A multi‐institutional evaluation of small field output factor determination following the recommendations of IAEA/AAPM TRS‐483
Purpose The aim of this work was to test the implementation of small field dosimetry following TRS‐483 and to develop quality assurance procedures for the experimental determination of small field output factors (SFOFs). Materials and methods Twelve different centers provided SFOFs determined with v...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Medical physics (Lancaster) 2022-08, Vol.49 (8), p.5537-5550 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 5550 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 5537 |
container_title | Medical physics (Lancaster) |
container_volume | 49 |
creator | Lechner, Wolfgang Alfonso, Rodolfo Arib, Mehenna Huq, M. Saiful Ismail, Anas Kinhikar, Rajesh Lárraga‐Gutiérrez, José M. Mani, Karthick Raj Maphumulo, Nkosingiphile Sauer, Otto A Shoeir, Shaima Suriyapee, Sivalee Christaki, Karen |
description | Purpose
The aim of this work was to test the implementation of small field dosimetry following TRS‐483 and to develop quality assurance procedures for the experimental determination of small field output factors (SFOFs).
Materials and methods
Twelve different centers provided SFOFs determined with various detectors. Various linac models using the beam qualities 6 MV and 10 MV with flattening filter and without flattening filter were utilized to generate square fields down to a nominal field size of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm. The detectors were positioned at 10 cm depth in water. Depending on the local situation, the source‐to‐surface distance was either set to 90 cm or 100 cm. The SFOFs were normalized to the output of the 10 cm × 10 cm field. The spread of SFOFs measured with different detectors was investigated for each individual linac beam quality and field size. Additionally, linac‐type specific SFOF curves were determined for each beam quality and the SFOFs determined using individual detectors were compared to these curves. Example uncertainty budgets were established for a solid state detector and a micro ionization chamber.
Results
The spread of SFOFs for each linac and field was below 5% for all field sizes. With the exception of one linac‐type, the SFOFs of all investigated detectors agreed within 10% with the respective linac‐type SFOF curve, indicating a potential inter‐detector and inter‐linac variability.
Conclusion
Quality assurance on the SFOF measurements can be done by investigation of the spread of SFOFs measured with multiple detectors and by comparison to linac‐type specific SFOFs. A follow‐up of a measurement session should be conducted if the spread of SFOFs is larger than 5%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 2 cm × 2 cm, respectively. Additionally, deviations of measured SFOFs to the linac‐type‐curves of more than 7%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 1 cm × 1 cm, respectively, should be followed up. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/mp.15797 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2678424101</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2678424101</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3327-4643f83b5ca0d765c4af1fdb6cb09ba240989ff8a036fade4e99dcb66cce89a93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10M1KAzEQB_AgCtYq-Ag5elmb3WQ_clxK1UKLRet5yWYTjSSbNclaehOfwGf0SWy7gidPwzA_Zpg_AJcxuo4RSiamu47TnOZHYJSQHEckQfQYjBCiJEoISk_BmfevCKEMp2gEPktoeh3U98eXan1QoQ_KtkxD8c50z_YNtBJ6w7SGUgndQNuHrg9QMh6sg40IwhnVDlRare1Gtc8wvAjoBLfGiLY5DP1-0byclZOyXC3h-uFxd5QU-BycSKa9uPitY_B0M1tP76LF_e18Wi4ijnGSRyQjWBa4TjlDTZ6lnDAZy6bOeI1ozXa_0YJKWTCEM8kaQQSlDa-zjHNRUEbxGFwNeztn33rhQ2WU50Jr1grb-yrJ8oIkJEbxH-XOeu-ErDqnDHPbKkbVPubKdNUh5h2NBrpRWmz_ddVyNfgfdcKCAg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2678424101</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A multi‐institutional evaluation of small field output factor determination following the recommendations of IAEA/AAPM TRS‐483</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Lechner, Wolfgang ; Alfonso, Rodolfo ; Arib, Mehenna ; Huq, M. Saiful ; Ismail, Anas ; Kinhikar, Rajesh ; Lárraga‐Gutiérrez, José M. ; Mani, Karthick Raj ; Maphumulo, Nkosingiphile ; Sauer, Otto A ; Shoeir, Shaima ; Suriyapee, Sivalee ; Christaki, Karen</creator><creatorcontrib>Lechner, Wolfgang ; Alfonso, Rodolfo ; Arib, Mehenna ; Huq, M. Saiful ; Ismail, Anas ; Kinhikar, Rajesh ; Lárraga‐Gutiérrez, José M. ; Mani, Karthick Raj ; Maphumulo, Nkosingiphile ; Sauer, Otto A ; Shoeir, Shaima ; Suriyapee, Sivalee ; Christaki, Karen</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
The aim of this work was to test the implementation of small field dosimetry following TRS‐483 and to develop quality assurance procedures for the experimental determination of small field output factors (SFOFs).
Materials and methods
Twelve different centers provided SFOFs determined with various detectors. Various linac models using the beam qualities 6 MV and 10 MV with flattening filter and without flattening filter were utilized to generate square fields down to a nominal field size of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm. The detectors were positioned at 10 cm depth in water. Depending on the local situation, the source‐to‐surface distance was either set to 90 cm or 100 cm. The SFOFs were normalized to the output of the 10 cm × 10 cm field. The spread of SFOFs measured with different detectors was investigated for each individual linac beam quality and field size. Additionally, linac‐type specific SFOF curves were determined for each beam quality and the SFOFs determined using individual detectors were compared to these curves. Example uncertainty budgets were established for a solid state detector and a micro ionization chamber.
Results
The spread of SFOFs for each linac and field was below 5% for all field sizes. With the exception of one linac‐type, the SFOFs of all investigated detectors agreed within 10% with the respective linac‐type SFOF curve, indicating a potential inter‐detector and inter‐linac variability.
Conclusion
Quality assurance on the SFOF measurements can be done by investigation of the spread of SFOFs measured with multiple detectors and by comparison to linac‐type specific SFOFs. A follow‐up of a measurement session should be conducted if the spread of SFOFs is larger than 5%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 2 cm × 2 cm, respectively. Additionally, deviations of measured SFOFs to the linac‐type‐curves of more than 7%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 1 cm × 1 cm, respectively, should be followed up.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-2405</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/mp.15797</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>small field dosimetry ; small field output factors ; TRS‐483</subject><ispartof>Medical physics (Lancaster), 2022-08, Vol.49 (8), p.5537-5550</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3327-4643f83b5ca0d765c4af1fdb6cb09ba240989ff8a036fade4e99dcb66cce89a93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3327-4643f83b5ca0d765c4af1fdb6cb09ba240989ff8a036fade4e99dcb66cce89a93</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9211-7510</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fmp.15797$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fmp.15797$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lechner, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alfonso, Rodolfo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arib, Mehenna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huq, M. Saiful</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ismail, Anas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kinhikar, Rajesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lárraga‐Gutiérrez, José M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mani, Karthick Raj</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maphumulo, Nkosingiphile</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sauer, Otto A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shoeir, Shaima</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suriyapee, Sivalee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Christaki, Karen</creatorcontrib><title>A multi‐institutional evaluation of small field output factor determination following the recommendations of IAEA/AAPM TRS‐483</title><title>Medical physics (Lancaster)</title><description>Purpose
The aim of this work was to test the implementation of small field dosimetry following TRS‐483 and to develop quality assurance procedures for the experimental determination of small field output factors (SFOFs).
Materials and methods
Twelve different centers provided SFOFs determined with various detectors. Various linac models using the beam qualities 6 MV and 10 MV with flattening filter and without flattening filter were utilized to generate square fields down to a nominal field size of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm. The detectors were positioned at 10 cm depth in water. Depending on the local situation, the source‐to‐surface distance was either set to 90 cm or 100 cm. The SFOFs were normalized to the output of the 10 cm × 10 cm field. The spread of SFOFs measured with different detectors was investigated for each individual linac beam quality and field size. Additionally, linac‐type specific SFOF curves were determined for each beam quality and the SFOFs determined using individual detectors were compared to these curves. Example uncertainty budgets were established for a solid state detector and a micro ionization chamber.
Results
The spread of SFOFs for each linac and field was below 5% for all field sizes. With the exception of one linac‐type, the SFOFs of all investigated detectors agreed within 10% with the respective linac‐type SFOF curve, indicating a potential inter‐detector and inter‐linac variability.
Conclusion
Quality assurance on the SFOF measurements can be done by investigation of the spread of SFOFs measured with multiple detectors and by comparison to linac‐type specific SFOFs. A follow‐up of a measurement session should be conducted if the spread of SFOFs is larger than 5%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 2 cm × 2 cm, respectively. Additionally, deviations of measured SFOFs to the linac‐type‐curves of more than 7%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 1 cm × 1 cm, respectively, should be followed up.</description><subject>small field dosimetry</subject><subject>small field output factors</subject><subject>TRS‐483</subject><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><recordid>eNp10M1KAzEQB_AgCtYq-Ag5elmb3WQ_clxK1UKLRet5yWYTjSSbNclaehOfwGf0SWy7gidPwzA_Zpg_AJcxuo4RSiamu47TnOZHYJSQHEckQfQYjBCiJEoISk_BmfevCKEMp2gEPktoeh3U98eXan1QoQ_KtkxD8c50z_YNtBJ6w7SGUgndQNuHrg9QMh6sg40IwhnVDlRare1Gtc8wvAjoBLfGiLY5DP1-0byclZOyXC3h-uFxd5QU-BycSKa9uPitY_B0M1tP76LF_e18Wi4ijnGSRyQjWBa4TjlDTZ6lnDAZy6bOeI1ozXa_0YJKWTCEM8kaQQSlDa-zjHNRUEbxGFwNeztn33rhQ2WU50Jr1grb-yrJ8oIkJEbxH-XOeu-ErDqnDHPbKkbVPubKdNUh5h2NBrpRWmz_ddVyNfgfdcKCAg</recordid><startdate>202208</startdate><enddate>202208</enddate><creator>Lechner, Wolfgang</creator><creator>Alfonso, Rodolfo</creator><creator>Arib, Mehenna</creator><creator>Huq, M. Saiful</creator><creator>Ismail, Anas</creator><creator>Kinhikar, Rajesh</creator><creator>Lárraga‐Gutiérrez, José M.</creator><creator>Mani, Karthick Raj</creator><creator>Maphumulo, Nkosingiphile</creator><creator>Sauer, Otto A</creator><creator>Shoeir, Shaima</creator><creator>Suriyapee, Sivalee</creator><creator>Christaki, Karen</creator><scope>24P</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9211-7510</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202208</creationdate><title>A multi‐institutional evaluation of small field output factor determination following the recommendations of IAEA/AAPM TRS‐483</title><author>Lechner, Wolfgang ; Alfonso, Rodolfo ; Arib, Mehenna ; Huq, M. Saiful ; Ismail, Anas ; Kinhikar, Rajesh ; Lárraga‐Gutiérrez, José M. ; Mani, Karthick Raj ; Maphumulo, Nkosingiphile ; Sauer, Otto A ; Shoeir, Shaima ; Suriyapee, Sivalee ; Christaki, Karen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3327-4643f83b5ca0d765c4af1fdb6cb09ba240989ff8a036fade4e99dcb66cce89a93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>small field dosimetry</topic><topic>small field output factors</topic><topic>TRS‐483</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lechner, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alfonso, Rodolfo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arib, Mehenna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huq, M. Saiful</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ismail, Anas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kinhikar, Rajesh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lárraga‐Gutiérrez, José M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mani, Karthick Raj</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maphumulo, Nkosingiphile</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sauer, Otto A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shoeir, Shaima</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suriyapee, Sivalee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Christaki, Karen</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lechner, Wolfgang</au><au>Alfonso, Rodolfo</au><au>Arib, Mehenna</au><au>Huq, M. Saiful</au><au>Ismail, Anas</au><au>Kinhikar, Rajesh</au><au>Lárraga‐Gutiérrez, José M.</au><au>Mani, Karthick Raj</au><au>Maphumulo, Nkosingiphile</au><au>Sauer, Otto A</au><au>Shoeir, Shaima</au><au>Suriyapee, Sivalee</au><au>Christaki, Karen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A multi‐institutional evaluation of small field output factor determination following the recommendations of IAEA/AAPM TRS‐483</atitle><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle><date>2022-08</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>5537</spage><epage>5550</epage><pages>5537-5550</pages><issn>0094-2405</issn><eissn>2473-4209</eissn><abstract>Purpose
The aim of this work was to test the implementation of small field dosimetry following TRS‐483 and to develop quality assurance procedures for the experimental determination of small field output factors (SFOFs).
Materials and methods
Twelve different centers provided SFOFs determined with various detectors. Various linac models using the beam qualities 6 MV and 10 MV with flattening filter and without flattening filter were utilized to generate square fields down to a nominal field size of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm. The detectors were positioned at 10 cm depth in water. Depending on the local situation, the source‐to‐surface distance was either set to 90 cm or 100 cm. The SFOFs were normalized to the output of the 10 cm × 10 cm field. The spread of SFOFs measured with different detectors was investigated for each individual linac beam quality and field size. Additionally, linac‐type specific SFOF curves were determined for each beam quality and the SFOFs determined using individual detectors were compared to these curves. Example uncertainty budgets were established for a solid state detector and a micro ionization chamber.
Results
The spread of SFOFs for each linac and field was below 5% for all field sizes. With the exception of one linac‐type, the SFOFs of all investigated detectors agreed within 10% with the respective linac‐type SFOF curve, indicating a potential inter‐detector and inter‐linac variability.
Conclusion
Quality assurance on the SFOF measurements can be done by investigation of the spread of SFOFs measured with multiple detectors and by comparison to linac‐type specific SFOFs. A follow‐up of a measurement session should be conducted if the spread of SFOFs is larger than 5%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes of 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 2 cm × 2 cm, respectively. Additionally, deviations of measured SFOFs to the linac‐type‐curves of more than 7%, 3%, and 2% for field sizes 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, 1 cm × 1 cm, and field sizes larger than 1 cm × 1 cm, respectively, should be followed up.</abstract><doi>10.1002/mp.15797</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9211-7510</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0094-2405 |
ispartof | Medical physics (Lancaster), 2022-08, Vol.49 (8), p.5537-5550 |
issn | 0094-2405 2473-4209 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2678424101 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | small field dosimetry small field output factors TRS‐483 |
title | A multi‐institutional evaluation of small field output factor determination following the recommendations of IAEA/AAPM TRS‐483 |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T06%3A31%3A14IST&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=A%20multi%E2%80%90institutional%20evaluation%20of%20small%20field%20output%20factor%20determination%20following%20the%20recommendations%20of%20IAEA/AAPM%20TRS%E2%80%90483&rft.jtitle=Medical%20physics%20(Lancaster)&rft.au=Lechner,%20Wolfgang&rft.date=2022-08&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=5537&rft.epage=5550&rft.pages=5537-5550&rft.issn=0094-2405&rft.eissn=2473-4209&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/mp.15797&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2678424101%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=2678424101&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |