Current A

Approach
in
n
Clinical Electron Beam Dosimetry
Clinical

Dimitris Mih Ph.D.

hailidis, Ph.D.
Charleston Radiation
n Therapy
py Consultants
 THANK
K YOU

PROGRAM DIRECTORS
D
David W.O. Rogers,
R Ph.D.
Joanna Cyg
yg
gler,, Ph.D.
g
AAPM & SS
S SubCom
Local Arrangeme
ents Committee
Ms. Betsy Phelps
Phelps-
h l -Medidicall Physics
h Publishing
bl h
Participants
 OUTL
LINE
 Objectives
 Current calibration protocols
 E-beam quality specification
n
 Measurement of CA %DDs in water:
water:
– ion
i chambers,
h b di
diodes,
d fil
film
– practical rules
 Output
p factors
 Non
Non--water phantoms: Relattive measurements
– ion chambers, %DDs, film
 Smallll and
S d iirregular
l fifield
ld d
dossimetry
i t
 Extended treatment distanc ces
 Electron algorithms
 Some data and examples
 Objec
ctives
 Address the issues that currently influence the
dosimetry of clinical elec ctron beams due to
changes recently introdu uced by the new
dosimetry calibration pro otocol (TG(TG--51).
 Suggest how to approprriately modify and update
the widely accepted TG-
TG-25 electron dosimetry
protocol.
 Describe a detail proced dure of converting
measured depth-
depth-ionizatiion curves with ion
chambers into depth
depth--dosse curves making use of
recently published stopp ping--power ratios and
ping
other conversion factors s.
 Present the important po oints of the upcoming
AAPM TG-
TG-70. (Gerbi et al. Med.
M Phys. July 2009, issue!)
 Objec
ctives
 Describe the use of wate er equivalent phantoms
to perform relative electrron dosimetry based on
recently published conve ersions factors.
 Discuss small and irregu ularly shaped electron
field dosimetry using the
e concept of lateral
buildup ratio (LBR) as an n avenue to evaluate
electronic equilibrium an
nd compute dose per MU
for those fields
fields.
 Give some common clin nical examples where
electron beam dosimetry y is applied.
 Important rep
ports to have
 TG
TG--25 (Clinical electron beeam dosimetry).
 TG
TG--51 (protocol for clinical dosimetry for high
high--
energy photon and
d electron beams).
 TG
TG--69 (Radiographic Filmss for MV Beam
Dosimetry).
 TG
TG--39 (The calibration andd use of plane-
plane-parallel
ionization
ioni ation chambe
chamberrs
s fo
for dosimetry
dosimet of
electron beams) .
 TG
TG--53 (Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy
treatment planning
g).
 TG
TG--106 (Accelerator beam
m data commissioning and
procedures.
 TG--70 (just published)
TG
Current calibra
ation protocols
ation
 Current calibra
ation protocols
 TG
TG--51 of AAPM (19999).
999)
TRS--398 of IAEA (2003).
 TRS
“Absorbed
“Ab b d Dose
D determin
d ination
i iin E
Externall B
Beam
Radiotherapy: An Internaational Code of Practice
based on Standards of Abbsorbed Dose to Water”
 Code of practice off IPEM (2006).
“Code of practice for elec
ctron dosimetry of
radiotherapy beams with h initial energy from 2 to 50
MeV based on air
air--kerma calibration
calibration”
”
 Main objectivves of TG-
TG-51
 DefinesDose at one poiint, dref.
 Proposes to do two thin
ngs:
1. Incorporate the new abs
sorbed dose standard
– Absorbed dose is more robust than the Air-
Air-Kerma Std.

60 Co
Q
N D ,w  k q N D ,w
– Dose to water is closer to the dose to tissue
2. Simplify the calibration formalism
f (as much as
possible)
 Makes use of realistic water-
w
water-to
to--air restricted
SPRs
SPRs. w
 L 
   air
 Because of TG-
TG-51 1 (and other recent
dosimetry data), do
o we need to modify
TG--25 ?
TG

YES! TG-
TG-70 was charged!
E-Beam Qualitty
ty Specification
Electron Beam Qu
uality Specification
New beam quality specifie
er*:: R50 (depth in water
er*
at which dose falls to 50% of maximum for
large field size (>10x10 cm2) (TG
(TG--51).
 First find I50 (50% of ionization maximum).

 R50  1.029I 50  0.06 cm

m for 2  I 50  10 cm

or

R50  1.059I 50  0.37 c for

cm I 50  10 cm

*(TG--25, be
*(TG eam quality specifier: (Ep)0)
 Energy at
a depth
Harder’s Eq. still valid!
v (Harder 1968)

 d 
 Mean energy at depth: E d  E 0 1   ( MeV )
 R 
 p 
 M
Mean energy att surface
f off phantom
h t : (IPEM 2003)

E0  0.656  2.059 R50  0.022 R50

2
( MeV )
or

E 0  0 .818  1 .9355 I 50  0 .040 I 50

2
( MeV )
 Practical range: (Rogers 1996)

R p  1.271R50  0.23(cm)
 Energy at
a depth

Harder’s Eq.
q still valid!
v ((Harder 1968))

 Mean energ
gy at depth:

 d 
Ed  E 0 1   ( MeV )
 R 
 p 

? ?
 Energy at surface and
a practical range
 Mean energy at surface
e of phantom : (IPEM 2003)

E0  0.656  2.059 R50  0.022 R50

2
( MeV )
or

E 0  0 .818  1 .935 I 50  0 .040 I 50

2
( MeV )

 Practical range: (Ro

ogers 1996)

R p  1.271R50  0.23(cm)
 Comm
ment
Harder’s Eq.. still valid!

 d 
 Mean energy at depth: E d  E 0 1   ( MeV )
 R 
 p 
 U off ((as off TG-
Use TG-25):
25)

E0  2.33 R50 ( MeV )

or
E0  2.40 R50 ( MeV )

Produce values within

n 0.4 MeV of previous
relationships
Measurements
Measureme nts of %DDs
 Phantoms an
nd detectors

 WATER for relative measurements

m
(%DDs, OFs, etc) such as large data
collection..
collection
 Plastic
ast c ( (non
(non-
o -Water
ater)) for
o limited
ted relative
e at e
measurements of clin nical setups (%DDs,
OF,, etc).
O )
 Detectors (cylindrical, p- p-p, diodes, film)
Cylindrical cha
ambers
ambers in water
Step 1:
1: Shift chamber deeper by 00.5r
0.5
5rcav
5r
zation orr dose
epth ioniz
% de
 Step 2:
2: Correct reeading for Piion, Ppoll

M ( d )  M raw( d )  Pion ( d )  Ppol ( d )

.

• Apply TG-
TG-51 requirem
ments for Pion and Ppol
(For %DD: measure att I50 and Rp depths)

M (d )
% di ( d )  1000
M ( I max )
Step
p 3:
3: Use realisttic SPRs water/air
 From Burns 1996 (in water)
w

a  blnn R50   cln R50   d  z R50 

w 2
L
  R50 , z  
 1  eln R50   f ln R50   g ln R50   h z R50 
2 3
  air
Where:

a = 1.0752 b = - 0.50867 c = 0.088670 d = - 0.08402

e = - 0.42806 f = 0.064627 g = 0.003085 h = - 0.12460

These coefficients give an rms s deviation of 0.4% and a max.

de iation of 1
deviation 1.0%
0% for z/R
/R50 betw
between
een 0
0.02
02 and 11.1.
1 The max.
ma dedeviation
iation
increases to 1.7% if z/R50 value
es up to 1.2 are considered.
 Step 4:
4: a) Com
mputation of %DD
b) Corre
ect for Pfl and Pwall

w
L
  ( R50 , d )  Pfl ( Ed )  Pwall (d )
.
  air
%ddw (d )  %idw (d )  w
a
L
  ( R50 , dmax )  Pfl ( Edmax )  Pwall (dmax)
  air
 Errors associa
ated with SPRs
Fitted SPRs vs.
vs individually calculated
Error:
% of Max dose=
%error
% off th
the fitted
fitt d
SPRs vs. individually
calculated values.

Rogers
g has shown that
the %DD can be
R
Rogers, 2004 determined to within
1% of the dose at dmax.

(Rogers 2004)
 Reminder:: For
Reminder F electrons

Prepl  Pgr  Pfl

Pgr: addressed with chamber shift

f

Pfl: Use Table V in TG

T -25
TG-
 Pfl from
m TG-
TG-25

Inner diameter (mm)

Ed
((MeV)) 3 5 6 7
2 0.977 0.962 0.956 0.949
3 0.978 0.966 0.959 0.952
5 0 982
0.982 09 1
0.971 0 96
0.965 0 960
0.960
. 7 0.986 0.977 0.972 0.967
10 0.990 0.985 0.981 0.978
15 0.995 0.992 0.991 0.990
20 0.997 0.996 0.995 0.995

*where 
Ed  E0 1
1 d / Rp 
 Pwall
w ll

Pwall=1:
1 for
f electron
l t beams
b and
d llow-
low-Z thin-
thin
thi -walled
ll d
chambers (Johansson 1978)

Pwall: Recent data (Buckley&Roggers 2006) show change up

to 2
2.5%
5% at 0
0.5
5 cm
cm--R50 for 6 Me
eV.
eV

Recommendation: make
Recommendation: e sure your chamber
introduces less than 2%
% error at depths by
comparing its response to published data.
p-p chamb
chambers
ers in water
 Use of p-
p-p cham
mbers for %DD
• In general, front of window is point of measurement
Front window thickness ((1 (1--2mm)) should be taken into
account.
Pggr=0 for all p
p--p chamberrs.
Pfl=1 for most chambers except Markus and Capintec
PS--033 (use TG
PS TG--39
9 for correction factors).
Pwall corrections are conssidered negligible in most
cases.
Pwall:
Recent data (Buckley&Rogers 2006)
2 have shown strong
depth dependence for NACP-02, Roos, Markus and
Capintec PS-
PS-033.
Buckley&Rogers
s: p-
s: p-p chambers

Recommendation:
Recommendation:
C
Compare your chamber’s
h b ’
response with data from
lit t
literature tto be
b <2%
2%

Know your chamber!

diodes in water
 Use of diod
des for %DD
Diodes specifically
p y desig
g
gned for electron beams.

The effective p
point of me
easurement is the dye
y
(get specs from manufacturer).

Validate %DDs measureed with diodes against

curves measured with
w chambers (TG(TG--25).

Have a QC program for diodes before taking large

amount of data.
 Use of diod
des for %DD

1) Look at new TG-

TG-106 (Daas 2008)

2)) Look at this Summer Sc

chool’s chapter
p
QUES
STION
STION
1.Ridiculous
1 Ridiculous
2.Frightening
3.Horrific
4.Abominable
5.Hungry

ABOMINABLE (A
A-Bomb-In-A-Bull)
A-Bomb-In-A-Bull)
Courtesy of J. Gibbons, PhD
General Characte
eristics of E-
eristics E-%DDs
 definitio
ons….

Practical Range

Therapeutic Range
ICRU 35 (1984)
 As Energy increases

 Surface 5mm) ↑.
dose (at 0.5
 dmax ↑ for lower Es and
a stops at
moderate/high Es.
 Beam penetration ((d90, d50 and Rp) ↑.

 Distance between d90-d10 ↑.

 x-ray contamination n ↑.
As beam energ
gy increases….
gy

Hogstrom (2003)
 As field size
e decreases

 Surface dose (at 0.5m mm) ↑.

 dmax and d90 ↓ (shift tto surface)
surface).
 Distance between d90 0-d10 ↑.
 Rp unchanged.
h d
 As field size decreases….
d

9 MeV 20 MeV

Hogstrom (2003)
Outputt factors
 Defin
nition

D d max ra , ra , SSD treat 

S e d max ra , ra , SSD  
D d max r0 , r0 , SSD nom 

ra: treatment field

f att SSD
SS treat

r0: reference / cal fie

eld at SSDnom
Non--water phantoms
Non
Relative measurements
 Use of non
non--wa
ater phantoms
 Water substitutes shouuld mimic water across
th whole
the h l electron
l t enerrgy range
– mainly in stopping an
nd scattering powers
 thus,
h both
b h theh electro
l on density
d i and d the
h effective
ff i
atomic number should be matched to water
 in practice for some phantoms,
phantoms
p this is difficult to
achieve (due to the caarbon in plastics)
– off-
off-the-
the-shelf material can have large
g
variations in density and
a scattering power
 Must be careful in using these materials

SO:
USE WATER
R WHENEVER
POSS
SIBLE!
 Use of non-
non-wa
ater phantoms
di
discussion
i of corrections
i

 Depths need to be sc
caled.
 Chamber
Ch b readings
di ne
eed d to
t be
b multiplied
lti li d b
by
an appropriate fluencce--ratio correction.
ce
 Stopping
Stopping--power ratio
os should be taken at
the scaled depth.
 Charge storage effeccts should be kept in
mind usinggppolystyre
y y ene and PMMA.
 Correction
ns needed
 R50
w 
Depth correction: d w  d med  eff  d med  med 
R 
 50 

Corrected dose (Ding

(D 1997):

)L /   w
D w ( d wmax ) maax
D med ( d medd coll med  med
w

Electron fluence correction factor

 Depth correc
ction factors

Material Mass densiityy Recommended effective

(g cm-33) density, eff
Water* 1.00 1.00
Clear polystyrene* 1.045 0.975
High-impact polystyrene 1.055 0.99
((white)*
)
Electron solid water* 1.04 1.00
Polymethylmethacrylate 1.18 1.115
(
(PMMA)*)*
Epoxy resin water 1.02 0.98
substitute, photon
formulation**
*from TG-25, Table VIII, p. 84.
**From IPEM 2003, p.
p 2945.
 Output in non
non--water
w phantom

w
 (d max
med ,r) med
Se,w (d max
w r)  Se,medd (d
,r) max
m
md
med r) 
,r) w
 (d max
med ,r0 ) med

 med
w
: Use data from Ding
D g 1997.
1997.

NOTE: Since corrections appe

ear as RATIOS might be
neglegible. CHECK it!
 Measurements PDDs
iin
n non-
non-water Phantoms
Ph

 The SSD and field size are not to be scaled.

 Chamber must be positio

oned with its effective
point of measurement att the equivalent
equivalent--scaled
depth in the non
non--water phantom.
p

 Correct for electron fluen

nce med
w
 PDDs in non-
non-water
w phantoms
• Cylindrical chambers
w
L 
  ( R 50
w
, d w )  P fl ( E d med )
  med
w
 airr ( d med )
% dd w ( d w )  % di med ( d med )  
L 
w
 med
w med
( d max )
  ( R 50
w w
, d max )  P fl ( E d med )
  air max

• p-p chambers:
h b Pfl=1
1

• Film XV
XV--2 ((TG-
(TG-25))
Large energy dependence
Dosimetry
y of small
an
nd
irregula
ar fields
 Dose determination in
n small/irregular fields

 Inherent problems in
n dosimetry of small
electron fields
– depth of dmax become es shallower.
shallower
– the output factor may y be significantly
different than the con ne factor if the field size
is small enough for la ateral scatter equilibrium
((LSE).
)
– isodose coverage is re educed in all directions
as the field shrinks.
 Square--Ro
Square oot Method
 For rectangular fields off X & Y dimensions:

%dd (d , rX ,Y )  [%dd (d , rX , X )  %dd (d , rY ,Y )]1/ 2

S e (d m , rX ,Y )  [ S e (d m , rX , X )  S e (d m , rY ,Y )]1 / 2

(Hogstrom (1981) & Mills (1982))

Approximate irregular shapes
shapes with rectangles

Hogstrom (2000)
 Comparison of the percent differrence between measured and
calculated output factors for commmon methods of calculation
in the literature.
literature The measured anda calculated output factors
were for cutout shields that were e shaped as squares,
rectangles, circles, ellipses, and arbitrary shapes used in the
clinic

Calculation method Percent difference

(%)
Equivalent square 2.7*, 5.9*, 3.0*
Square root 3 0*, 2.3
3.0 2 3*, 4.6
4 6*, 3.0
3 0*
One-dimensional 3.0*, 2.0*, 2.1*
Pencil beam 2.7*,, 2.0*
Sector integration 3.0, 1.5, 1.0*

(Jursinic 1997)
Lateral Buildup Ra
atios (LBRs) Model
(Khan ett al. 1999)
THE WRATH
H OF KHAN
When is special do
osimetry required?
 When the minimum field dimension is less than
the
th minimum
i i radius
di off a circular
i l fifield
ld that
th t
produces lateral scatte er equilibrium (LSE)

R eq  0 . 88 E p , 0
or
a  1 . 58 E p , 0 (Khan&Higgins 1999)

where
E p , 0  0 . 22  1 . 98
9 R p  0 . 0025 2
Rp
Do you remember what it has been?
 From Lax&Brahme (198 80) we have been using
th criterion
the it i ffor LSE:
LSE

E0
R eq 
2 .5
wherre
(also in Khan’s book)
E0  E0
or
E 0  E p ,0
 Pencil beam…
b

Broad field
field--same surface fluence as pen
ncil
beam
 r2 
exp  
  r ( z) 
2
Due to multiple
p
d p ( r , z )  D (0, z )  Coulomb Scattering
 r 2 ( z )
Khan et al. (1998)
 LBR de
efinition
 LBRs are related to  r2 d  mean square radial
spread d off pencil
il beam
b (independent
(i
( d d t off fi
field
ld
size).
DEFINITIION of LBR:

D(d , rx )  i (r , E )
LBR (d , r )  
D(d , r )  i (r , E )

rx: s
small
a fieldd (e.g.,
( g , 2 cm
c radius)
ad us)
r∞: broad field (e.g., 20
0x20 cm2)
(…): incident fluence (normalize at 0.5 mm
depth)
(Khan et al. 1998)
Measured PDDs norma alized at 0.5 mm depth
(surfface)
Diode data
1: 2 cm
2: 2.8 cm
3: 3.7
3 7 cm
4: 5.8 cm

Khan et al. (1998)

 Deterrmine  2
r d 
 Take a small circular field rx=2 cm diam. to
measure PDDs and ratio tho ose to PDDs from a
20x20 cm2 ,normalized both h at 0.5 mm, to
determine LBRs.
LBRs

rx2
 r2 (d ) 
 1  w
with LBR<1
ln  
1  LBR ( rx , d ) 

(Khan et al. 1998)

Sigma vs. field size
size and energy

LBRmin
Khan et al. (1998)
In which applicator to use the rx field?
6 MeV 12 MeV

It does NOT
matter!
20 MeV
2 cm diam. insert in
10x6, 10x10 and
20x20 cm2
applicators
 For irregularly shaped
s fields…
 Sector integration summing
g the pencil beam
contributions.

 n  ri 2
LBR eff (d , r )  1  ( )  exp[ 2 ]
2 i  1  r (d )
ri

θ
x
O

(Khan&Higgins 1999
1999)
 Can we predict dmax
m for small fields?

 Circular fields as example, within

w ±0.5% of
maximum dose.
dose

rx
d max 
 0.174rx 0.67
E 1p.,67
0 
2 0.33
 0.06225E p ,0 rx ≤ Req

For broad field

Req
d max  0.67
0.46 E p ,0 rx ≥ Req
e

Relative applicator
Compute output factor: Output Factor

S e ( d , r j )  S e  LBR eff ( d , r j )  % dd  ( d , r )
(Khan&Higgins 1999
1999)
 Data vs. predictions for
f small circular fields
dmax

(Khan&Higgins 1999)
Data vs. predictions for
for small circular fields

Dose
MU

(Khan et al. 1998)

 Treatm
ments
a
at
extended distances
 Electron beam featurres at extended SSDs
 Differences in PDDs resulting from InvSq. effect are small
because electrons do not pene etrate that deep and because
the significant increase of pen
numbra width with SSD restricts
the SSD to 115 cm or less in clinical
c practice (Hogstrom 2003).
 The depth of dmax at extended d SSD is a complex function of
field size and beam energy.
energy For
F small field sizes
sizes, the dmax
depth changes little. As the fiield size increases (>10x10
cm2), the dmax depth increases s very slowly for electron
energies below 12 MeV.
MeV For higher
h energies the dmax depth
energies,
increases with increasing SSD D (Das et al. 1995, Cygler et al.
1997).
 However, this effect is clinically insignificant since higher
electron energies have broad dmax ranges. In addition, beam
flatness decreases and penum
p mbra width increases at
extended SSD, an effect more e pronounced at smaller field
sizes and lower electron energ gies. (also in Khan’s book)
Treatment planning sysstems (without Monte
Carlo) differ in their ability to accurately depict
the effects of extended SSD and individual
institutions should invesstigate the limitations
of their planning system ms before use on
patients.

Use TG-
TG-25 reccommendations.
 Beam ooutput
a
at
extended distances

The Effective SD (SSDeff) method

Effective--SS
 How to determine SSDeff

 For every applicator and

d energy plot:

Gap: g  SSDext  SSDnom

Io: Rdg
d at SSD
SS nom

I: Rdg at SSDextt

SSDeff SSDext: extended SSD

((typically
yp y <115 cm))

SSDnom: 100 cm

Typically dmax (TG--25 & in Khan’s book)

(TG
 Data from Sie
emens Primus
7 MeV 14 MeV
CONE INSERT dmax S SSDeff CONE INSERT dmax S SSDeff

SIZE SIZE [cm] [cm] SIZE SIZE [cm] [cm]

10x10 2x2 0.9 0.791 33.1 10x10 2x2 1.2 0.893 58.7

" 3x3 1.2 0.870 46.6 " 3x3 1.6 0.918 66.4

" 4x4 1.4 0.957 55.4 " 4x4 2.0 0.944 62.5

" 6x6 1.4 1.001 61.5 " 6x6 2.6 0.987 71.5

" 8x8 1.6 0.998 73.6 " 8x8 2.9 0.995 79.1

5cm 5cm 1.5 0.817 57.3 5cm 5cm 2.7 0.922 82.0

10x10 10x10 16
1.6 1 000
1.000 83 9
83.9 10x10 10x10 29
2.9 1 000
1.000 94 2
94.2

15x15 15x15 1.6 0.998 99.4 15x15 15x15 2.9 0.984 103.5

20x20 20x20 1.6 1.001 100.4 20x20 20x20 2.9 0.957 104.6

25x25 25x25 1.6 0.992 106.0 25x25 25x25 2.9 0.957 106.9

(Mihailidis, et al.)
Weak dependence of SSD
S eff on applicator size
(Varian 2100 Data)

Insert Beam Energy

gy (MeV)
( )
size
i
(cm2)

6 9 12 16 20

4 46.2 61.1 72.5 76.4 76.6

6 62.2 74.7 80.2 81.8 80.6
8 77.6 83.8 83.2 83.6 82.7
10 82.9 85.9 86.8 85.5 83.8
15 90.7 90.9 90.1 90.0 89.7
20 90.0 91.8 91.4 90.9 92.0
25 90.7 91.9 91.0 92.5 93.3

Avera
age (Roback et al. 1995)
 Output at exten
nded distances

S e ( d m , SSDext )  S e ( d m, SS
SD nom )  GF

2
 SSSDeff  d max 
GF   
with  SSD 
 Deff  d max  g 

D prescription
Monitor Units: MU 
Se (d m , SSDext )

(Khan et al. 1998)

QUES
STION
STION
1. Sad
2. Disgusting
3. Noble
4. Horrific
5. Silly

NOBLE (No-Bu
ull)
ull)
Courtesy of J. Gibbons, PhD
Electron Beam
m Algorithms
g
(Simple discussion)
 General C
Comments
 What should be done too commission these
algorithms (being consistent with TG53)
– know the pitfalls and limiitations of electron
algorithms
– careful with normalization of dose distributions for
electron
l t algorithms
l ith
 Restricted field
 Extended treatment distance

 Plans involving inhomogeneities

 Attention to how data should be entered into

the program.
program
 Some clinicallyy relevant tests

 Inhomogeneities
o oge e t es in elec
e ec
ctron
ct o treatments
t eat e ts
– The effects of inhomogen
neities on dose distributions
– Computer representationn of the effects of dose
inhomogeneities
 Use of bolus
 Field abutment
– Electron-
Electron-electron, with sa ame or different energies
– Electron-
Electron-pphoton,, with sta
andard or extended distances
– Tertiary shielding for field
d abutment
 Library of clinical treatm
ment examples
 Acknowle
edgment

 Members of TG-
TG-70 group.
g
 Faiz Khan.
 Dave Rogers.
 Ken Hogstrom.
Hogstrom
 Bruce Gerbi (Chair of
o TG
TG--70).
 Not do
one yet
Stay where
e you are!

The Duke
 Prob
blem

 A small area will be

e treated with 16 MeV
electrons and a cusstom circular field of
5 5 cm diameter (average),
5.5 verage) at 100 SSDSSD.
What are the neces ssary dosimetric
parameters to be measured
m in order to
determine the output of such field?

2.25 cm radius
 Solu
ution
 Check
Ch k for f LSE first.
fi t In
I pra actice
ti cm and d Ep,0=16.2
16 2 MeV
M V
(from (12.19)). Then, Req=3.5 cm (eq. (12.18)), thus
no LSE since a diam=7 cm m will be required.
 Need
N d to t find
fi d new dmax tha
th t is
i shifted
hift d towards
t d the
th
surface. Use either film dosimetry
d with film placed
parallel to electron beam in solid water or plane- plane-
parallel chamber in solid waterw with thin sheets of 1
mm to measure the dmax. An estimate of expected
dmax for the 5.5 cm diam. field is: 2.8 cm (from
((12.24)).
))
 Measure the output factorr of 5.5 cm field at 2.8 cm
(new dmax) relative to the reference 10x10 at 3.4 cm,
both at 100 SSD.
 From film or plane-
plane-paralleel chamber dosimetry find
dmax, d90, d80 and at those e depths measure isodose
lines with film perpendicular to beam in solid water.
S
Scan films
fil in
in-
i -plane
l andd crross
ross--plane
l to get the
h widths
id h
of 95%, 90%, 80% and 50% isodose lines at the
above depths.
 THANK
K YOU!

Now, let’s
let s go forr a brew or two!