Quantification of the role of lead foil in flattening filter free beam reference dosimetry.

PURPOSE: To quantify the potential error in outputs for flattening filter free (FFF) beams associated with use of a lead foil in beam quality determination per the addendum protocol for TG-51, we examined differences in measurements of the beam quality conversion factor kQ when using or not using lead foil. METHODS: Two FFF beams, a 6 MV FFF and a 10 MV FFF, were calibrated on eight Varian TrueBeams and two Elekta Versa HD linear accelerators (linacs) according to the TG-51 addendum protocol by using Farmer ionization chambers [TN 30013 (PTW) and SNC600c (Sun Nuclear)] with traceable absorbed dose-to-water calibrations. In determining kQ , the percentage depth-dose at 10 cm [PDD(10)] was measured with 10×10 cm2 field size at 100 cm source-to-surface distance (SSD). PDD(10) values were measured either with a 1 mm lead foil positioned in the path of the beam [%dd(10)Pb ] or with omission of a lead foil [%dd(10)]. The %dd(10)x values were then calculated and the kQ factors determined by using the empirical fit equation in the TG-51 addendum for the PTW 30013 chambers. A similar equation was used to calculate kQ for the SNC600c chamber, with the fitting parameters taken from a very recent Monte Carlo study. The differences in kQ factors were compared for with lead foil vs. without lead foil. RESULTS: Differences in %dd(10)x with lead foil and with omission of lead foil were 0.9 ± 0.2% for the 6 MV FFF beam and 0.6 ± 0.1% for the 10 MV FFF beam. Differences in kQ values with lead foil and with omission of lead foil were -0.1 ± 0.02% for the 6 MV FFF and -0.1 ± 0.01% for the 10 MV FFF beams. CONCLUSION: With evaluation of the lead foil role in determination of the kQ factor for FFF beams. Our results suggest that the omission of lead foil introduces approximately 0.1% of error for reference dosimetry of FFF beams on both TrueBeam and Versa platforms.

Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of CyberKnife M6™ InCise multileaf collimator over IRIS™ variable collimator in prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy.

The impetus behind our study was to establish a quantitative comparison between the IRIS collimator and the InCise multileaf collimator (MLC) (Accuray Inc. Synnyvale, CA) for prostate stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Treatment plans for ten prostate cancer patients were performed on MultiPlan™ 5.1.2 treatment planning system utilizing MLC and IRIS for 36.25 Gy in five fractions. To reduce the magnitude of variations between cases, the planning tumor volume (PTV) was defined and outlined for treating prostate gland only, assuming no seminal vesicle or ex-capsule involvement. Evaluation indices of each plan include PTV coverage, conformity index (CI), Paddick's new CI, homogeneity index, and gradient index. Organ at risk (OAR) dose sparing was analyzed by the bladder wall Dmax and V37Gy, rectum Dmax and V36Gy. The radiobiological response was evaluated by tumor control probability and normal tissue complication probability based on equivalent uniform dose. The dose delivery efficiency was evaluated on the basis of planned monitor units (MUs) and the reported treatment time per fraction. Statistical significance was tested using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. The studies indicated that CyberKnife M6™ IRIS and InCise™ MLC produce equivalent SBRT prostate treatment plans in terms of dosimetry, radiobiology, and OAR sparing, except that the MLC plans offer improvement of the dose fall-off gradient by 29% over IRIS. The main advantage of replacing the IRIS collimator with MLC is the improved efficiency, determined from the reduction of MUs by 42%, and a 36% faster delivery time.

Reverse Monte Carlo modeling of ion conducting network glasses: an evaluation based on molecular dynamics simulations.

We investigate the quality of structural models generated by the Reverse Monte Carlo (RMC) method in a typical application to glass systems. To this end we calculate diffraction data from a Li(2)O-SiO(2) molecular dynamics (MD) simulation and use it, in addition to minimal pair distances and coordination numbers of silicon (oxygen) to oxygen (silicon) ions, as input for RMC modeling. Then we compare partial radial distribution functions, coordination numbers, bond angles, and ring sizes predicted by the RMC models with those of the MD system. It is found that partial distribution functions and properties on small lengths scales, as distributions of coordination numbers and bond angles, are well reproduced by the RMC modeling. Properties in the medium-range order regime are, however, not well captured, as is demonstrated by comparison of ring size distributions. Due care therefore has to be exercised when extracting structural features from RMC models in this medium-range order regime. In particular we show that the occurrence of such features can be a mere consequence of the chosen starting configuration.