Browsing by Author "Venencia, Carlos Daniel"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil-beam convolution
    (WILEY, 2007) Caprile, Paola; Venencia, Carlos Daniel; Besa, Pelayo
    We used the two available calculation algorithms of the Varian Eclipse 7.3 threedimensional (3D) treatment planning system (TPS), the anisotropic analytic algorithm ( AAA) and pencil-beam convolution (PBC), to compare measured and calculated two-dimensional enhanced dynamic wedge (2D EDW) dose distributions, plus implementation of the dynamic wedge into the TPS. Measurements were carried out for a 6-MV photon beam produced with a Clinac 2300C/D linear accelerator equipped with EDW, using ionization chambers for beam axis measurements and films for dose distributions. Using both algorithms, the calculations were performed by the TPS for symmetric square fields in a perpendicular configuration. Accuracy of the TPS was evaluated using a gamma index, allowing 3% dose variation and 3 mm distance to agreement (DTA) as the individual acceptance criteria. Beam axis wedge factors and percentage depth dose calculation were within 1% deviation between calculated and measured values. In the non-wedged direction, profiles exhibit variations lower than 2% of dose or 2 mm DTA. In the wedge direction, both algorithms reproduced the measured profiles within the acceptance criteria up to 30 degrees EDW. With larger wedge angles, the difference increased to 3%. The gamma distribution showed that, for field sizes of 10 x 10 cm or larger, using an EDW of 45 or 60 degrees, the field corners and the high-dose region of the distribution are not well modeled by PBC. For a 20 x 20 cm field, using a 60-degree EDW and PBC for calculation, the percentage of pixels that do not reach the acceptance criteria is 28.5%; but, using the AAA for the same conditions, this percentage is only 0.48% of the total distribution. Therefore, PBC is not reliable for planning a treatment when using a 60-degree EDW for large field sizes. In all the cases, AAA models wedged dose distributions more accurately than PBC did.