Search

Purpose: Flattening filter free (FFF) beams generated by medical linear accelerators are today clinically used for stereotactical and non-stereotactical radiotherapy treatments. Such beams differ from the standard flattened beams (FF) in the high dose rate and the profile shape peaked on the beam central axis. Definition of new parameters as unflatness and slope for FFF beams has been proposed based on a renormalization factor for FFF profiles. The present study aims to assess the dosimetric differences between FFF beams generated by linear accelerators from different vendors, and to provide renormalization and parameter data of the two kinds of units. Methods: Dosimetric data from two Varian TrueBeam and two Elekta Versa HD linear accelerators, all with 6 and 10 MV nominal accelerating potentials, FF and FFF modes have been collected. Renormalization factors and related fit parameters according to Fogliata et al. ["Definition of parameters for quality assurance of flattening filter free (FFF) photon beams in radiation therapy," Med. Phys. 39, 6455-6464 (2012)] have been evaluated for FFF beams of both units and energies. Unflatness and slope parameters from profile curves were evaluated. Dosimetric differences in terms of beam penetration and near-the-surface dose were also assessed. Results: FFF profile parameters have been updated; renormalization factors and unflatness from the Varian units are consistent with the published data. Elekta FFF beam qualities, different from the Varian generated beams, tend to express similar behaviour as the FF beam of the corresponding nominal energy. TPR20,10 for 6 and 10 MV FF and FFF TrueBeam beams are 0.665, 0.629 (6 MV) and 0.738, 0.703 (10 MV). The same figures for Versa HD units are 0.684, 0.678 (6 MV) and 0.734, 0.721 (10 MV). Conclusions: Renormalization factor and unflatness parameters evaluated from Varian and Elekta FFF beams are provided, in particular renormalization factors table and fit parameters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Phase-space files for Monte Carlo simulation of the Varian TrueBeam beams have been made available by Varian. The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of the distributed phasespace files for flattening filter free (FFF) beams, against experimental measurements from ten True- Beam Linacs. Methods: The phase-space files have been used as input in PRIMO, a recently released Monte Carlo program based on the PENELOPE code. Simulations of 6 and 10 MV FFF were computed in a virtual water phantom for field sizes 3 × 3, 6 × 6, and 10 × 10 cm2 using 1 × 1 × 1 mm3 voxels and for 20 × 20 and 40 × 40 cm2 with 2 × 2 × 2 mm3 voxels. The particles contained in the initial phase-space files were transported downstream to a plane just above the phantom surface, where a subsequent phase-space file was tallied. Particles were transported downstream this second phase-space file to the water phantom. Experimental data consisted of depth doses and profiles at five different depths acquired at SSD = 100 cm (seven datasets) and SSD = 90 cm (three datasets). Simulations and experimental data were compared in terms of dose difference. Gamma analysis was also performed using 1%, 1 mm and 2%, 2 mm criteria of dose-difference and distance-to-agreement, respectively. Additionally, the parameters characterizing the dose profiles of unflattened beams were evaluated for both measurements and simulations. Results: Analysis of depth dose curves showed that dose differences increased with increasing field size and depth; this effect might be partly motivated due to an underestimation of the primary beam energy used to compute the phase-space files. Average dose differences reached 1% for the largest field size. Lateral profiles presented dose differences well within 1% for fields up to 20 × 20 cm², while the discrepancy increased toward 2% in the 40 × 40 cm² cases. Gamma analysis resulted in an agreement of 100% when a 2%, 2 mm criterion was used, with the only exception of the 40 × 40 cm² field (~95% agreement). With the more stringent criteria of 1%, 1 mm, the agreement reduced to almost 95% for field sizes up to 10 × 10 cm², worse for larger fields. Unflatness and slope FFF-specific parameters are in line with the possible energy underestimation of the simulated results relative to experimental data. Conclusions: The agreement between Monte Carlo simulations and experimental data proved that the evaluated Varian phase-space files for FFF beams from TrueBeam can be used as radiation sources for accurate Monte Carlo dose estimation, especially for field sizes up to 10 × 10 cm², that is the range of field sizes mostly used in combination to the FFF, high dose rate beams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: New definitions for some dosimetric parameters for use in quality assurance of flattening filter free (FFF) beams generated by medical linear accelerators have been suggested. The present study aims to validate these suggestions and to propose possible reference levels. Methods: The main characteristics of FFF photon beams were described in terms of: field size, penumbra, unflatness, slope, and peak-position parameters. Data were collected for 6 and 10 MV-FFF beams from three different Varian TrueBeam Linacs. Measurements were performed with a 2D-array (Starcheck system from PTW-Freiburg) and with the portal dosimetry method GLAaS utilizing the build-in portal imager of TrueBeam. Data were also compared to ion chamber measurements. A cross check validation has been performed on a FFF beam of 6 MV generated by a Varian Clinac-iX upgraded to FFF capability. Results : All the parameters suggested to characterize the FFF beams resulted easily measurable and little variation was observed among different Linacs. Referring to two reference field sizes of 10 × 10 and 20 × 20 cm2, at SDD = 100 cm and d = dmax, from the portal dosimetry data, the following results (averaging X and Y profiles) were obtained. Field size: 9.95 ± 0.02 and 19.98 ± 0.03 cm for 6 MV-FFF (9.94 ± 0.02 and 19.98 ± 0.03 cm for 10 MV-FFF). Penumbra: 2.7 ± 0.3 and 2.9 ± 0.3 mm for 6 MV-FFF (3.1 ± 0.2 and 3.3 ± 0.3 for 10 MV-FFF). Unflatness: 1.11 ± 0.01 and 1.25 ± 0.01 for 6 MV-FFF (1.21 ± 0.01 and 1.50 ± 0.01 for 10 MV-FFF). Slope: 0.320 ± 0.020%/mm and 0.43 ± 0.015%/mm for 6 MV-FFF (0.657 ± 0.023%/mm and 0.795 ± 0.017%/mm for 10 MV-FFF). Peak Position −0.2 ± 0.2 and −0.4 ± 0.2 mm for 6 MV-FFF (−0.3 ± 0.2 and 0.7 ± 0.3 mm for 10 MV-FFF). Results would depend upon measurement depth. With thresholds set to at least 95% confidence level from the measured data and to account for possible variations between detectors and methods and experimental settings, a tolerance set of: 1 mm for field size and penumbra, 0.04 for unflatness, 0.1%/mm for slope, and 1 mm for peak position could be proposed from our data. Conclusions : The parameters proposed for the characterization and routine control of stability of profiles of FFF beams appear to be a viable solution with a strong similarity to the conventional parameters used for flattened beams. The results from three different TrueBeams and the cross-validation against a Clinac-iX suggested the possible generalization of the methods and the possibility to use common tolerances for the parameters. The data showed also the reproducibility of beam characteristics among different systems (of the same vendor) and the resulting parameter values could therefore be possibly generalized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many Worldwide interoperability for microwave access (WiMAX) field trials are currently taken place around the world. In some countries, commercial WiMAX networks are running. This article presents an empirical propagation model obtained from a pilot project in Saarbruecken. Results of the extensive measurement campaign of this WiMAX trial in an urban environment, operating at a frequency of 3.5 GHz, are presented and compared to own field strength predictions. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microwave Opt Technol Lett 50: 483–487, 2008; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/mop.23112 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]