Integrating X‐ray kV millimetric field dosimetry with a synthetic diamond detector into the treatment planning system commissioning of a preclinical irradiator. Issue 7 (16th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Muñoz Arango, Erika; Beltrán Gómez, Camilo; Alaminos‐Bouza, Armando; de Almeida, Carlos Eduardo
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 48:Issue 7(2021)
• Page Start: 4038
• Page End: 4052
• Publication Date: 2021-05-16
• Subjects: preclinical research -- small animal radiation research platform -- synthetic single‐crystal diamond detector -- TPS commissioning -- x‐ray kV small‐field dosimetry; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.14869
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: Small animal irradiators are equipped with x‐ray beams and cone collimators with millimeter dimensions to be used in preclinical research. The use of small fields in the kV energy range may require the application of energy‐dependent, field size‐dependent, or depth‐dependent correction factors to the dosimetric data acquired for treatment planning system (TPS) commissioning purposes to obtain accurate dose values. Considering that these corrections are also detector dependent, the suitability of a synthetic single‐crystal diamond detector for small‐field relative dosimetry in a preclinical irradiator (220‐kVp) was evaluated to avoid the necessity of applying correction factors during TPS commissioning. Methods: The detector response was assessed during the transition for field sizes ranging from 20 × 20 mm 2 to 3 × 3 mm 2, using the small animal radiation research platform (SARRP). The percentage depth dose distributions (PDDs), lateral profiles and output factors (OFs) were measured. The PDDs for the synthetic diamond detector were compared to the distributions acquired using a small‐volume microchamber (0.016 cm 3 ) and with Monte Carlo calculations using the MC3D in‐house software package. The profiles and OFs were compared to the data from a silicon solid‐state detector and to radiochromic film data provided by the manufacturer; for the OF determination, measurements made using a microchamber were added for comparison. The performance of several detectors used as references was previously validated for relative dosimetry in preclinical irradiators. A commercial TPS was commissioned for the factor‐based algorithm, using the data acquired with the diamond detector, and no additional correction factors were applied. To verify the performance of the TPS and the accuracy of the dosimetric methodology, radiochromic film irradiation in water was conducted, and two‐dimensional (2D) dose distributions in the coronal and axial planes were compared under different gamma criteria. Results: Compared with the microchamber and MC3D distributions, the agreement of the PDDs using the synthetic diamond detector was better than 2%. The profile data exhibited very good agreement compared with the data from the silicon detector, with an average and a maximum difference of 0.31 and 0.39 mm in the penumbras, respectively. Compared with the data from the radiochromic film, the average and maximum differences were equal to 0.77 and 0.89 mm, respectively. Very good agreement, within 1%, was obtained between the OFs measured with the synthetic diamond detector and the radiochromic film, compared only for the cone collimators. The validation of the TPS commissioning using gamma criteria compared to film showed an average passing rate of 100% and 93.2% with a global gamma criterion of 1 mm/3% for the coronal and axial planes, respectively, including the 3 × 3 mm 2 field size and penumbra regions. Conclusions: Synthetic diamond is a suitable detector for the complete relative dosimetry of small x‐ray fields. The commissioning of the TPS with its own beam dosimetric data exhibited encouraging results even in a 3 × 3 mm 2 field and penumbra region. This methodology allows for the prediction of 2D dose distributions with an accuracy in water ranging from 3 to 5% compared to the 2D distribution from film dosimetry.