Biomedical subjects

M Saiful Huq

Publications and source records attributed to M Saiful Huq.

26 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

PubMed2003

Quality assurance for computed-tomography simulators and the computed-tomography-simulation process: report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 66.

This document presents recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) for quality assurance of computed-tomography- (CT) simulators and CT-simulation process. This report was prepared by Task Group No. 66 of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee. It was approved by the Radiation Therapy Committee and by the AAPM Science Council.

Computer Simulation↗

PubMed2003

Lateral loss and dose discrepancies of multileaf collimator segments in intensity modulated radiation therapy.

In the step-and-shoot technique delivery of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), each static field consists of a number of beamlets, some of which may be very small. In this study, we measured the dose characteristics for a range of field sizes: 2 x 2 to 12 x 10 cm2 for 6 and 15 MV x rays. For a given field length, a number of treatment fields are set up by sequentially increasing the field width using a multi leaf collimator. A set of fields is delivered with the accelerator operated in the IMRT mode. Using an ion chamber, the output factors at 1 cm and 3 cm laterally from a field edge are measured at different depths in a solid water phantom. Our results show that with insufficient lateral distance in at least one direction, the absorbed dose never reaches the equilibrium values, and can be significantly lower for very small field sizes. For example, the output factor of the 2 x 2 cm2 field relative to 10 x 10 cm2 at d(max0 is 0.832 and 0.790 for 6 MV and 15 MV x rays, respectively. Multiple output factor curves are obtained for different field lengths and different buildup conditions. Thus under nonequilibrium conditions, output factors are critically dependent on the field size and the conventional method of determining the equivalent square does not apply. Comparison of output factors acquired in the commissioning of the accelerator with those measured in the present study under conditions of nonequilibrium shows large discrepancies between the two sets of measurements. Thus monitor units generated by a treatment planning system using beam data commissioned with symmetric fields may be underestimated by > 5%, depending on the size and shape of the segments. To facilitate manual MU calculation as an independent check in step-and-shoot IMRT, the concept of effective equivalent square (EES) is introduced. Using EES, output factors can be calculated using existing beam data for fields with asymmetric collimator settings and under conditions of lateral disequilibrium.

Equipment Failure Analysis↗

PubMed2002

Deconvolution of detector size effect for output factor measurement for narrow Gamma Knife radiosurgery beams.

This paper presents the results of measurements of output factors (OFs) for a model U Gamma Knife collimator, with special emphasis on the accurate determination of the OF for the 4 mm collimator (OF4). In the past, the OF4 was set to 0.800 relative to the 18 mm collimator. Recently, the manufacturer has recommended a new value of 0.870 for OF4. However, most centres still use the old value of the OF4. In the present study, the Gamma Knife OFs were measured using a commercially available miniature diamond detector and a miniature 0.006 cc ion chamber, which was especially designed for the task. The measured OF4 were corrected for spatial averaging effects by measuring dose profiles for the 4 mm collimator with the same detectors and deconvolving their response from the measured profiles. A Gaussian kernel was used to describe the detector response. The relative OFs measured with the diamond detector/ion chamber were 0.986/0.982, 0.953/0.935 and 0.812/0.765 for the 14,8 and 4 mm collimators, respectively, as compared with the manufacturer's values of 0.984, 0.956 and 0.87. The corrected OF4 was 0.881 +/- 0.012 for the diamond detector and 0.851 +/- 0.012 for the ion chamber, supporting the manufacturer's revised value for this collimator.

Calibration↗

PubMed2002

Protocols for the dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams: a comparison of the IAEA TRS-398 and previous international codes of practice. International Atomic Energy Agency.

A new international Code of Practice for radiotherapy dosimetry co-sponsored by several international organizations has been published by the IAEA, TRS-398. It is based on standards of absorbed dose to water, whereas previous protocols (TRS-381 and TRS-277) were based on air kerma standards. To estimate the changes in beam calibration caused by the introduction of TRS-398, a detailed experimental comparison of the dose determination in reference conditions in high-energy photon and electron beams has been made using the different IAEA protocols. A summary of the formulation and reference conditions in the various Codes of Practice, as well as of their basic data, is presented first. Accurate measurements have been made in 25 photon and electron beams from 10 clinical accelerators using 12 different cylindrical and plane-parallel chambers, and dose ratios under different conditions of TRS-398 to the other protocols determined. A strict step-by-step checklist was followed by the two participating clinical institutions to ascertain that the resulting calculations agreed within tenths of a per cent. The maximum differences found between TRS-398 and the previous Codes of Practice TRS-277 (2nd edn) and TRS-381 are of the order of 1.5-2.0%. TRS-398 yields absorbed doses larger than the previous protocols, around 1.0% for photons (TRS-277) and for electrons (TRS-381 and TRS-277) when plane-parallel chambers are cross-calibrated. For the Markus chamber, results show a very large variation, although a fortuitous cancellation of the old stopping powers with the ND,w/NK ratios makes the overall discrepancy between TRS-398 and TRS-277 in this case smaller than for well-guarded plane-parallel chambers. Chambers of the Roos-type with a 60Co ND,w calibration yield the maximum discrepancy in absorbed dose, which varies between 1.0% and 1.5% for TRS-381 and between 1.5% and 2.0% for TRS-277. Photon beam calibrations using directly measured or calculated TPR20,10 from a percentage dose data at SSD = 100 cm were found to be indistinguishable. Considering that approximately 0.8% of the differences between TRS-398 and the NK-based protocols are caused by the change to the new type of standards, the remaining difference in absolute dose is due either to a close similarity in basic data or to a fortuitous cancellation of the discrepancies in data and type of chamber calibration. It is emphasized that the NK-ND,air and ND,w formalisms have very similar uncertainty when the same criteria are used for both procedures. Arguments are provided in support of the recommendation for a change in reference dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water.

Air↗

PubMed2002

The use of mixed-integer programming for inverse treatment planning with pre-defined field segments.

Complex intensity patterns generated by traditional beamlet-based inverse treatment plans are often very difficult to deliver. In the approach presented in this work the intensity maps are controlled by pre-defining field segments to be used for dose optimization. A set of simple rules was used to define a pool of allowable delivery segments and the mixed-integer programming (MIP) method was used to optimize segment weights. The optimization problem was formulated by combining real variables describing segment, weights with a set of binary variables, used to enumerate voxels in targets and critical structures. The MIP method was compared to the previously used Cimmino projection algorithm. The field segmentation approach was compared to an inverse planning system with a traditional beamlet-based beam intensity optimization. In four complex cases of oropharyngeal cancer the segmental inverse planning produced treatment plans, which competed with traditional beamlet-based IMRT plans. The mixed-integer programming provided mechanism for imposition of dose-volume constraints and allowed for identification of the optimal solution for feasible problems. Additional advantages of the segmental technique presented here are: simplified dosimetry, quality assurance and treatment delivery.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2002

A dosimetric comparison of various multileaf collimators.

The dosimetric characteristics of three multileaf collimator (MLC) systems (Elekta, Siemens and Varian) having 10 mm leaf width are compared. A 6 MV photon beam was used from each unit for measurements. Film dosimetry was performed for the measurements and the analysis techniques were exactly duplicated in each system. Two of the collimators have rounded leaf ends (Elekta and Varian) and the third (Siemens) has a flat end that follows beam divergence. A scanning densitometer (Wellhöfer with 0.45 mm spot and 0.5 mm step size) was used for film analysis. The dosimetric characteristics studied include: penumbra width (80-20%) as a function of position of the leaf end in the field, inter- and intra-leaf radiation leakage, dose distribution of the tongue and groove, and isodose curves for stepped leaves forming 45 degrees angle beam edge. Results show that MLC designs with divergent and non-divergent leaves produce penumbra (80-20%) widths that are within 2.0 mm of each other. However, the distance of the collimator from the x-ray target plays an important role, and the smallest penumbra width was noted for the Varian MLC despite its rounded leaf-end design. Compared to the other systems, this collimator is positioned about 15 cm closer to the patient which affects the skin dose. The MLC with flat leaf end, although closer to the target, showed slightly poorer penumbra width. Inter-leaf leakage through the leaves is 1.3% for two of the collimators (Elekta and Varian) with the backup jaws and is nearly 1% for the third system (Siemens). The Siemens MLC produces reduced tongue-and-groove effect compared to the other two collimators (Elekta and Varian). The isodose undulation for a stepped edge is found to be significant for the collimator closest to the patient (Varian) and does not depend on the leaf-end shape. There is no perfect MLC system that can be recommended, rather each one has unique advantages and disadvantages that should be weighed with comfort, ease and cost effectiveness for clinical use.

Radiometry↗

PubMed2001

Reference dosimetry in clinical high-energy photon beams: comparison of the AAPM TG-51 and AAPM TG-21 dosimetry protocols.

Task Group 51 (TG-51) of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) has recently developed a new protocol for the calibration of high-energy photon and electron beams used in radiation therapy. The formalism and the dosimetry procedures recommended in this protocol are based on the use of an ionization chamber calibrated in terms of absorbed dose-to-water in a standards laboratory's 60Co gamma ray beam. This is different from the recommendations given in the AAPM TG-21 protocol, which are based on an exposure calibration factor of an ionization chamber in a 60Co beam. The purpose of this work is to compare the determination of absorbed dose-to-water in reference conditions in high-energy photon beams following the recommendations given in the two dosimetry protocols. This is realized by performing calibrations of photon beams with nominal accelerating potential of 6, 18 and 25 MV, generated by an Elekta MLCi and SL25 series linear accelerator. Two widely used Farmer-type ionization chambers having different composition, PTW 30001 (PMMA wall) and NE 2571 (graphite wall), were used for this study. Ratios of AAPM TG-51 to AAPM TG-21 doses to water are found to be 1.008, 1.007 and 1.009 at 6, 18 and 25 MV, respectively when the PTW chamber is used. The corresponding results for the NE chamber are 1.009, 1.010 and 1.013. The uncertainties for the ratios of the absorbed dose determined by the two protocols are estimated to be about 1.5%. A detailed analysis of the reasons for the discrepancies is made which includes comparing the formalisms, correction factors and quantities in the two protocols, as well as the influence of the implementation of the different standards for chamber calibration. The latter has been found to have a considerable influence on the differences in clinical dosimetry, even larger than the adoption of the new data and recommended procedures, as most intrinsic differences cancel out due to the adoption of the new formalism.

Biophysical Phenomena↗

PubMed2001

Reference dosimetry in clinical high-energy electron beams: comparison of the AAPM TG-51 and AAPM TG-21 dosimetry protocols.

A comparison of the determination of absorbed dose to water in reference conditions with high-energy electron beams (Enominal of 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 18 MeV) following the recommendations given in the AAPM TG-51 and in the original TG-21 dosimetry protocols has been made. Six different ionization chamber types have been used, two Farmer-type cylindrical (PTW 30001, PMMA wall; NE 2571, graphite wall) and four plane parallel (PTW Markus, and Scanditronix-Wellhöfer NACP, PPC-05 and Roos PPC-40). Depending upon the cylindrical chamber type used and the beam energy, the doses at dmax determined with TG-51 were higher than with TG-21 by about 1%-3%. Approximately 1% of this difference is due to the differences in the data given in the two protocols; another 1.1%-1.2% difference is due to the change of standards, from air-kerma to absorbed dose to water. For plane-parallel chambers, absorbed doses were determined by using two chamber calibration methods: (i) direct use of the ADCL calibration factors N(60Co)D,w and Nx for each chamber type in the appropriate equations for dose determination recommended by each protocol, and (ii) cross-calibration techniques in a high-energy electron beam, as recommended by TG-21, TG-39, and TG-51. Depending upon the plane-parallel chamber type used and the beam energy, the doses at dmax determined with TG-51 were higher than with TG-21 by about 0.7%-2.9% for the direct calibration procedures and by 0.8%-3.2% for the cross-calibration techniques. Measured values of photon-electron conversion kecal, for the NACP and Markus chambers were found to be 0.3% higher and 1.7% lower than the corresponding values given in TG-51. For the PPC-05 and PPC-40 (Roos) chamber types, the values of kecal were measured to be 0.889 and 0.893, respectively. The uncertainty for the entire calibration chain, starting from the calibration of the ionization chamber in the standards laboratory to the determination of absorbed dose to water in the user beam, has been analyzed for the two formalisms. For cylindrical chambers, the observed differences between the two protocols are within the estimated combined uncertainty of the ratios of absorbed doses for 6 and 8 MeV; however, at higher energies (10< or =E< or =18 MeV), the differences are larger than the estimated combined uncertainties by about 1%. For plane-parallel chambers, the observed differences are within the estimated combined uncertainties for the direct calibration technique; for the cross-calibration technique the differences are within the uncertainty estimates at low energies whereas they are comparable to the uncertainty estimates at higher energies. A detailed analysis of the reasons for the discrepancies is made which includes comparing the formalisms, correction factors, and quantities in the two protocols, as well as the influence of the implementation of the different standards for chamber calibration.

Biophysical Phenomena↗