Journal of Radiation Research
Online ISSN : 1349-9157
Print ISSN : 0449-3060

この記事には本公開記事があります。本公開記事を参照してください。
引用する場合も本公開記事を引用してください。

Megavoltage Photon Beam Attenuation by Carbon Fiber Couch Tops and its Prediction Using Correction Factors
Naoki HAYASHIYuta SHIBAMOTOYasunori OBATATakashi KIMURAHisato NAKAZAWAMasahiro HAGIWARAChisa I. HASHIZUMEYoshimasa MORITatsuya KOBAYASHI
著者情報
ジャーナル フリー 早期公開

論文ID: 09116

この記事には本公開記事があります。
詳細
抄録
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of megavoltage photon beam attenuation (PBA) by couch tops and to propose a method for correction of PBA. Four series of phantom measurements were carried out. First, PBA by the exact couch top (ECT, Varian) and Imaging Couch Top (ICT, BrainLAB) was evaluated using a water-equivalent phantom. Second, PBA by Type-S system (Med-Tec), ECT and ICT was compared with a spherical phantom. Third, percentage depth dose (PDD) after passing through ICT was measured to compare with control data of PDD. Forth, the gantry angle dependency of PBA by ICT was evaluated. Then, an equation for PBA correction was elaborated and correction factors for PBA at isocenter were obtained. Finally, this method was applied to a patient with hepatoma. PBA of perpendicular beams by ICT was 4.7% on average. With the increase in field size, the measured values became higher. PBA by ICT was greater than that by Type-S system and ECT. PBA increased significantly as the angle of incidence increased, ranging from 4.3% at 180° to 11.2% at 120°. Calculated doses obtained by the equation and correction factors agreed quite well with the measured doses between 120° and 180° of angles of incidence. Also in the patient, PBA by ICT was corrected quite well by the equation and correction factors. In conclusion, PBA and its gantry angle dependency by ICT were observed. This simple method using the equation and correction factors appeared useful to correct the isocenter dose when the PBA effect cannot be corrected by a treatment planning system.
著者関連情報

この記事は最新の被引用情報を取得できません。

© 2010 by Journal of Radiation Research Editorial Committee
feedback
Top