4.4 Article

Small field output factors evaluation with a microDiamond detector over 30 Italian centers

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.10.017

关键词

Small field output factor; PTW-60019 microDiamond detector; Multicenter evaluation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of the study was a multicenter evaluation of MLC&jaws-defined small field output factors (OF) for different linear accelerator manufacturers and for different beam energies using the latest synthetic single crystal diamond detector commercially available. The feasibility of providing an experimental OF data set, useful for on-site measurements validation, was also evaluated. Methods: This work was performed in the framework of the Italian Association of Medical Physics (AIFM) SBRT working group. The project was subdivided in two phases: in the first phase each center measured OFs using their own routine detector for nominal field sizes ranging from 10 x 10 cm(2) to 0.6 x 0.6 cm(2). In the second phase, the measurements were repeated in all centers using the PTW 60019 microDiamond detector. Results: The project enrolled 30 Italian centers. Micro-ion chambers and silicon diodes were used for OF measurements in 24 and 6 centers respectively. Gafchromic films and TLDs were used for very small field OFs in 3 and 1 centers. Regarding the measurements performed with the user's detectors, OF standard deviations (SD) for field sizes down to 2 x 2 cm(2) were in all cases <2.7%. In the second phase, a reduction of around 50% of the SD was obtained using the microDiamond detector. Conclusions: The measured values presented in this multicenter study provide a consistent dataset for OFs that could be a useful tool for improving dosimetric procedures in centers. The microDiamond data present a small variation among the centers confirming that this detector can contribute to improve overall accuracy in radiotherapy. (C) 2016 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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