首页> 外文期刊>Journal of applied clinical medical physics / >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
【24h】

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

机译:内部1D轮廓校正方法与Varian PDPC软件包中提供的2D校正之间的比较,以提高门诊剂量图像的准确性

获取原文
           

摘要

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-
机译:在调试瓦里安的门诊剂量的门诊剂量图像预测(PDIP)算法时,由于来自支撑臂的反向散射,在门诊成像仪中观察到不对称的径向响应。当比较所测得的和预期的门户通量时,这种不对称响应导致简单正方形场(20×20 cm 2)的差异约为2%–3%。另一个独立的问题是,在离轴距离增加(> 10 cm)的情况下,测得的预测门户能量密度差异高达10%。我们从文献中修改了建议的方法,以提供针对离轴响应问题的一维校正,该校正可调整在门户成像器校准中使用的对角线轮廓。这固有地不能解决2D问题,因为PDIP算法采用了径向对称的响应,并会导致门户剂量学结果的某些不确定性。瓦里安(Varian)最近发布了带有其门户剂量预先配置(PDPC)软件包的通用“ 2D校正”文件,但尚未发布独立测试。我们介绍了使用瓦里安校正方法的质量保证结果与使用3D,3毫米标准的伽玛通过率的一维轮廓校正方法的结果之间的比较。使用我们的轮廓校正方法,在机架0°上的9个固定场IMRT场的平均,最小和最大伽玛通过率分别为98.1%,93.7%和99.8%,而使用PDPC校正方法的结果为98.4% ,93.1%和99.8%。对于四个RapidArc场,使用我们的校正方法的平均,最小和最大伽玛通过率分别为99.6%,99.4%和99.9%,而使用PDPC校正方法的结果分别为99.8%,99.5%和99.9% 。两种校正方法的平均伽玛通过率都非常相似,但都比未校正的结果有所改善.PACS编号:87.55.Qr,87.55.N-

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号