Energy response corrections for profile measurements using a combination of different detector types. Issue 2 (21st December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wegener, Sonja; Sauer, Otto A.
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 45:Issue 2(2018)
• Page Start: 898
• Page End: 907
• Publication Date: 2017-12-21
• Subjects: dosimetry -- dose profiles -- energy‐dependent dose response -- ionization chamber -- diode detector; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.12706
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: Different detector properties will heavily affect the results of off‐axis measurements outside of radiation fields, where a different energy spectrum is encountered. While a diode detector would show a high spatial resolution, it contains high atomic number elements, which lead to perturbations and energy‐dependent response. An ionization chamber, on the other hand, has a much smaller energy dependence, but shows dose averaging over its larger active volume. We suggest a way to obtain spatial energy response corrections of a detector independent of its volume effect for profiles of arbitrary fields by using a combination of two detectors. Methods: Measurements were performed at an Elekta Versa HD accelerator equipped with an Agility MLC. Dose profiles of fields between 10 × 4 cm² and 0.6 × 0.6 cm² were recorded several times, first with different small‐field detectors (unshielded diode 60012 and stereotactic field detector SFD, microDiamond, EDGE, and PinPoint 31006) and then with a larger volume ionization chamber Semiflex 31010 for different photon beam qualities of 6, 10, and 18 MV. Correction factors for the small‐field detectors were obtained from the readings of the respective detector and the ionization chamber using a convolution method. Selected profiles were also recorded on film to enable a comparison. Results: After applying the correction factors to the profiles measured with different detectors, agreement between the detectors and with profiles measured on EBT3 film was improved considerably. Differences in the full width half maximum obtained with the detectors and the film typically decreased by a factor of two. Off‐axis correction factors outside of a 10 × 1 cm² field ranged from about 1.3 for the EDGE diode about 10 mm from the field edge to 0.7 for the PinPoint 31006 25 mm from the field edge. The microDiamond required corrections comparable in size to the Si‐diodes and even exceeded the values in the tail region of the field. The SFD was found to require the smallest correction. The corrections typically became larger for higher energies and for smaller field sizes. Conclusions: With a combination of two detectors, experimentally derived correction factors can be obtained. Application of those factors leads to improved agreement between the measured profiles and those recorded on EBT3 film. The results also complement so far only Monte Carlo‐simulated values for the off‐axis response of different detectors.