Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Characterization of the Dose Per Pulse Dependence of Various Detectors Used in Quality Assurance of FFF Treatment Plans

no image available
P Atwal

P Atwal1*, F Viel2 , E Gete3 , M Camborde4 , R Horwood5 , V Strgar6 , C Duzenli7 , T Karan8 , (1) British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, (2) British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, (3) Vancouver Cancer Center, Vancouver, BC, (4) ,Vancouver, BC, (5) British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, (6) British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, (7) British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, (8) Stronach Regional Cancer Center, Newmarket, ON


TH-C-19A-3 Thursday 10:15AM - 12:15PM Room: 19A

Purpose: To present the dose per pulse dependence of various QA devices under Flattening Filter Free (FFF) conditions.

Methods: Air and liquid filled ion chamber arrays, diode arrays, radiochromic film and optically stimulated luminescence detectors were investigated. All detectors were irradiated under similar conditions of varying dose per pulse on a TrueBeam linac. Dose per pulse was controlled by varying SSD from 70 to 160 cm providing a range from ~0.5 to ~3 mGy per pulse. MU rates of up to 2400 MU/min for 10X FFF and 1400 MU/min for the 6X FFF beam were used. Beam pulses were counted using the Profilerâ„¢ diode array and pulse timing was confirmed by examining linac node files. Delivered doses were calculated with the Eclipseâ„¢ treatment planning system.

Results: The detectors show a range of behaviors depending on the detector type, as expected. Diode arrays show up to 4% change in sensitivity (sensitivity increases with increasing dose per pulse) over the range tested. Air and liquid ion chambers arrays show a change in sensitivity of up to 3% (air) and 6% (liquid) (sensitivity decreases with increasing dose per pulse) while film and OSLD do not demonstrate a dependence on dose per pulse.

Conclusion: Dependence of detector response on dose per pulse varies considerably depending on detector design. Interplay between dose per pulse and MU rate also exists for some detectors. Due diligence is required to characterize detector response prior to implementation of a QA protocol for FFF treatment delivery. During VMAT delivery, the MU rate may also vary dramatically within a treatment fraction. We intend to further investigate the implications of this for VMAT FFF patient specific quality assurance.

Funding Support, Disclosures, and Conflict of Interest: T Karan and F Viel have received partial funding through the Varian Research program.

Contact Email: