Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Dose Linearity from #430

Open
crcrewso opened this issue Dec 21, 2022 · 8 comments
Open

Dose Linearity from #430

crcrewso opened this issue Dec 21, 2022 · 8 comments

Comments

@crcrewso
Copy link
Contributor

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Real world problem - We noticed that the inital dose rate for one of our Linacs changed. This can be seen easily in the SNC Profiler software but not easily quantitatively recorded.
272ce80e-e558-4860-8a74-79bbe867fb53

Describe the solution you'd like
An additional metric added to the SNC Profiler package and the corresponding outputs to produce the relevent aapm metrics

@jrkerns
Copy link
Owner

jrkerns commented Mar 20, 2023

I didn't measure this in the clinic so I'm unfamiliar with the AAPM metrics. Can you point me to the report please? I'm guessing this can only be done w/ .prm files, not .prs files.

@crcrewso
Copy link
Contributor Author

AAPM Practice Guideline for Linacs
TG 142
Table III - Annual Dosimetry - X-ray monitor unit linearity: limits for MU linearity as ±5% (2–4 MU), ±2% (> 5 MU).

I'm not sure if the information would be in PRS files. I can't find any in our records to inspect.

@jrkerns
Copy link
Owner

jrkerns commented Mar 22, 2023

Hmm. I never thought about doing it that way. We did it with an ion chamber and delivered X MU and compared the normalized result. Is this with a known MU? Or do you integrate the area?

@crcrewso
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think that beam was 100 MU.
I think that the generally accepted way to consider linearity and initial beam quality has changed within the last 10 years, the referenced extension of TG142 dates to 2017. CPQR guidance from 2016 also includes considerations for what the document describes as end effect. (AL9 & 10)

@jrkerns
Copy link
Owner

jrkerns commented Mar 23, 2023

I'm not seeing implementation details there? In the US at least, in TG-198 (published 2021) an IC reading is still the default way. 2.D.1.8.3

@mchamberland
Copy link
Contributor

I'm also curious about using the Profiler to calculate MU linearity, but I don't understand how you would do it or what metric you're calculating from that graph?

@crcrewso Do you have a procedure you can share that you are currently using to calculate it?

@crcrewso
Copy link
Contributor Author

We are currently exploring how best impliment this clinically, I haven't seen consensus on how to report this detail; it appears to me to be a recommended tolerance with no suggested implimentation. We are keeping track and manually comparing the first MUs of a 100 MU field to the same field from the commissioning dataset to ensure that the starting peak isn't too extreme but would like to turn this into a quantitiative measure going forward.

@crcrewso
Copy link
Contributor Author

For context here is the dose rate for the same field on a different linac, the spike is over the first 10 MU of the field.

image

And an electron field

image

jrkerns added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 6, 2024
RAM-3813 change mlc position reporting to be from the CAX instead of image edge.

Approved-by: Randy Taylor
Approved-by: Hasan Ammar
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants