Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9167169

Off-axis primary-dose measurements using a mini-phantom.

S A Johnsson·C P Ceberg
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The characterization of the incident photon beam is usually divided into its dependence on collimator setting (head-scatter factor) and off-axis position (primary off-axis ratio). These parameters are normally measured "in air" with a build-up cap thick enough to generate full dose build-up at the depth of dose maximum. In order to prevent any influence from contaminating electrons, it has been recommended that head-scatter measurements are carried out using a mini-phantom rather than a conventional build-up cap. Due to the volume of the mini-phantom, the effects from attenuation and scatter are not negligible. In relative head-scatter measurements these effects cancel and the head scatter is thus a good representation of the variation of the incident photon beam with collimator setting. However, in off-axis measurements, attenuation and scatter conditions vary due to beam softening and do not cancel in the calculation of the primary off-axis ratio. The purpose of the present work was to estimate the effects from attenuation and phantom scatter in order to determine their influence on primary off-axis ratio measurements. We have characterized the off-axis beam-softening effect by means of narrow-beam transmission measurements to obtain the effective attenuation coefficient as a function of off-axis position. We then used a semi-analytical expression for the phantom-scatter calculation that depends solely on this attenuation coefficient. The derived formalism for relative "in air" measurements using a mini-phantom is clear and consistent, which enables the user to separately calculate the effects from scatter and attenuation. For the investigated beam qualities, 6 and 18 MV, our results indicate that the effects from attenuation and scatter in the mini-phantom nearly cancel (the combined effect is less than 1%) within 12.5 cm from the central beam axis. Thus, no correction is needed when the primary off-axis ratio is measured with a mini-phantom.

Explore related subjects

Evaluation Studies as TopicHumansModels, TheoreticalPhantoms, ImagingPhotonsRadioisotope TeletherapyRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRadiotherapy, High-EnergyScattering, RadiationTechnology, RadiologicJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S A Johnsson, C P Ceberg. 1997. Off-axis primary-dose measurements using a mini-phantom.. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597997

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials.

CONTEXT: Better peer review is needed, but proven methods to improve quality are unknown. Our objective was to determine whether written feedback to reviewers improves subsequent reviews. METHODS: Eligible reviewers were randomized to intervention or control (receiving other reviewers' unscored reviews and the editor's decision letter). Study 1 (September 1998-September 2000) included reviewers with a median quality score of 3 or lower; study 2 (April 2000-January 2002), reviewers with median score of 4 or lower. Study 1 was designed with a power of 0.80 to detect a difference in score of 1; study 2, with a power of 0.80 to detect a difference of 0.5. All reviewers were at a peer-reviewed journal (Annals of Emergency Medicine). The main outcome measure was the editor's routine quality rating (1-5) of all reviews (blinded to study enrollment). RESULTS: For study 1, 51 reviewers were eligible and randomized and 35 had sufficient data (182 reviews) for analysis. The mean individual reviewer rating change was 0.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.26 to 0.58) for control and -0.13 (-0.49 to 0.23) for intervention. For study 2, 127 reviewers were eligible and randomized, and 95 had sufficient data (324 reviews). Controls had a mean individual rating change of 0.12 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.26) and intervention reviewers, 0.06 (-0.19 to 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: In study 1, minimal feedback from editors on review quality had no effect on subsequent performance of poor-quality reviewers, and the trend was toward a negative effect. In study 2, feedback to average reviewers was more extensive and supportive but produced no improvement in reviewer performance. Simple written feedback to reviewers seems to be an ineffective educational tool.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed2002

Measuring the quality of editorial peer review.

CONTEXT: The quality of a process can only be tested against its agreed objectives. Editorial peer-review is widely used, yet there appears to be little agreement about how to measure its effects or processes. METHODS: To identify outcome measures used to assess editorial peer review as performed by biomedical journals, we analyzed studies identified from 2 systematic reviews that measured the effects of editorial peer review on the quality of the output (ie, published articles) or of the process itself (eg, reviewers' comments). RESULTS: Ten studies used a variety of instruments to assess the quality of articles that had undergone peer review. Only 1, nonrandomized study compared the quality of articles published in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed journals. The others measured the effects of variations in the peer-review process or used a before-and-after design to measure the effects of standard peer review on accepted articles. Eighteen studies measured the quality of reviewers' reports under different conditions such as blinding or after training. One study compared the time and cost of different review processes. CONCLUSIONS: Until we have properly defined the objectives of peer-review, it will remain almost impossible to assess or improve its effectiveness. The research needed to understand the broader effects of peer review poses many methodologic problems and would require the cooperation of many parts of the scientific community.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗