4.6 Article

Measurement of relative output factors for the 8 and 4 mm collimators of Leksell Gamma Knife Perfexion by film dosimetry

期刊

MEDICAL PHYSICS
卷 36, 期 5, 页码 1768-1774

出版社

AMER ASSOC PHYSICISTS MEDICINE AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1118/1.3113904

关键词

biomedical optical imaging; collimators; dosimetry; Monte Carlo methods; patient treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three types of films, Kodak EDR2, Gafchromic EBT, and Gafchromic MD-V2-55, were used to measure relative output factors of 4 and 8 mm collimators of the Leksell Gamma Knife Perfexion. The optical density to dose calibration curve for each of the film types was obtained by exposing the films to a range of known doses. Ten data points were acquired for each of the calibration curves in the dose ranges from 0 to 4 Gy, 0 to 8 Gy, and 0 to 80 Gy for Kodak EDR2, Gafchromic EBT, and Gafchromic MD-V2-55 films, respectively. For the measurement of relative output factors, five films of each film type were exposed to a known dose. All films were scanned using EPSON EXPRESSION 10000 XL scanner with 200 dpi resolution in 16 bit gray scale for EDR2 film and 48 bit color scale for Gafchromic films. The scanned images were imported in the red channel for both Gafchromic films. The background corrections from an unexposed film were applied to all films. The output factors obtained from film measurements were in a close agreement both with the Monte Carlo calculated values of 0.924 and 0.805 for 8 and 4 mm collimators, respectively. These values are provided by the vendor and used as default values in the vendor's treatment planning system. The largest differences were noted for the Kodak EDR 2 films (-2.1% and -4.5% for 8 and 4 mm collimators, respectively). The best agreement observed was for EBT Gafchromic film (-0.8% and +0.6% differences for 8 and 4 mm collimators, respectively). Based on the present values, no changes in the default relative output factor values were made in the treatment planning system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据