SU-E-T-182: Clinical Implementation of TG71-Based Electron MU Calculation and Comparison with a Commercial Secondary Calculation
- 1. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD (United States)
- 2. Medstar RadAmerica, Baltimore, MD (United States)
- 3. Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB (Canada)
Description
Purpose: The TG-71 report was published in 2014 to present standardized methodologies for MU calculations and determination of dosimetric quantities. This work explores the clinical implementation of a TG71-based electron MU calculation algorithm and compares it with a recently released commercial secondary calculation program–Mobius3D (Mobius Medical System, LP). Methods: TG-71 electron dosimetry data were acquired, and MU calculations were performed based on the recently published TG-71 report. The formalism in the report for extended SSD using air-gap corrections was used. The dosimetric quantities, such PDD, output factor, and f-air factors were incorporated into an organized databook that facilitates data access and subsequent computation. The Mobius3D program utilizes a pencil beam redefinition algorithm. To verify the accuracy of calculations, five customized rectangular cutouts of different sizes–6×12, 4×12, 6×8, 4×8, 3×6 cm2–were made. Calculations were compared to each other and to point dose measurements for electron beams of energy 6, 9, 12, 16, 20 MeV. Each calculation / measurement point was at the depth of maximum dose for each cutout in a 10×10 cm2 or 15×15cm2 applicator with SSDs 100cm and 110cm. Validation measurements were made with a CC04 ion chamber in a solid water phantom for electron beams of energy 9 and 16 MeV. Results: Differences between the TG-71 and the commercial system relative to measurements were within 3% for most combinations of electron energy, cutout size, and SSD. A 5.6% difference between the two calculation methods was found only for the 6MeV electron beam with 3×6 cm2cutout in the 10×102cm applicator at 110cm SSD. Both the TG-71 and the commercial calculations show good consistency with chamber measurements: for 5 cutouts, <1% difference for 100cm SSD, and 0.5–2.7% for 110cm SSD. Conclusions: Based on comparisons with measurements, a TG71-based computation method and a Mobius3D program produce reasonably accurate MU calculations for electron-beam therapy
Additional details
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1118/1.4924543;
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- Medical Physics
- Journal Volume
- 42
- Journal Issue
- 6
- Journal Page Range
- vp.
- ISSN
- 0094-2405
- CODEN
- MPHYA6
INIS
- Country of Publication
- United States
- Country of Input or Organization
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- INIS RN
- 47116317
- Subject category
- S60: APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
- Descriptors DEI
- ACCURACY; ALGORITHMS; CALCULATION METHODS; CORRECTIONS; ELECTRON BEAMS; ELECTRON DOSIMETRY; IMPLEMENTATION; IONIZATION CHAMBERS; MEV RANGE; PHANTOMS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; VALIDATION
- Descriptors DEC
- BEAMS; DOSES; DOSIMETRY; ENERGY RANGE; LEPTON BEAMS; MATHEMATICAL LOGIC; MEASURING INSTRUMENTS; MEDICINE; MOCKUP; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; PARTICLE BEAMS; RADIATION DETECTORS; RADIOLOGY; STRUCTURAL MODELS; TESTING; THERAPY
Optional Information
- Notes
- (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine