Elekta Synergy 6 MV和10 MV光子束模型在摩纳哥的剂量学验证

IF 2.8 3区 物理与天体物理 Q3 CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL
Mai Thi Thao, Le Ba Thach, Luong Tien Phat, Nguyen Van Thanh, Duong Thanh Tai, Peter Sandwall, Abdelmoneim Sulieman, Nissren Tamam, James C.L. Chow
{"title":"Elekta Synergy 6 MV和10 MV光子束模型在摩纳哥的剂量学验证","authors":"Mai Thi Thao, Le Ba Thach, Luong Tien Phat, Nguyen Van Thanh, Duong Thanh Tai, Peter Sandwall, Abdelmoneim Sulieman, Nissren Tamam, James C.L. Chow","doi":"10.1016/j.radphyschem.2025.112819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study assesses and compares the actual beam parameters with those calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS) on the Elekta Synergy linear accelerator at Phuc Thinh General Hospital, Vietnam. Photon beams of 6 MV and 10 MV were analyzed for varying field sizes and depths using a three-dimensional water tank phantom (48 × 48 × 48 cm<ce:sup loc=\"post\">3</ce:sup>) to measure the percentage depth dose (PDD) and profile for open fields (2 × 2 to 40 × 40 cm<ce:sup loc=\"post\">2</ce:sup>) and 60°-wedge fields (5 × 5 to 20 × 20 cm<ce:sup loc=\"post\">2</ce:sup>). Additionally, the same measurement configurations were accurately simulated in the Monaco TPS using a virtual water phantom of dimensions 60 × 40 × 60 cm<ce:sup loc=\"post\">3</ce:sup>. Data were analyzed using the Monaco Commissioning Utility and IBA's MyQA-Accept software. The Gamma index method was set at 3 %/3 mm, 2 %/2 mm, and 1 %/1 mm criteria to compare calculated and measured point doses. For the 6 MV photon, excellent agreement between the measured and calculated PDD and profiles was observed across all field sizes. The gamma passing rates were nearly 100 % when using the 3 %/3 mm and 2 %/2 mm criteria for both the Monte Carlo (MC) and Collapse Cone (CC) algorithms. A similar pattern was observed for the 10 MV photon beam, demonstrating strong agreement in both the PDD and dose profiles with the 3 %/3 mm and 2 %/2 mm criteria using the CC algorithm. However, when applying the more stringent 1 %/1 mm criterion, the small field 2 × 2 cm<ce:sup loc=\"post\">2</ce:sup> exhibited a significantly lower gamma pass rate and a higher output factor difference compared to the larger field sizes. Despite this, the output factor difference remained consistently below 1.3 % across all energies and field sizes. This study verifies the accuracy of the beam model and dose delivery while highlighting areas for improvement, such as optimizing the multi-leaf collimator (MLC). Continuous validation is recommended to maintain accuracy and treatment quality.","PeriodicalId":20861,"journal":{"name":"Radiation Physics and Chemistry","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dosimetric validation of Elekta Synergy 6 MV and 10 MV photon beam models in the Monaco\",\"authors\":\"Mai Thi Thao, Le Ba Thach, Luong Tien Phat, Nguyen Van Thanh, Duong Thanh Tai, Peter Sandwall, Abdelmoneim Sulieman, Nissren Tamam, James C.L. Chow\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.radphyschem.2025.112819\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study assesses and compares the actual beam parameters with those calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS) on the Elekta Synergy linear accelerator at Phuc Thinh General Hospital, Vietnam. Photon beams of 6 MV and 10 MV were analyzed for varying field sizes and depths using a three-dimensional water tank phantom (48 × 48 × 48 cm<ce:sup loc=\\\"post\\\">3</ce:sup>) to measure the percentage depth dose (PDD) and profile for open fields (2 × 2 to 40 × 40 cm<ce:sup loc=\\\"post\\\">2</ce:sup>) and 60°-wedge fields (5 × 5 to 20 × 20 cm<ce:sup loc=\\\"post\\\">2</ce:sup>). Additionally, the same measurement configurations were accurately simulated in the Monaco TPS using a virtual water phantom of dimensions 60 × 40 × 60 cm<ce:sup loc=\\\"post\\\">3</ce:sup>. Data were analyzed using the Monaco Commissioning Utility and IBA's MyQA-Accept software. The Gamma index method was set at 3 %/3 mm, 2 %/2 mm, and 1 %/1 mm criteria to compare calculated and measured point doses. For the 6 MV photon, excellent agreement between the measured and calculated PDD and profiles was observed across all field sizes. The gamma passing rates were nearly 100 % when using the 3 %/3 mm and 2 %/2 mm criteria for both the Monte Carlo (MC) and Collapse Cone (CC) algorithms. A similar pattern was observed for the 10 MV photon beam, demonstrating strong agreement in both the PDD and dose profiles with the 3 %/3 mm and 2 %/2 mm criteria using the CC algorithm. However, when applying the more stringent 1 %/1 mm criterion, the small field 2 × 2 cm<ce:sup loc=\\\"post\\\">2</ce:sup> exhibited a significantly lower gamma pass rate and a higher output factor difference compared to the larger field sizes. Despite this, the output factor difference remained consistently below 1.3 % across all energies and field sizes. This study verifies the accuracy of the beam model and dose delivery while highlighting areas for improvement, such as optimizing the multi-leaf collimator (MLC). Continuous validation is recommended to maintain accuracy and treatment quality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiation Physics and Chemistry\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiation Physics and Chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"92\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2025.112819\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"物理与天体物理\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiation Physics and Chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2025.112819","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究评估并比较了越南Phuc Thinh总医院Elekta Synergy线性加速器上实际光束参数与治疗计划系统(TPS)计算的光束参数。利用三维水箱模型(48 × 48 × 48 cm3)对6 MV和10 MV的光子光束在不同场大小和深度下进行了分析,测量了开放场(2 × 2至40 × 40 cm2)和60°楔形场(5 × 5至20 × 20 cm2)的百分比深度剂量(PDD)和剖面。此外,在摩纳哥TPS中,使用尺寸为60 × 40 × 60 cm3的虚拟水模准确模拟了相同的测量配置。使用Monaco调试工具和IBA的MyQA-Accept软件对数据进行分析。Gamma指数法设定为3% / 3mm、2% / 2mm和1% / 1mm标准,比较计算点剂量和实测点剂量。对于6 MV光子,测量和计算的PDD和剖面在所有场尺寸下都非常一致。当蒙特卡罗(MC)和塌锥(CC)算法使用3% /3毫米和2% /2毫米标准时,伽马及格率接近100%。在10 MV光子束中观察到类似的模式,表明使用CC算法在PDD和剂量曲线上与3% / 3mm和2% / 2mm标准具有很强的一致性。然而,当应用更严格的1% /1 mm标准时,与较大的场相比,2 × 2 cm2的小场表现出明显较低的伽马通过率和较高的输出因子差异。尽管如此,在所有能源和油田规模中,输出因子差异始终保持在1.3%以下。该研究验证了光束模型和剂量传递的准确性,同时强调了需要改进的领域,例如优化多叶准直器(MLC)。建议持续验证以保持准确性和治疗质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dosimetric validation of Elekta Synergy 6 MV and 10 MV photon beam models in the Monaco
This study assesses and compares the actual beam parameters with those calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS) on the Elekta Synergy linear accelerator at Phuc Thinh General Hospital, Vietnam. Photon beams of 6 MV and 10 MV were analyzed for varying field sizes and depths using a three-dimensional water tank phantom (48 × 48 × 48 cm3) to measure the percentage depth dose (PDD) and profile for open fields (2 × 2 to 40 × 40 cm2) and 60°-wedge fields (5 × 5 to 20 × 20 cm2). Additionally, the same measurement configurations were accurately simulated in the Monaco TPS using a virtual water phantom of dimensions 60 × 40 × 60 cm3. Data were analyzed using the Monaco Commissioning Utility and IBA's MyQA-Accept software. The Gamma index method was set at 3 %/3 mm, 2 %/2 mm, and 1 %/1 mm criteria to compare calculated and measured point doses. For the 6 MV photon, excellent agreement between the measured and calculated PDD and profiles was observed across all field sizes. The gamma passing rates were nearly 100 % when using the 3 %/3 mm and 2 %/2 mm criteria for both the Monte Carlo (MC) and Collapse Cone (CC) algorithms. A similar pattern was observed for the 10 MV photon beam, demonstrating strong agreement in both the PDD and dose profiles with the 3 %/3 mm and 2 %/2 mm criteria using the CC algorithm. However, when applying the more stringent 1 %/1 mm criterion, the small field 2 × 2 cm2 exhibited a significantly lower gamma pass rate and a higher output factor difference compared to the larger field sizes. Despite this, the output factor difference remained consistently below 1.3 % across all energies and field sizes. This study verifies the accuracy of the beam model and dose delivery while highlighting areas for improvement, such as optimizing the multi-leaf collimator (MLC). Continuous validation is recommended to maintain accuracy and treatment quality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Radiation Physics and Chemistry
Radiation Physics and Chemistry 化学-核科学技术
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
17.20%
发文量
574
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Radiation Physics and Chemistry is a multidisciplinary journal that provides a medium for publication of substantial and original papers, reviews, and short communications which focus on research and developments involving ionizing radiation in radiation physics, radiation chemistry and radiation processing. The journal aims to publish papers with significance to an international audience, containing substantial novelty and scientific impact. The Editors reserve the rights to reject, with or without external review, papers that do not meet these criteria. This could include papers that are very similar to previous publications, only with changed target substrates, employed materials, analyzed sites and experimental methods, report results without presenting new insights and/or hypothesis testing, or do not focus on the radiation effects.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信