• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of applied clinical medical physics / >Commissioning measurements for photon beam data on three TrueBeam linear accelerators, and comparison with Trilogy and Clinac 2100 linear accelerators
【24h】

Commissioning measurements for photon beam data on three TrueBeam linear accelerators, and comparison with Trilogy and Clinac 2100 linear accelerators

机译：调试三个TrueBeam线性加速器上的光子束数据，并与Trilogy和Clinac 2100线性加速器进行比较

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This study presents the beam data measurement results from the commissioning of three TrueBeam linear accelerators. An additional evaluation of the measured beam data within the TrueBeam linear accelerators contrasted with two other linear accelerators from the same manufacturer (i.e., Clinac and Trilogy) was performed to identify and evaluate any differences in the beam characteristics between the machines and to evaluate the possibility of beam matching for standard photon energies. We performed a comparison of commissioned photon beam data for two standard photon energies (6 MV and 15 MV) and one flattening filter‐free (“FFF”) photon energy (10 FFF) between three different TrueBeam linear accelerators. An analysis of the beam data was then performed to evaluate the reproducibility of the results and the possibility of “beam matching” between the TrueBeam linear accelerators. Additionally, the data from the TrueBeam linear accelerator was compared with comparable data obtained from one Clinac and one Trilogy linear accelerator models produced by the same manufacturer to evaluate the possibility of “beam matching” between the TrueBeam linear accelerators and the previous models. The energies evaluated between the linear accelerator models are the 6 MV for low energy and the 15 MV for high energy. PDD and output factor data showed less than 1% variation and profile data showed variations within 1% or 2 mm between the three TrueBeam linear accelerators. PDD and profile data between the TrueBeam, the Clinac, and Trilogy linear accelerators were almost identical (less than 1% variation). Small variations were observed in the shape of the profile for 15 MV at shallow depths ( ) probably due to the differences in the flattening filter design. A difference in the penumbra shape was observed between the TrueBeam and the other linear accelerators; the TrueBeam data resulted in a slightly greater penumbra width. The diagonal scans demonstrated significant differences in the profile shapes at a distance greater than 20 cm from the central axis, and this was more notable for the 15 MV energy. Output factor differences were found primarily at the ends of the field size spectrum, with observed differences of less than 2% as compared to the other linear accelerators. The TrueBeam's output factor varied less as a function of field size than the output factors for the previous models; this was especially true for the 6 MV. Photon beam data were found to be reproducible between different TrueBeam linear accelerators well within the accepted clinical tolerance of . The results indicate reproducibility in the TrueBeam machine head construction and a potential for beam matching between these types of linear accelerators. Photon beam data (6 MV and 15 MV) from the Trilogy and Clinac 2100 showed several similarities and some small variations when compared to the same data measured on the TrueBeam linear accelerator. The differences found could affect small field data and also very large field sizes in beam matching considerations between the TrueBeam and previous linear accelerator models from the same manufacturer, but should be within the accepted clinical tolerance for standard field sizes and standard treatments. PACS number: 87.56. bd
机译：这项研究显示了调试三个TrueBeam线性加速器后获得的光束数据测量结果。与同一制造商的其他两台线性加速器（即Clinac和Trilogy）相比，TrueBeam线性加速器中测得的光束数据进行了另一次评估，以识别和评估机器之间光束特性的任何差异，并评估可能性匹配标准光子能量的光束。我们对三种不同的TrueBeam线性加速器之间的两种标准光子能量（6 MV和15 MV）和一种平整无滤光器（“ FFF”）光子能量（10 FFF）的委托光子束数据进行了比较。然后对光束数据进行分析，以评估结果的可重复性以及TrueBeam线性加速器之间“光束匹配”的可能性。此外，将TrueBeam线性加速器的数据与从同一家制造商生产的一种Clinac和一个Trilogy线性加速器模型获得的可比数据进行了比较，以评估TrueBeam线性加速器和先前模型之间“光束匹配”的可能性。在线性加速器模型之间评估的能量是：对于低能量来说是6 MV，对于高能量来说是15 MV。 PDD和输出因子数据显示三个TrueBeam线性加速器之间的变化小于1％，轮廓数据显示的变化在1％或2 mm之内。 TrueBeam，Clinac和Trilogy线性加速器之间的PDD和配置文件数据几乎相同（变化小于1％）。在浅深度（）处，对于15 MV的轮廓形状观察到小的变化，可能是由于平坦滤波器设计的差异所致。在TrueBeam和其他线性加速器之间，观察到半影形状有所不同。 TrueBeam数据导致半影宽度稍大。对角线扫描显示距中心轴的距离大于20 cm时，轮廓形状存在显着差异，这对于15 MV能量更为明显。主要在场尺寸谱的末端发现了输出因子差异，与其他线性加速器相比，观察到的差异小于2％。 TrueBeam的输出因数随字段大小的变化比以前模型的输出因数小; 6 MV尤其如此。发现在不同的TrueBeam线性加速器之间的光子束数据可以在公认的临床耐受范围内再现。结果表明TrueBeam机头结构的可重复性以及这些类型的线性加速器之间的光束匹配潜力。与在TrueBeam线性加速器上测量的相同数据相比，来自Trilogy和Clinac 2100的光子束数据（6 MV和15 MV）显示出一些相似性和一些小的变化。发现的差异可能会影响较小的现场数据，也可能影响同一制造商的TrueBeam与以前的线性加速器模型之间的光束匹配注意事项中的非常大的现场尺寸，但应在标准现场尺寸和标准治疗的公认临床公差范围内。 PACS编号：87.56。 d

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号