Technical note: Consistency of IAEA's TRS-483 and AAPM's extended TG-51 protocols for clinical reference dosimetry of the CyberKnife M6 machine.
CyberKnife
TG-51
TRS-483
reference dosimetry
Journal
Journal of applied clinical medical physics
ISSN: 1526-9914
Titre abrégé: J Appl Clin Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101089176
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2023
May 2023
Historique:
revised:
17
01
2023
received:
19
10
2022
accepted:
07
03
2023
medline:
8
5
2023
pubmed:
31
3
2023
entrez:
30
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
While IAEA's TRS-483 code of practice is adapted for the calibration of CyberKnife machines, AAPM's TG-51 is still the protocol recommended by the manufacturer for their calibration. The differences between both protocols could lead to differences in absorbed dose to water during the calibration process. The aims of this work are to evaluate the difference resulting from the application of TG-51 (including the manufacturer's adaptations) and TRS-483 in terms of absorbed dose to water for a CyberKnife M6, and to evaluate the consistency of TRS-483. Measurements are performed on a CyberKnife M6 unit under machine-specific reference conditions using a calibrated Exradin A12 ionization chamber. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are performed to estimate When using an in-house experimentally-evaluated volume averaging correction factor, a difference of 0.11% in terms of absorbed dose to water per monitor unit is observed when applying both protocols. This disparity is solely associated to the difference in beam quality correction factor. If a generic volume averaging correction factor is used during the application of TRS-483, the difference in calibration increases to 0.14%. In both cases, the disparity is not statistically significant according to TRS-483's reported uncertainties on their beam quality correction factor (i.e., 1%). MC results lead to For clinical reference dosimetry of the CyberKnife M6, the application of TRS-483 is found to be consistent with TG-51.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
While IAEA's TRS-483 code of practice is adapted for the calibration of CyberKnife machines, AAPM's TG-51 is still the protocol recommended by the manufacturer for their calibration. The differences between both protocols could lead to differences in absorbed dose to water during the calibration process.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
The aims of this work are to evaluate the difference resulting from the application of TG-51 (including the manufacturer's adaptations) and TRS-483 in terms of absorbed dose to water for a CyberKnife M6, and to evaluate the consistency of TRS-483.
METHODS
METHODS
Measurements are performed on a CyberKnife M6 unit under machine-specific reference conditions using a calibrated Exradin A12 ionization chamber. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are performed to estimate
RESULTS
RESULTS
When using an in-house experimentally-evaluated volume averaging correction factor, a difference of 0.11% in terms of absorbed dose to water per monitor unit is observed when applying both protocols. This disparity is solely associated to the difference in beam quality correction factor. If a generic volume averaging correction factor is used during the application of TRS-483, the difference in calibration increases to 0.14%. In both cases, the disparity is not statistically significant according to TRS-483's reported uncertainties on their beam quality correction factor (i.e., 1%). MC results lead to
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
For clinical reference dosimetry of the CyberKnife M6, the application of TRS-483 is found to be consistent with TG-51.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36995902
doi: 10.1002/acm2.13976
pmc: PMC10161123
doi:
Substances chimiques
TEI 5103
82085-94-7
Phenylpropionates
0
Water
059QF0KO0R
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e13976Subventions
Organisme : Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
ID : NSERC CRDPJ/502332-2016
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023 May;24(5):e13976
pubmed: 36995902
Phys Med Biol. 2019 Jan 22;64(3):035006
pubmed: 30561377
Med Phys. 1999 Sep;26(9):1847-70
pubmed: 10505874
Med Phys. 2010 Nov;37(11):5939-50
pubmed: 21158307
Phys Med Biol. 2022 Feb 10;67(4):
pubmed: 35081514
Phys Med Biol. 2012 Jun 21;57(12):3741-58
pubmed: 22617842
Med Phys. 2014 Apr;41(4):041501
pubmed: 24694120
Med Phys. 2008 Nov;35(11):5179-86
pubmed: 19070252
Med Phys. 2008 Apr;35(4):1328-36
pubmed: 18491527
Phys Med Biol. 2022 Feb 10;67(4):
pubmed: 35081512
Med Phys. 2000 Mar;27(3):485-98
pubmed: 10757601
Med Phys. 2010 May;37(5):2369-79
pubmed: 20527571
Med Phys. 2020 Aug;47(8):3573-3585
pubmed: 32311095
Med Phys. 2019 Dec;46(12):5799-5806
pubmed: 31602670
Med Phys. 1999 Nov;26(11):2494-502
pubmed: 10587239
Med Phys. 2018 Jul 15;:
pubmed: 30009526