• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.29-34
• /
• 1995

The wedge factor is defined as a ratio of the absorbed dose in a phantom at a depth of reference point on the central axis with the wedge in the place to the absorbed dose at the same point with the wedge removed. We attempted to show the wedge factors dependence on the field sizes. The wedge factors were measured at various field sizes on 6MV and 15MV x-ray of Varian Clinac 1800 and 5MV x-ray of Philips SL75/5. The single wedge factor measured for a reference field size(10cmx10cm) may not be valid for all field sizes. For the thick wedge, especially an autowedge on Philips SL75/5 for maximum field size width 30cm. the error can be significant(6.6％). Therefore, in the presence of a wedge filter in the beam, a field size dependent wedge factor may be necessary in the treatment dose calculations.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.291-296
• /
• 1995

Purpose : In general, the wedge factors which are used clinical practices are ignored of dependency on field sizes and depths. In this present, we investigated systematically the depth and field size dependency to determine the absorbed dose more accurately. Methods : The wedge factors for each wedge filter were measured at various depths (depth of Dmax, 5cm, 10cm, and 15cm) and field sizes ($5cm{\times}5cm,\;10cm{\times}10cm,\;15cm{\times}15cm, and 20cm{\times}20cm$) by using 4-, 6-, and 10-MVX rays. By convention, wedge factors are determined by taking the ratio of the central axis ionization readings when the wedge filter is in place to those of the open field in same field size and measurement depth. In this present work, we determined the wedge factors for 4-, 6-, and 10-MV X rays from Clinac 600C and 2100C linear accelerators (manufactured by Varian Associates, Inc., Palo Alto, CA). To confirm that the wedge was centered, measurements were done with the two possible wedge position and various collimator orientations. Results : The standard deviations of measured values are within $0.3\;\%$ and the depth dependence of wedge factor is greater for the lower energies. Especially, the variation of wedge factor is no less than $5\%$ for 4- and 6- MV X rays with more than $45^{\circ}$ wedge filters. But there seems to be a small dependence on field size. Conclusion : The results of this study show a dependence on the point of measurement. There also seems to be a small dependence on field size. And so, we should consider the depth and field size dependence in determining the wedge factors. If one wedge factor were to be used for each wedge filter it seems that the measurement for a 10cm x 10cm field size at a depth of loom would be a reasonable choice.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.57-60
• /
• 1999

Therapy equipment have taken progress for Cancer make use of Radiation for the normal tissue system make much of important for shielding. In modern times independent jaw setting to used equipment as possible make use of asymmetric field. Therefore, the asymmetric field be leave out of consideration wedge factor because of with used wedge for the most of part. These experimentation find out have an effect on the dosimetry of out put compared with of the difference between the symmetric field and asymmetic field for the wedge factor.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.1-18
• /
• 2000

For wedged photon beams, the variation of the wedge factor with field size was reported by several authors. However, until now such variation with field size had not been explained quantitatively. Therefore, the variation of the wedge factor was investigated by measuring outputs with field sizes increasing from 4 cm $\times$ 4 cm to 25 cm $\times$ 25 cm for open and wedged 6 and 10MV X-ray beams. The relative outputs for wedged fields to 10 cm $\times$ 10 cm have been obtained. The results show the Increase of the wedge factor caused by the change in fluence of high energy Photon beam with field size, up to 8.0% for KD77-6MV X-ray beam. This increase could be explained as a linear function of the irradiated wedge volume except small field size up to about 10 cm. In the cases of the narrow rectangular beam parallel to the wedge direction, the wedge factor decreases slightly with increasing field size up to about 10-15 cm due to a relatively reduced photon fluence from the change of the wedge thickness. We could explain the causes of a wedge factor variation with field size as the fluences of primary photon passed throughout the wedge, contributing to the dose at the central beam axis and that the fluences were affected by the gradient of the wedge with the change of field size. For clinical use, the formula developed to describe the wedge factor variation with field size has been corrected.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.237-246
• /
• 2004

Even though the wedge factor was defined by ICRU, RTPS uses other definition different from the wedge factor to consider the wedge effect to correct dose. Because the factors with different concept are defined in a very different way, replacement of different factor could make severe error of dose and is unacceptable because their values are very different from each other. Radiotherapy machine installed in department includes physical wedges and function of dynamic wedge by upper jaws, and Eclipse and Pinnacle$^{3}$ such as RTPS are used. The wedge factors, relative wedge output factors and wedge field output factors of physical wedges and dynamic wedges were measured by an ionization chamber in water phantom. They are analyzed and compared in according to wedge position, field size, wedge angle, X-ray quality, measurement condition. Wedge factor, relative wedge output factors and wedge field output factors of dynamic wedges comparing physical wedges have an effect of several factors. Main factors effecting to the factors of dynamic wedges were field size and wedge angle. Beam quality of X-ray introduces a few effect to the factors. Because the factors related to wedge and defined with different concepts are different from each other, to reduce dose error it should be input by values proper to RTPS.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.49-52
• /
• 2001

We compared the characteristics of Siemens virtual wedge device with physical wedges for clinical application. We investigated the characteristics of virtual and physical wedges for various wedge angles (15, 30, 45, and 60) using 6- and 15-MV photon beams. Wedge factors were measured in water using an ion chamber for various field sizes and depths. In case of virtual wedge device, as upper jaw moves during irradiation, wedge angles were estimated by accumulated doses. These measurements were performed at off-axis points perpendicular to the beam central axis in water for a $15\;cm\;{\times}\;20\;cm$ radiation field size at the depth of 10 cm. Surface doses without and with virtual or physical wedges were measured using a parallel plate ion chamber at surface. Field size was $15\;cm\;{\times}\;20\;cm$ and a polystyrene phantom was used. For various field sizes, virtual and physical wedge factors were changed by maximum 2.1% and 3.9%, respectively. For various depths, virtual and physical wedge factors were changed by maximum 1.9% and 2.9%, respectively. No major difference was found between the virtual and physical wedge angles and the difference was within 0.5. Surface dose with physical wedge was reduced by maximum 20% (x-ray beam : 6 MV, wedge angle : 45, SSD : 80 cm) relative to one with virtual wedge or without wedge. Comparison of the characteristics of Siemens virtual wedge device with physical wedges was performed. Depth dependence of virtual wedge factor was smaller than that of physical wedge factor. Virtual and physical wedge factors were nearly independent of field sizes. The accuracy of virtual and physical wedge angles was excellent. Surface dose was found to be reduced using a physical wedge.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.323-332
• /
• 1996

Purpose : The wedge filter is the most commonly used beam modifying device during radiation therapy Recently dynamic wedge technique is available through the computer controlled asymmetric collimator, independent jaw. But dosimetric characteristics of dynamic wedge technique is not well known. Therefore we evaluate dosimetric characteristics of dynamic wedge compared to conventional fixed wedge. Materials and Methods : We evaluated dosimetric characteristics of dynamic wedge and fixed wedge by ion chamber, film dosimetry and TLD in phantoms such as water, polystyrene and average breast phantom. Six MV x-ray was used in $15{\times}15cm$ field with 15,30 and 45 degree wedge of dynamic/liked wedge system, Dosimeric characteristics are interpreted by Wellhofer Dosimetrie system WP700/WP700i and contralateral breast dose (CBD) with tangential technique was confirmed by TLD. Results : 1) Percent depth dose through the dynamic wedge technique in tissue equivalent phantom was similar to open field irradiation and there was no beam hardening effect compared to fixed wedge technique. 2) Isodose line composing wedge angle of dynamic wedge is more straight than hard wedge. And dynamic wedge technique was able to make any wedge angle on any depth and field size. 3) The contralateral breast dose in primary breast irradiation was reduced by dynamic wedge technique compared to fixed wedge. When the dynamic wedge technique was applied, the scatter dose was similar to that of open field irradiation. Conclusion : The dynamic wedge technique was superior to fixed wedge technique in dosimetric characteristics and may be more useful in the future.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.279-285
• /
• 1989

Central axis depth dose data for 6 MV X-rays, including tissue maximum ratios, were measured for wedge fields according to Tatcher's equation. In wedge fields, the differences in magnitude which increased with depth, field size, and wedge thickness increased when compared with the corresponding open field data. However, phantom scatter correction factors for wedge fields differed less than $1\%$ from the corresponding open field factors. The differences in central axis percent depth dose between two types of fields indicated beam hardening by the wedge filter The deviation of percent depth doses and scatter correction factors between the effective wedge field and the nominal wedge field at same angle was negligible. The differences were less than $3.20\%$ between the nominal or effective wedge fields and the open fields for percent depth doses to the depth 7cm in $6cm{\times}6cm$ field. For larger $(10cm{\times}10cm)$ field size, however, the deviation of percnet depth doses between the nominal or effective wedge fields and the open fields were greater-dosimetric errors were $3.56\%$ at depth 7cm and nearly $5.30\%$ at 12cm. We suggest that the percent depth doses of individual wedge and wedge transmission factors should be considered for the dose calculation or monitor setting in the treatment of deep seated tumor.

• Proceedings of the Korean Geotechical Society Conference
• /
• 2009.09a
• /
• pp.1079-1083
• /
• 2009

In this study, the pullout resistance characteristic of a wedge-shaped soil nail, made by attaching small steel sticks to the tip of a nail in a wedge shape, was investigated. It was developed to improve the overall pullout resistance capacity of the existing soil nail system, composed of nail and grout, by making the wedge provide additional pullout resistance. In order to evaluate the pullout resistance of the wedge shape-soil nail, field pullout tests were conducted, and the results were compared with those for the existing soil nail without the wedge. The field test results showed that the pullout resistance capacity of the wedge-shaped soil nail was 50% larger than that of the existing soil nail without the wedge.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.183-188
• /
• 2012

Purpose: The concern of improving the quality of life and reducing side effects related to cancer treatment has been a subject of interest in recent years with advances in cancer treatment techniques and increasing survival time. This study is an analysis of differing scattered dose to the contralateral breast using common different treatment techniques. Materials and Methods: Eclipse 10.0 (Varian, USA) based $30^{\circ}$ EDW (Enhanced dynamic wedge) plan, $15^{\circ}$ wedge plan, $30^{\circ}$ wedge plan, Open beam plan, FiF (field in field) plan were established using CT image of breast phantom which in our hospital. Each treatment plan were designed to exposure 400 cGy using CL-6EX (VARIAN, USA) and we measured scattered dose at 1 cm, 3 cm, 5 cm, 9 cm away from medial side of the phantom at 1 cm depth using ionization chamber (FC 65G, IBA). We carried out measurement by separating effect of medial tangential field and lateral tangential field and analyze. Results: The evaluation of scattered dose to contralateral breast, $30^{\circ}$ EDW plan, $15^{\circ}$ wedge plan, $30^{\circ}$ wedge plan, Open beam plan, FIF plan showed 6.55%, 4.72%, 2.79%, 2.33%, 1.87% about prescription dose of each treatment plan. The result of scattered dose measurement by separating effect of medial tangential field and lateral tangential field results were 4.94%, 3.33%, 1.55%, 1.17%, 0.77% about prescription dose at medial tangential field and 1.61%, 1.40%, 1.24%, 1.16%, 1.10% at lateral tangential field along with measured distance. Conclusion: In our experiment, FiF treatment technique generates minimum of scattered dose to contralateral breast which come from mainly phantom scatter factor. Whereas $30^{\circ}$ wedge plan generates maximum of scattered doses to contralateral breast and 3.3% of them was scattered from gantry head. The description of treatment planning system showed a loss of precision for a relatively low scatter dose region. Scattered dose out of Treatment radiation field is relatively lower than prescription dose but, in decision of radiation therapy, it cannot be ignored that doses to contralateral breast are related with probability of secondary cancer.