Ka2UJRhnWnCEpPnzBJtLeWECW1pQkfoos9d-fq9NaGRpQvaLJeqMnUbJMGQpRyngnT0_A9d1K2vuu8kIWnKBAfOOnXZK-3rELyxcuVdqfxGApbbXuW2V_nVa4fPdpFtXprih34X2QHowdotzeafKDmZPpI-9BP_p4Cn</recordid><startdate>201805</startdate><enddate>201805</enddate><creator>Gao, Song</creator><creator>Balter, Peter A.</creator><creator>Tran, Benjamin</creator><creator>Rose, Mark</creator><creator>Simon, William E.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201805</creationdate><title>Quantification of beam steering with an ionization chamber array</title><author>Gao, Song ; Balter, Peter A. ; Tran, Benjamin ; Rose, Mark ; Simon, William E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3935-822dde1441780a631cf7dc8142ed1907f6fda340c8c245ebb4f2cff37249cf353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>beam steering</topic><topic>beam symmetry</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Data smoothing</topic><topic>ionization chamber array</topic><topic>quality assurance</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Scanners</topic><topic>Sensors</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Symmetry</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gao, Song</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balter, Peter A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tran, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rose, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, William E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gao, Song</au><au>Balter, Peter A.</au><au>Tran, Benjamin</au><au>Rose, Mark</au><au>Simon, William E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quantification of beam steering with an ionization chamber array</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</jtitle><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><date>2018-05</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>168</spage><epage>176</epage><pages>168-176</pages><issn>1526-9914</issn><eissn>1526-9914</eissn><abstract>Routine quality assurance for linear accelerators (linacs) usually involves verification of beam steering with a water scanning system. We established a beam steering procedure that uses a 2D ionization chamber array (ICA) and verified the equivalence of beam symmetry between the ICA and a water scanning system. The ICA calibration accuracy, reproducibility and stability were evaluated and the uncertainty in the measurement of beam symmetry due to the array calibration was examined. Forty‐five photon beams and 80 electron beams across 7 Varian C‐series and 4 TrueBeam linacs were steered in the radial and transverse directions using an ICA. After beam steering, profiles were re‐measured using the ICA and in‐water using a 3D Scanner (3DS). Beam symmetries measured with the ICA and 3DS were compared by (a) calculating the difference in point‐by‐point symmetry, (b) plotting the histogram distribution of the symmetry differences, and (c) comparing ICA and 3DS differences with their respective Varian symmetry protocol analysis. Array calibrations from five different occurrences (2012 to 2016) over six different beams reproduced within 0.5%. The uncertainty in beam symmetry was less than 0.5% due to the uncertainties in the array calibration. After all beams were steered using the ICA, the point‐by‐point symmetry differences between ICA and 3DS at the off‐axis positions of 20% and 80% of field size for all beam profiles indicated that 95% of point‐by‐point symmetry comparisons agreed within 0.7%, and 100% agreed within 1.0%; after steering with the ICA 97.8% of photon beam profiles (88 of 90) and 97.5% of electron beam profiles (156 of 160) had symmetry within 1% when measured with the 3DS. All photon and electron beam profiles had symmetry within 1.1% and 1.2%, respectively, for profiles measured with the 3DS. Our data demonstrate that a calibrated ICA can be used to steer photon and electron beams achieving beam symmetry within 1% when re‐measured with a 3D water scanning system.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>29577578</pmid><doi>10.1002/acm2.12315</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1526-9914
ispartof Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018-05, Vol.19 (3), p.168-176
issn 1526-9914
1526-9914
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2018670692
source Wiley Online Library Open Access; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central
subjects Accuracy
beam steering
beam symmetry
Calibration
Data smoothing
ionization chamber array
quality assurance
Quality control
Scanners
Sensors
Software
Symmetry
title Quantification of beam steering with an ionization chamber array
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T06%3A01%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quantification%20of%20beam%20steering%20with%20an%20ionization%20chamber%20array&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20clinical%20medical%20physics&rft.au=Gao,%20Song&rft.date=2018-05&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=168&rft.epage=176&rft.pages=168-176&rft.issn=1526-9914&rft.eissn=1526-9914&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/acm2.12315&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2018670692%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2266497174&rft_id=info:pmid/29577578&rfr_iscdi=true