Implementation of enhanced dynamic wedge in the focus rtp system

The FOCUS RTP system implementation of Varian's enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) is presented. Calculations of both dose distributions and wedge factors (WFs) are based on segmented treatment tables (STTs). Calculating dose requires a "transmission matrix" derived from an STT to model the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inMedical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists Vol. 25; no. 2; p. 81
Main Authors Miften, M, Wiesmeyer, M, Beavis, A, Takahashi, K, Broad, S
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States 2000
Subjects
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The FOCUS RTP system implementation of Varian's enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) is presented. Calculations of both dose distributions and wedge factors (WFs) are based on segmented treatment tables (STTs). Calculating dose requires a "transmission matrix" derived from an STT to model the modified fluence from the source. The dose calculation is then performed using either the Clarkson or convolution/superposition algorithms. An initial "primary dose/monitor unit (MU) fraction" WF estimate at the weight point of symmetric and asymmetric fields is calculated from the STT as the ratio of MU delivered on the axis of the weight point divided by total MU delivered for the treatment field. In our approach, we go beyond this initial estimate with a "scatter dose" correction. This requires measured 60 degrees WFs for 5 fields. Scatter corrections derived from measured WFs are interpolated for other wedge angles and field sizes in much the same way as arbitrary wedge angle STTs are derived from a "golden STT" using the "ratio of tangents" formalism. Dose comparisons with measured distributions show good agreement to within 3% or 3 mm for 6-MV beams and all EDW angles. Agreement with measurements to within 1% is obtained for WFs in all symmetric and asymmetric fields for 6- and 10-MV beams. For large wedge angles and field sizes, this represents a significant improvement over the 3% to 4% errors often observed using the MU fraction model alone.
ISSN:0958-3947
DOI:10.1016/S0958-3947(00)00033-9