Optimized point dose measurement for monitor unit verification in intensity modulated radiation therapy using 6 MV photons by three different methodologies with different detector-phantom combinations: A comparative study

• Main Authors: Sarkar Biplab, Ghosh Bhaswar, Sriramprasath, Mahendramohan Sukumaran, Basu Ayan, Goswami Jyotirup, Ray Amitabh
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2010-01-01
• Series: Journal of Medical Physics
• Subjects: Dose verification; point dose measurement; quality assurance
• Online Access: http://www.jmp.org.in/article.asp?issn=0971-6203;year=2010;volume=35;issue=3;spage=144;epage=150;aulast=Sarkar
• ISSN: 0971-6203; 1998-3913

The study was aimed to compare accuracy of monitor unit verification in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using 6 MV photons by three different methodologies with different detector phantom combinations. Sixty patients were randomly chosen. Zero degree couch and gantry angle plans were generated in a plastic universal IMRT verification phantom and 30Χ30Χ30 cc water phantom and measured using 0.125 cc and 0.6 cc chambers, respectively. Actual gantry and couch angle plans were also measured in water phantom using 0.6 cc chamber. A suitable point of measurement was chosen from the beam profile for each field. When the zero-degree gantry, couch angle plans and actual gantry, couch angle plans were measured by 0.6 cc chamber in water phantom, the percentage mean difference (MD) was 1.35%, 2.94 % and Standard Deviation (SD) was 2.99%, 5.22%, respectively. The plastic phantom measurements with 0.125 cc chamber Semiflex ionisation chamber (SIC) showed an MD=4.21% and SD=2.73 %, but when corrected for chamber-medium response, they showed an improvement, with MD=3.38 % and SD=2.59 %. It was found that measurements with water phantom and 0.6cc chamber at gantry angle zero degree showed better conformity than other measurements of medium-detector combinations. Correction in plastic phantom measurement improved the result only marginally, and actual gantry angle measurement in a flat- water phantom showed higher deviation.