• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.260-268
• /
• 2009

In this study, we estimated inhomogeneity correction factor in small field. And, we evaluated accuracy of treatment planning and measurement data which applied inhomogeneity correction factor or not. We developed the Inhomogeneity Correction Phantom (ICP) for insertion of inhomogeneity materials. The inhomogeneity materials were 12 types in each different electron density. This phantom is able to adapt the EBT film and 0.125 cc ion chamber for measurement of dose distribution and point dose. We evaluated comparison of planning and measurement data using ICP. When we applied to inhomogeneity correction factor or not, the average difference was 1.63% and 10.05% in each plan and film measurement data. And, the average difference of dose distribution was 10.09% in each measurement film. And the average difference of point dose was 0.43% and 2.09% in each plan and measurement data. In conclusion, if we did not apply the inhomogeneity correction factor in small field, it shows more great difference in measurement data. The planning system using this study shows good result for correction of inhomogeneity materials. In radiosurgery using small field, we should be correct the inhomogeneity correction factor, more exactly.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.192-200
• /
• 2010

Cyberknife with small field size is more difficult and complex for dosimetry compared with conventional radiotherapy due to electronic disequilibrium, steep dose gradients and spectrum change of photons and electrons. The purpose of this study demonstrate the usefulness of Geant4 as verification tool of measurement dose for delivering accurate dose by comparing measurement data using the diode detector with results by Geant4 simulation. The development of Monte Carlo Model for Cyberknife was done through the two-step process. In the first step, the treatment head was simulated and Bremsstrahlung spectrum was calculated. Secondly, percent depth dose (PDD) was calculated for six cones with different size, i.e., 5 mm, 10 mm, 20 mm, 30 mm, 50 mm and 60 mm in the model of water phantom. The relative output factor was calculated about 12 fields from 5 mm to 60 mm and then it compared with measurement data by the diode detector. The beam profiles and depth profiles were calculated about different six cones and about each depth of 1.5 cm, 10 cm and 20 cm, respectively. The results about PDD were shown the error the less than 2% which means acceptable in clinical setting. For comparison of relative output factors, the difference was less than 3% in the cones lager than 7.5 mm. However, there was the difference of 6.91% in the 5 mm cone. Although beam profiles were shown the difference less than 2% in the cones larger than 20 mm, there was the error less than 3.5% in the cones smaller than 20 mm. From results, we could demonstrate the usefulness of Geant4 as dose verification tool.