{"title":"6 MV光子束材料界面侧探测器响应及剂量计算","authors":"Jonas Ringholz, Otto Andreas Sauer, Sonja Wegener","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Dose calculation around inhomogeneities is challenging for many algorithms. A validation of dose distributions in these conditions is not straightforward, as detector response close to material interfaces is affected by the non-equilibrium situation, the changing energy spectrum and the volume effect in a steep dose gradient.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Detector response lateral to an inhomogeneity of high density was studied, mimicking the situation of bone surrounded by soft tissue.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Profiles obtained with different detectors (diodes, ion chamber, synthetic diamond) in water in the vicinity of an aluminum cylinder were compared. Dose deposition was also calculated with different commercial treatment planning systems and algorithms as well as using Monte Carlo simulations within and lateral to the cylinder and compared to measurements.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Dose deposition in the vicinity of an inserted aluminum cylinder changes and is registered by the detectors to a different degree. The ion chamber shows the largest change irradiated with a 10×10 cm<sup>2</sup> at 3 mm distance from the cylinder surface (2.5%), followed by the synthetic diamond (1.7%), then the unshielded (1.4%) and finally the shielded diode (1.0%). Dose calculated by different commercial dose engines differed up to 3% at that point from the detector values (Collapsed Cone).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Dose calculation near inhomogeneities depends on the used algorithm, dose measurements in the same region differ depending on the detector type used. We recommend verification of dose calculation with second type of algorithm and measurements with at least two detector types.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70302","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Detector response and dose calculation lateral to material interfaces for 6 MV photon beam\",\"authors\":\"Jonas Ringholz, Otto Andreas Sauer, Sonja Wegener\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.70302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Dose calculation around inhomogeneities is challenging for many algorithms. A validation of dose distributions in these conditions is not straightforward, as detector response close to material interfaces is affected by the non-equilibrium situation, the changing energy spectrum and the volume effect in a steep dose gradient.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>Detector response lateral to an inhomogeneity of high density was studied, mimicking the situation of bone surrounded by soft tissue.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Profiles obtained with different detectors (diodes, ion chamber, synthetic diamond) in water in the vicinity of an aluminum cylinder were compared. Dose deposition was also calculated with different commercial treatment planning systems and algorithms as well as using Monte Carlo simulations within and lateral to the cylinder and compared to measurements.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Dose deposition in the vicinity of an inserted aluminum cylinder changes and is registered by the detectors to a different degree. The ion chamber shows the largest change irradiated with a 10×10 cm<sup>2</sup> at 3 mm distance from the cylinder surface (2.5%), followed by the synthetic diamond (1.7%), then the unshielded (1.4%) and finally the shielded diode (1.0%). Dose calculated by different commercial dose engines differed up to 3% at that point from the detector values (Collapsed Cone).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Dose calculation near inhomogeneities depends on the used algorithm, dose measurements in the same region differ depending on the detector type used. We recommend verification of dose calculation with second type of algorithm and measurements with at least two detector types.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"26 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70302\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70302\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70302","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Detector response and dose calculation lateral to material interfaces for 6 MV photon beam
Background
Dose calculation around inhomogeneities is challenging for many algorithms. A validation of dose distributions in these conditions is not straightforward, as detector response close to material interfaces is affected by the non-equilibrium situation, the changing energy spectrum and the volume effect in a steep dose gradient.
Purpose
Detector response lateral to an inhomogeneity of high density was studied, mimicking the situation of bone surrounded by soft tissue.
Methods
Profiles obtained with different detectors (diodes, ion chamber, synthetic diamond) in water in the vicinity of an aluminum cylinder were compared. Dose deposition was also calculated with different commercial treatment planning systems and algorithms as well as using Monte Carlo simulations within and lateral to the cylinder and compared to measurements.
Results
Dose deposition in the vicinity of an inserted aluminum cylinder changes and is registered by the detectors to a different degree. The ion chamber shows the largest change irradiated with a 10×10 cm2 at 3 mm distance from the cylinder surface (2.5%), followed by the synthetic diamond (1.7%), then the unshielded (1.4%) and finally the shielded diode (1.0%). Dose calculated by different commercial dose engines differed up to 3% at that point from the detector values (Collapsed Cone).
Conclusions
Dose calculation near inhomogeneities depends on the used algorithm, dose measurements in the same region differ depending on the detector type used. We recommend verification of dose calculation with second type of algorithm and measurements with at least two detector types.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
