Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 10070805

Comparing two methods for calculating phantom scatter.

Abstract

Two methods are compared for calculating the field-size dependence of the phantom scatter component of dose for x-ray beams. One model sums three Gaussian distributions; the other model is a two-parameter function. With a measurement of the beam quality as input to determine parameters, both models accurately reproduce the relative phantom scatter. However, there are important differences between the models. For all beam energies, the two-parameter model characterizes the absolute phantom scatter as a function of depth and field size, while, also for all beam energies, the six-parameter Gaussian model characterizes the relative phantom scatter at a single depth of 10 cm. For small field sizes, the phantom scatter calculated from the two-parameter model agrees with Monte Carlo calculations better than the Gaussian model. In the Gaussian model, the parameters can be obtained for beam energies between 60Co and 25 MV by linear interpolation based on the measured beam quality. In the two-parameter model, and for energies above 4 MV, the parameters can be obtained using linear functions of the dose-weighted average linear attenuation coefficient, which is related to beam quality.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J McDonough, Y Xiao, B E Bjärngard. 1999. Comparing two methods for calculating phantom scatter.. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155%2F44%2F2%2F023

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Clinical experience with routine diode dosimetry for electron beam radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Electron beam radiotherapy is frequently administered based on clinical setups without formal treatment planning. We felt, therefore, that it was important to monitor electron beam treatments by in vivo dosimetry to prevent errors in treatment delivery. In this study, we present our clinical experience with patient dose verification using electron diodes and quantitatively assess the dose perturbations caused by the diodes during electron beam radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A commercial diode dosimeter was used for the in vivo dose measurements. During patient dosimetry, the patients were set up as usual by the therapists. Before treatment, a diode was placed on the patient's skin surface and secured with hypoallergenic tape. The patient was then treated and the diode response registered and stored in the patient radiotherapy system database via our in-house software. A customized patient in vivo dosimetry report showing patient details, expected and measured dose, and percent difference was then generated and printed for analysis and record keeping. We studied the perturbation of electron beams by diodes using film dosimetry. Beam profiles at the 90% prescription isodose depths were obtained with and without the diode on the beam central axis, for 6-20 MeV electron beams and applicator/insert sizes ranging from a 3-cm diameter circular field to a 25 x 25 cm open field. RESULTS: In vivo dose measurements on 360 patients resulted in the following ranges of deviations from the expected dose at the various anatomic sites: Breast (222 patients) -20.3 to +23.5% (median deviation 0%); Head and Neck (63 patients) -21.5 to +14.8% (median -0.7%); Other sites (75 patients) -17.6 to +18.8% (median +0.5%). Routine diode dosimetry during the first treatment on 360 patients (460 treatment sites) resulted in 11.5% of the measurements outside our acceptable +/-6% dose deviation window. Only 3.7% of the total measurements were outside +/-10% dose deviation. Detailed investigations revealed that the dose discrepancies, overwhelmingly, were due to inaccurate diode orientation and positioning, especially in the regions with rapidly changing contours and/or sloping surfaces. The presence of a diode in the treatment field was found, in some cases, to cause significant dose reduction, most noticeable with smaller fields and lower energy beams. The reduction in dose ranged from 16% (for a 6 MeV beam and a 3 cm diameter circular field) to 4% (for a 12 MeV beam and a 10 x 10 cm field). CONCLUSIONS: Diode dosimetry was found to be convenient and valuable for verifying in real time the dose delivery accuracy of electron beam treatments, but with some caveats. When treating a small field by low energy electrons, frequent use of diodes is undesirable, because it might result in appreciable reduction of dose to the target volume.

Calibration↗

High-performance liquid chromatographic separation of a complex mixture of diuretics using a micellar mobile phase of sodium dodecyl sulphate. Application to human urine samples.

A systematic optimization of the HPLC separation of a complex mixture containing 19 diuretics by micellar liquid chromatography using sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), a Hypersil (150 mmx3.0 mm I.D., 5 microm) C18 column, a flow-rate of 0.5 ml min(-1) and UV absorbance detection has been carried out. Several mobile phases consisting of SDS and organic modifiers such as acetonitrile, tetrahydrofuran, propanol, butanol or pentanol, and the pH adjusted to 3.2, were tested. The effect of the organic modifier and SDS concentration on the retention behavior and separation of the diuretics was investigated. A mobile phase containing 40 mM SDS and 4% tetrahydrofuran was finally selected. Under these conditions, 14 out of 19 diuretics were separated in about 31 min. A bivariant optimization method for the mobile phase SDS-tetrahydrofuran corroborated the above results. The effect of temperature on the retention was also studied, and 50 degrees C was selected. The optimized method was applied to human urine samples of subjects administered Diurex (tablets containing 20 mg of the active ingredient xipamide) without sample preparation.

Calibration↗