Comparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil-beam convolution

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorCaprile, Paola
dc.contributor.authorVenencia, Carlos Daniel
dc.contributor.authorBesa, Pelayo
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-10T13:11:53Z
dc.date.available2024-01-10T13:11:53Z
dc.date.issued2007
dc.description.abstractWe 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.
dc.fechaingreso.objetodigital2024-05-03
dc.format.extent8 páginas
dc.fuente.origenWOS
dc.identifier.doi10.1120/jacmp.v8i1.2370
dc.identifier.issn1526-9914
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v8i1.2370
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/78110
dc.identifier.wosidWOS:000247343300005
dc.information.autorucMedicina;Besa P;S/I;57605
dc.issue.numero1
dc.language.isoen
dc.nota.accesocontenido completo
dc.pagina.final54
dc.pagina.inicio47
dc.publisherWILEY
dc.revistaJOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS
dc.rightsacceso abierto
dc.subjectdynamic wedge
dc.subjectdose distribution comparison
dc.subjectcalculation algorithms
dc.subjectAAA
dc.subjectPBC
dc.subjectIMPLEMENTATION
dc.subjectDOSIMETRY
dc.subject.ods03 Good Health and Well-being
dc.subject.odspa03 Salud y bienestar
dc.titleComparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil-beam convolution
dc.typeartículo
dc.volumen8
sipa.codpersvinculados57605
sipa.indexWOS
sipa.indexScopus
sipa.trazabilidadCarga SIPA;09-01-2024
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Comparison between measured and calculated dynamic wedge dose distributions using the anisotropic analytic algorithm and pencil-beam convolution.pdf
Size:
1.46 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
Artículos de revistas