MR compatible detectors assessment for a 0.35 T MR-linac commissioning

• Published in: Radiation oncology (London, England) Vol. 19; no. 1; p. 40
• Main Authors: Chea, Michel, Croisé, Mathilde, Huet, Christelle, Bassinet, Céline, Benadjaoud, Mohamed-Amine, Jenny, Catherine
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 20.03.2024; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Calibration; Care and treatment; Commissioning; Detectors; Deviation; Diagnosis; Diodes; Dosimetry; Health aspects; High resolution; Humans; Ionization; Ionization chambers; Magnetic field; Magnetic fields; Medical Physics; Methods; Microdiamond; Microdiamonds; Monte Carlo Method; Particle Accelerators; Patient outcomes; Penumbras; Phantoms, Imaging; Physics; Radiometry - methods; Radiotherapy; Sensors; Small fields; Statistical analysis; Statistical methods; Symmetry; Tumors; France; United States > US; Output factors; Microdiamond; Small fields; Detectors; Air gap; Diodes; MR-linac; Magnetic field; Commissioning; Magnetic fields; MR-LINAC
• ISSN: 1748-717X; 1748-717X
• DOI: 10.1186/s13014-024-02431-8

To assess a large panel of MR compatible detectors on the full range of measurements required for a 0.35 T MR-linac commissioning by using a specific statistical method represented as a continuum of comparison with the Monte Carlo (MC) TPS calculations. This study also describes the commissioning tests and the secondary MC dose calculation validation. Plans were created on the Viewray TPS to generate MC reference data. Absolute dose points, PDD, profiles and output factors were extracted and compared to measurements performed with ten different detectors: PTW 31010, 31021, 31022, Markus 34045 and Exradin A28 MR ionization chambers, SN Edge shielded diode, PTW 60019 microdiamond, PTW 60023 unshielded diode, EBT3 radiochromic films and LiF µcubes. Three commissioning steps consisted in comparison between calculated and measured dose: the beam model validation, the output calibration verification in four different phantoms and the commissioning tests recommended by the IAEA-TECDOC-1583. The symmetry for the high resolution detectors was higher than the TPS data of about 1%. The angular responses of the PTW 60023 and the SN Edge were - 6.6 and - 11.9% compared to the PTW 31010 at 60°. The X/Y-left and the Y-right penumbras measured by the high resolution detectors were in good agreement with the TPS values except for the PTW 60023 for large field sizes. For the 0.84 × 0.83 cm field size, the mean deviation to the TPS of the uncorrected OF was - 1.7 ± 1.6% against - 4.0 ± 0.6% for the corrected OF whereas we found - 4.8 ± 0.8% for passive dosimeters. The mean absolute dose deviations to the TPS in different phantoms were 0 ± 0.4%, - 1.2 ± 0.6% and 0.5 ± 1.1% for the PTW 31010, PTW 31021 and Exradin A28 MR respectively. The magnetic field effects on the measurements are considerably reduced at low magnetic field. The PTW 31010 ionization chamber can be used with confidence in different phantoms for commissioning and QA tests requiring absolute dose verifications. For relative measurements, the PTW 60019 presented the best agreement for the full range of field size. For the profile assessment, shielded diodes had a behaviour similar to the PTW 60019 and 60023 while the ionization chambers were the most suitable detectors for the symmetry. The output correction factors published by the IAEA TRS 483 seem to be applicable at low magnetic field pending the publication of new MR specific values.