• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.179-186
• /
• 2006

Purpose: Photon beam data of linear accelerators in Korea are collected, analyzed, and a simple method for checking and verifying the dose calculations in a TPS are suggested. Materials and Methods: Photon beam data such as output calibration condition, output factor, wedge factor, percent depth dose, beam profile, and beam quality were collected from 26 institutions in Korea. In order to verify the accuracy of dose calculation, ten sample planning tests were peformed. These Include square, elongated, and blocked fields, wedge fields, off-axis dose calculation, SSD variation. The planned data were compared to that of manual calculations. Results: The average and standard deviation of photon beam quality for 6, 10, and 15 MV were $0.576{\pm}0.005,\;0.632{\pm}0.004,\;and\;0.647{\pm}0.006$, respectively. The output factors of 6 MV photon beam measured at depth of dose maximum for $5{\times}5cm,\;15{\times}15cm,\;20{\times}20cm\;were\;0.944{\pm}0.006,\;1.031{\pm}0.006,\;and\;1.055{\pm}0.007$. For 10 MV photon beam, the values were $0.935{\pm}0.006,\;1.031{\pm}0.007,\;1.054{\pm}0.0005$. The collected data were not enough to calculate average, the output factors for 15MV photon beam with field size of $5{\times}5cm,\;15{\times}15cm,\;20{\times}20cm\;were\;0.941{\pm}0.008,\;1.032{\pm}0.004,\;1.049{\pm}0.014$. There was seven institutions $e{\times}ceeding$ tolerance when monitor unit values calculated from treatment planning system and manually were compared. The measured average MU values for the machines calibrated at SAD setup were 3 MU and 5 MU higher than the machines calibrated at SSD for 6 MV and 10 MV, respectively except the wedge case. When the wedges were inserted, the MU values to deliver 100 cGy to 5 cm depends on manufactures. When the same wedge angle was used, Siemens machine requires more MUs then Varian machine. Conclusion: In this study, photon beam data are collected and analyzed to provide a baseline value for chocking beam data and the accuracy of dose calculation for a treatment planning system.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.237-244
• /
• 1996

Purpose : The accurate dosimetry of independent collimator equipped for 6MV and 15MV X-ray beam was investigated to search for the optimal correction factor. Materials and Methods : The field size factors, beam quality and dose distribution were measured by using 6MV, 15MV X-ray Field size factors were measured from $3{\times}3cm^2$ to $35{\times}35cm^2$ by using 0.6cc ion chamber (NE 2571) at Dmax. Beam qualities were measured at different field sizes, off-axis distances and depths. Isodose distributions at different off-axis distance using $10\times10cm^2$ field were also investigated and compared with symmetric field. Result: 1) Relative field size factors was different along lateral distance with maximum changes in $3.1\%$ for 6MV and $5\%$ for 15MV. But the field size factors of asymmetric fields were identical to the modified central-axis values in symmetric field, which corrected by off-axis ratio at Dmax. 2) The HVL and PDD was decreased by increasing off-axis distance. PDD was also decreased by increasing depth For field size more than $5{\times}cm^2$ and depth less than 15cm, PDD of asymmetric field differs from that of symmetric one ($0.5\~2\%$ for 6MV and $0.4\~1.4\%$ for 15MV). 3) The measured isodose curves demonstrate divergence effects and reduced doses adjacent to the edge close to the flattening filter center was also observed. Conclusion . When asymmetric collimator is used, calculation of MU must be corrected with off-axis and PDD with a caution of underdose in central axis.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.43-61
• /
• 2004

Purpose : For qualify improvement in radiotherapy, it is important to set up and evaluate equipment (linac) accurately. In addition, technicians are needed to be fully aware of the equipment's detailed quality and its manual. Therefore, the result of ATP is evaluated and introduced, in order that the technicians are skilled by participating in quality assurance (QA) and understanding the quality of the equipment before clinical use. Method and Material : QA for LINAC 21EX (Varian, US) was done with suppliers its procedure was divided into radiation survey, mechanical test, radiation isocenter test, bean performance, dosimetry, and enhanced dynamic wedge and using X-omat film (Kodak), multidata, densitometer, and electrometer. QA of MLC (Millennium, 120 leaf) attached to LINAC and EPID (Portal vision) were done separately. Result : The leakage dose by survey meter was below the tolerance. In mechanical test, collimater, gantry, and couch rotation were less than 1mm, and the angles were ${\pm}0.1^{\circ}$ for digital and ${\pm}0.5^{\circ}$ for mechanical. The alignment test of the light field and crosshair were evaluated less than 1mm. The (a)symmetrical jaw field was less than ${\pm}0.5mm$. The radiation isocenter test using X-mat film was less than 1mm. The consistency of light field and radiation field was less than ${\pm}0.1mm$. PDD for photon energy was less than ${\pm}1\%$ and for electron energy of $90\%,\;80\%,\;50\%,\;and\;30\%$ were evaluated within the tolerance. Flatness for photon and electron energy was evaluated $2.3\%$ (tolerance $3\%$) and $3\%$ (tolerance $4.5\%$), respectively, and symmetry was $0.45\%$ (tolerance $2\%$) and $0.3\%$ (tolerance $2\%$), respectively. Dosimetry test for short term, MU setting, rep rate, and dose rate accuracy of photon and electron energy was within the tolerance depending on energy, MU, and gantry angle. Conclusion : Accuracy and safety for clinical use of Clinac 21EX was verified through customer acceptance procedure and the quality of the equipment was found out. These can reduce the difficulties in using the equipment. Furthermore, it is useful for clinically treatment of patients by technicians' active participations.