dosimetric uncertainties in reference and relative ... · pdf filedosimetric uncertainties in...
TRANSCRIPT
Dosimetric Uncertainties in Reference and Relative Dosimetry of
Small Fields
Jan Seuntjens, Ph.D., FAAPM, FCCPMMcGill University Health Centre
Canada
Outline of Presentation• Uncertainty concepts and requirements• Dosimetry standards, calibration chain and
calibration uncertainties• Recap of physics of small fields & dosimetric
uncertainties• Small field reference dosimetry and sources of
uncertainty• Output factors and sources of uncertainty
Learning Objectives
• Learn about the sources of uncertainties in reference dosimetry of conventional and small fields
• Learn about new upcoming dosimetryrecommendations for small field dosimetry and components of uncertainty
Uncertainties - GUM
• GUM: ISO Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement – procedure to estimate the total uncertainty in your measurement – more than you ever wanted to know about probability distributions, uncertainty
budgets, degrees of freedom, coverage factors and how to turn a guess into an estimate
• More useful: the best way to ensure that you take all uncertainty components into account properly – how to build an uncertainty budget!
• NIST produced an explanatory document to the GUM (- NIST Technical Note 1297)
Uncertainty categories • An Error is the difference between the true value of a quantity or
variable and its estimate. If we know the Error, we can apply a correction to arrive at the true value of the quantity
• Uncertainties are not Errors!• Categories or types of uncertainties: A and B
– Type A. those which are evaluated by statistical methods; sometimes wrongly called random uncertainties, more correctly: "component of uncertainty arising from a random effect"
– Type B. those which are evaluated by other means; sometimes wrongly called systematic uncertainties, more correctly: “component of uncertainty arising from a systematic effect”
• A type A uncertainty from one uncertainty budget can become a Type B uncertainty in another uncertainty budget
Uncertainty requirements in SRT• Gradients are on the order of 20% per mm• With this gradient, a 10% dose uncertainty will lead to an uncertainty
in a profile width of 10%/20% * 1 mm = 0.5 mm on both sides of the profile, i.e., 1 mm width uncertainty
• GammaKnife: 10% higher dose in centre of the field means a 1 mm widening of the 50% isodose line
• For a 18 mm target this means the treated volume may increase by 25%!
the effect of dosimetric uncertainty translates in significant changes in treated volume
Traceability
Radiation Dosimetry
Calibration Chain Verification, QAand audits
8
Clinical beam
DwclinicQ
Calibration chain
IROC
ADCLbeam
Q ND,wclinic
PSDL(NIST or NRCC)
ND,wADCL,SSDL
AAPM-CLA
Primary Dosimetry Standard• Instrument that allows the determination of absorbed
dose according to its definition• Preferably with a direct path to SI quantities not involved
with ionizing radiation• SI base unit: meter, kilogram, second, ampere, kelvin,
mole, and candela• SI derived units: J, Gy, etc.• the path to base SI units is not always as “direct” as we
would like• PSDLs are primary standards dosimetry laboratories
Absorbed dose to water• Dose to water is determined directly, at a point, by
measuring the temperature increase:
cw: specific heat capacity of water (4180 J kg-1K-1): temperature increase (0.25 mK/Gy)
kc:heat loss correction factorkp: perturbation of radiation field correction factorkdd: non-uniformity of lateral dose profile corr. Factor
: water density difference correction factor h: heat defect
Practical realization
The NRC water calorimeter, Ottawa, Canada(Seuntjens et al 1999 A status report on the NRC sealed water calorimeter. PIRS 0584)
Uncertainty: primary standard
Seuntjens and Duane (2009)Metrologia 46 S39
~0.5%
Uncertainty: reference dosimetry
McEwen et al Medical Physics 41, 041501 (2014)
TG-51 Update:Uncertainty budget broken downinto:• Measurement• Calibration data• Influence quantities
Typical values discussed butemphasis on individual usersconstructing site-specific uncertaintybudgets for their calibrationsituations
Physics of small fields and impact on uncertainties
18
Recap:What constitutes small-field conditions?
• Beam-related small-field conditions– the existence of lateral charged particle disequilibrium– partial geometrical shielding of the primary photon
source as seen from the point of measurement • Detector-related small-field condition
– detector size compared to field size
Lateral charged particle loss broad photon field
volume volume
narrow photon field
A small field can be defined as a field with size smaller than the “lateral range” of charged particles
is a measure of the degree of charged particle equilibrium or transient equilibrium
Concept of rLCPE
Lateral charged particle loss
MC calculations, Seuntjens (2013)
Detector size relative to field size• Small field conditions exist when one of the
edges of the sensitive volume of a detector is less then a lateral charged particle equilibrium range (rLCPE) away from the edge of the field
(Li et al. 1995 Med Phys 22, 1167-1170)
rLCPE (in cm) = 5.973•TPR20,10 – 2.688
Slide courtesy: H. Palmans
Source occlusion
Large field conditionsSmall field conditions
(Figure courtesy M.M. Aspradakis et al, IPEM Report 103)
Overlapping of beam penumbras
Das et al. 2008 Med Phys 35: 206-15
definition of field
size is not unique
Detector-related small field condition
Based on criterion 1, one could claim that the GammaKnife18 or 14 mm diameter fields are not small (quasi point source + electron equilibrium length about 6 mm).
Meltsner et al., Med Phys 36:339 (2009)
Exradin A16 inner diameter
Exradin A16 outer diameter
Detector dependence of output factor
From Sanchez-Doblado et al. 2007 Phys Med 23:58-66
Measurements with small-field detectors
Sauer & WilbertMed Phys 34, 1983-88 (2007)IC = PTW 31010 (0.125 cm3)PiP = PTW 31006 (Pinpoint)
SES = size of equivalent square
Detector issues in small field dosimetry
• Energy dependence of the response• Perturbation effects
– Central electrode– Wall effects– Fact that cavity is different from water, fluence perturbation– Volume averaging
• These effects depend somewhat on the beam spot size
Dosimetry protocol values (e.g., TG-51) of these factors are applicable usually only in TCPE and only for the conditions:10 x 10 cm2; zref = 10 cm; SSD or SAD 100 cm
Detector issues in small field dosimetry
29
Stopping power ratio water to air
Eklund and Ahnesjö, Phys Med Biol 53:4231 (2008)Eklund and Ahnesjö, Phys Med Biol 53:4231 (2008)
Very small
effects!
0.5% effect
Role of different perturbation factors
080915
Crop et al., Phys Med Biol 54:2951 (2009)
PP31006 and PP31016 chambers
Magnitude of correction factors
080915
Crop et al., Phys Med Biol 54:2951 (2009)
8 mm x 8 mm field, 10 cm depth (0.6 mm, 2 mm spot sizes)
Very large effects!
Narrow 1.5 mm fieldRatio of dose-to-water to dose-
to-air averaged over cavity volume
Off-axis distance (mm)
Collecting electrode diameter: 1.5 mmSeparation: 1 mm
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
0 2 4 6 8
Dw/D
air
Stopping power ratio w/air
Paskalev, Seuntjens, Podgorsak (2002) AAPM Proc. Series 13, Med. Phys. Publishing, Madison, Wi, 298 – 318.
60%
A14P chamber
Summary of issues leading to dosimetricuncertainties in small fields
• Beam dependent issues– Beam focal spot size – Lateral disequilibrium– How do we measure beam quality in practice?
• Detector effects– There is no ideal detector– Volume averaging and fluence perturbation effects– Corrections depend on beam spot size
Small fields: upcoming guidelines, data and uncertainties
35
1. Clinical reference beam
2. Clinical small field
Med. Phys. 35 , 5179 (2008)
2 components:
36
0 0
,, , , , ,
msr refmsr msr
msr msr msr
f ff fwQ Q D wQ Q Q Q QD M N k k msrclin
msrclin
msr
msr
clin
clin
ffQQ
fQw
fQw DD ,
,,, Machine specific
reference field fmsrClinical field
fclin
Tomotherapy5 cm x 20 cm
REFERENCE DOSIMETRY RELATIVE DOSIMETRY
GammaKnifed = 1.6/1.8 cm
CyberKnife6 cm
Ionizationchamber
Broad beamreference field
fref
00 ,,, QQQwD kNHypothetical
reference field fref
micro MLC10 cm x 10 cm
refmsr
msr
ffQQk ,,
Radiosurgical collimatorsd = 1.8 cm
refmsr
msr
ffQQk ,,
msrclin
msrclinmsr
msr
clin
clinmsrclin
msrclin
ffQQf
Q
fQff
QQ kMM ,
,,,
37
Components of small field reference dosimetry
How to specify beam quality in small fields?
Sauer (2009) Med. Phys. 36: 4168
Data from BJR Suppl 25
Beam quality in small fieldse.g. for PDD10X(10) = %dd(10)X
11
110
10
2
10
110
10
ts
ts
ec
ecsPDDPDD
)()(
075100201026710751010
101010
101010 .)(,.)(.
.)(),()(
PDDPDDPDDPDD
PDD x
Palmans 2012 Med Phys 39 (9), 5514
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
2 4 6 8
s / cm
PDD
10(s
)
4 MV
10 MV
8 MV
6 MV
5 MV
25 MV
21 MV18 MV
15 MV
12 MV
(TG-51)
AAPM TG-148 (Langen et al. 2010 Med Phys 37:4817-53): “dd(10)x[HT-ref]”
Beam quality specifier for Tomotherapy
Correction factor data
• correction factors are small for the larger-field msr
Francescon et al: Phys. Med. Biol. 57 (2012) 3741–3758
Correction factor data (cont’d)
Correction factor data (cont’d)
• correction factors are small for the larger field msr
Volume averaging in FFF beams
Slide courtesy: H Palmans
A chamber of cavity length of 24 mm underestimates dose by 1.5 % in the6 cm field on Cyberknife!
Volume averaging in FFF beams
Pantelis et al. 2009 Med Phys 37:2369
Volume averaging in FFF beams
Slide courtesy: H Palmans
Components of small field output factors
Output factors
)1()2(
)2()2(
)1()1(
)2()1(
,
,,,
,,
clin
clin
clin
clin
msr
msr
clin
clin
clin
clin
msr
msr
msrclin
msrclin
msrclin
msrclin
fQrel
fQrel
fQ
fQ
fQ
fQ
ffQQ
ffQQ
MM
MM
MM
kk
msrclin
msrclinmsr
msr
clin
clin
msr
msr
msr
msr
clin
clin
clin
clin
msr
msr
clin
clin
msr
msr
clin
clinmsrclin
msrclin
ffQQf
Q
fQ
fQ
fQw
fQ
fQw
fQ
fQ
fQw
fQwff
QQ kMM
MDMD
MM
DD ,
,,
,
,
,,,
clin
clin
msr
msr
msr
msr
clin
clinmsrclin
msrclin fQ
fQ
fQw
fQwff
QQ MM
DD
k ,
,,,Where:
Output factors – example CyberKnife
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.750
0.800
0.850
0.900
0.950
1.000
1.050
0 5 10 15 20
diameter / mm
M /
M60
A16PinPointDiode 60008Diode 60012EDGEAlanineTLDEBT filmPolymer gel
0.950
1.000
1.050
1.100
1.150
1.200
1.250
1.300
0 5 10 15 20
diameter / mm
(M/M
60) 2/(
M/M
60) 1
PinPointDiode 60008Diode 60012EDGEAlanineTLDEBT f ilmPolymer gel
0.950
1.000
1.050
1.100
1.150
1.200
1.250
1.300
0 5 10 15 20
diameter / mm
ratio
of c
orre
ctio
n fa
ctor
s (M
C o
r vol
) PinPoint
Diode 60008
Diode 60012
EDGE
Alanine
)2()1(
, ,, ,
msr
clin
msr
clin
msr
clin
msr
clin
ff
ff
kk
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
Diode 60008
Diode 60012
EDGE
TLD
EBT film
Polymer gel
A16
Pin
Poi
nt
Dio
de 6
0008
Dio
de 6
0012
ED
GE
Ala
nine
TLD
EB
T fil
m
Pol
ymer
gel
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
detector
Mcl
in /
Mre
f
(Mclin / M
ref )* kclin,m
sr
ExrA16 PinPoint SHD USD EDGE alanine TLD EBT GEL
Pantelis et al. 2010 Med Phys37: 2369
Slide courtesy:H. Palmans
Experimental and MC studiesE.g. PTW-60012 unshielded diode in MLC collimated square fields
Experiment: Monte Carlo:
0.910
0.920
0.930
0.940
0.950
0.960
0.970
0.980
0.990
1.000
1.010
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
square field size / cm
corr
ectio
n fa
ctor
with
ref f
int
Griesbach et al 2005 Med Phys 32:3750 (rel. diamond)
Krauss 2008 - w w w (rel. LIC)
Ralston et al 2012 PMB 57:2587 (rel. PS / z = 5 cm, diode 1)
Ralston et al 2012 PMB 57:2587 (rel. PS / z = 5 cm, diode 2)
f it
Experimental Data for Table
0.930
0.940
0.950
0.960
0.970
0.980
0.990
1.000
1.010
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
square field size / cm
corr
ectio
n fa
ctor
with
ref f
int
f it
Monte Carlo Data for Table
Monte Carlo < Francescon et al. 2011 MedPhys 38:6513
Effect of different parameters on the correction factors
Parameters varied:1. Linac model2. Spot size FWHM3. Energy of the electron source4. Distance between exit window and target
P. Francescon, et al, Med. Phys. 38, 6513–6527 (2011).
Uncertainty in correction factor introduced due to field size definition
Cranmer Sargison et al Med. Phys. 38, 6592–6602 (2011) Benmakhlouf et al Med. Phys. 41, 041711 (2014)
Summary• Small field dosimetry is complex
– There are hefty perturbation effects that can have significant impact on reference dosimetry procedures and output factors
• Current good practice for reference and relative dosimetry in static small MV photon fields can be expressed as – Choice of suitably small detector which is known to minimally perturb
fluence– Careful experimental setup – Correct for volume averaging and energy dependence of detectors– Corroboration of data with peers and use of detectors of different design
• New protocol is upcoming– Machine-specific reference fields defined, corrections are small– Data on correction factors is being collected– Uncertainty analyses ongoing
The 1-sigma uncertainty on the realization of absorbed dose to water under reference conditions in broad photon beams, in the primary standards laboratory, is typically:
1%68%12%17%2% 1. 4%
2. 2%3. 1%4. 0.5%5. 0.1%
Correct answer: (4) 0.5%
Discussion: Uncertainties in absorbed dose to water standards vary slightly from primary laboratory to primary laboratory but all PSDLS arrive at typical values of around 0.5%. The uncertainty on calibrations in a clinical context vary anywhere from 0.9% to 2.1% in ideal versus more routine occasions, respectively.
Ref: for example, Seuntjens and Duane 2009 Photon Absorbed Dose Standards. Metrologia 46 S39. McEwen et al 2014 Med. Phys. 41 (4), 041501-1
A condition for radiation fields to be small for the purpose of reference dosimetry can generally be formulated as
6%
3%9%
76%
6% 1. Radiation fields with diameter of less than 3 cm
2. Radiation fields for which lateral charged particle equilibrium is lost whether the detector is absent or not;
3. Radiation fields for which the stopping power ratio, water-to-air, is drastically (> 3%) different from the value in TG-51 reference (10 x 10 cm2) fields;
4. Radiation fields for which the PSDL-traceable ionization chamber calibration coefficient is valid;
5. Radiation fields in which the absorbed dose to water cannot be measured accurately.
Correct answer: (2) Radiation fields for which lateral charged particle equilibrium is lost in absence or presence of the detector.
Discussion: Stopping power ratios do not vary significantly in small fields. PSDL traceable calibration coefficients in small fields do not (yet) exist. Absorbed dose can be measured accurately in small fields.
Ref: for example, Aspradakis et al, IPEM Report 103, Small field MV photon dosimetry
Indicate the single set of two largest contributors to correction factors and their uncertainties for commercial air-filled ionization chambers in small photon fields
3%
15%
77%
3%
2% 1. The stopping power ratio water to air and the central electrode effect
2. The stopping power ration water to air, and the chamber wall effect
3. The fluence perturbation effect and the volume averaging effect
4. The stopping power ratio, water to air, and the volume averaging effect
5. The ionization chamber wall effect and the stem effect
Correct answer: (3) The fluence perturbation effect and the volume averaging effect
Discussion: stopping power ratios are not very sensitive to changes in radiation beam size, nor are wall correction, central electrode corrections or stem effects. The large effects observed in small fields lie in volume averaging and fluence perturbation effects.
Ref: example: Crop et al 2009 Phys Med Biol 54(9). p.2951-2969
Reviews on small field dosimetry• R. Alfonso, P. Andreo, R. Capote, M. S. Huq, W. Kilby, P. Kjäll, T. R. Mackie, H.
Palmans, K. Rosser, J. Seuntjens, W. Ullrich, and S. Vatnitsky, “A new formalism for reference dosimetry of small and nonstandard fields,” Med. Phys. 35, 5179–5187 (2008).
• I. J. Das, G. X. Ding, and A. Ahnesjö, “Small fields: Nonequilibrium radiation dosimetry,” Med. Phys. 35, 206–215 (2008)
• M. Aspradakis, J. Byrne, H. Palmans, J. Conway, K. Rosser, J. Warrington, and S. Duane, “Small field MV photon dosimetry,” IPEM Report No. 103 (Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York, 2010).
• H Palmans (2011) CN-182-INV006, Small and composite field dosimetry: the problems and recent progress. IDOS Conference, Vienna.
Note: There is a literature explosion (since 2008) on the subject of small field dosimetryand correction factors. The reviews / reports above are not that recent! `
Acknowledgments• IAEA committee
– Palmans (Chair)– Andreo– Huq– Mackie – Ulrich– Kilby– Izewska– Capote– Alfonso– Seuntjens
• AAPM Committees– TG-178 (Goetsch et al)– TG-155 (Das et al)– WGDPCB (Seuntjens et al)
• ICRU Report Committee: Prescription, Recording and Reporting of Stereotactic Radiosurgery using small fields
– Seuntjens (Chair)– Lartigau (Co-chair)– Ding– Goetsch– Cora– Roberge– Nuyttens– Grégoire, Jones– Main commission
Dosimetric Uncertainties in Reference and Relative Dosimetry of
Small Fields
Jan Seuntjens, Ph.D., FAAPM, FCCPMMcGill University Health Centre
Canada