Comparison between an in‐house 1D profile correction method and a 2D correction provided in Varian's PDPC Package for improving the accuracy of portal dosimetry images. (8th March 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hobson, Maritza A.; Davis, Stephen D.
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 16:Number 2(2015)
• Page Start: 43
• Page End: 50
• Publication Date: 2015-03-08
• Subjects: EPID -- portal dosimetry -- calibration; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i2.4973
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract : While commissioning Varian's Portal Dose Image Prediction (PDIP) algorithm for portal dosimetry, an asymmetric radial response in the portal imager due to backscatter from the support arm was observed. This asymmetric response led to differences on the order of 2%–3% for simple square fields ( < 20 × 20 cm 2 ) when comparing the measured to predicted portal fluences. A separate problem was that discrepancies of up to 10% were seen in measured to predicted portal fluences at increasing off‐axis distance ( > 10 cm ). We have modified suggested methods from the literature to provide a 1D correction for the off‐axis response problem which adjusts the diagonal profile used in the portal imager calibration. This inherently cannot fix the 2D problem since the PDIP algorithm assumes a radially symmetric response and will lead to some uncertainty in portal dosimetry results. Varian has recently released generic "2D correction" files with their Portal Dosimetry Pre‐configuration (PDPC) package, but no independent testing has been published. We present the comparison between QA results using the Varian correction method to results using our 1D profile correction method using the gamma passing rates with a 3%, 3 mm criterion. The average, minimum, and maximum gamma pass rates for nine fixed‐field IMRT fields at gantry 0° using our profile correction method were 98.1%, 93.7%, and 99.8%, respectively, while the results using the PDPC correction method were 98.4%, 93.1%, and 99.8%. For four RapidArc fields, the average, minimum, and maximum gamma pass rates using our correction method were 99.6%, 99.4%, and 99.9%, respectively, while the results using the PDPC correction method were 99.8%, 99.5%, and 99.9%. The average gamma pass rates for both correction methods are quite similar, but both show improvement over the uncorrected results. PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.55.N‐