SU‐E‐T‐136: Novel Secondary Quality Assurance Procedure for the INTRABEAM System Ion Chamber Using Commercial OSLDs

J. Keller, Wolfram Laub, S. Pillai

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: In recent events, our clinic has experienced a soft x‐ray ion chamber calibration drift of 8%. For the INTRABEAMTM system which relies on an ion chamber measurement to deduce a dose rate correction factor for treatment, such an ion chamber change results in a large deviation between the planned patient dose and the treatment dose. We present a cross calibration method between an ion chamber and commercially available optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) to monitor the consistency of the soft x‐ray ion chamber. Methods: Our method uses the INTRABEAM™ system dose rate determined by a PTW soft x‐ray ion chamber (model 23342) under normal quality assurance procedures to produce the counts per dose rate for irradiated nanoDot™ OSLDs. The procedure replaces the ion chamber with an OSLD at the same position which is obtained with a fabricated stage of the same dimension as the ion chamber stage. Upon replacement of the ion chamber, the QA procedure is repeated irradiating a nanoDot™ OSLD for approximately two minutes with low energy kV x‐rays of energy 20 keV with 0.64 mm Al HVL. The QA procedure is repeated three times with a new OSLD for each irradiation. A ten minute waiting period is invoked prior to reading each nanoDot™ OSLD a total of three times. Results: This method produces an average counts per dose rate for all nanoDot™ OSLDs with a 1‐sigma standard deviation of 1.7%. The low standard deviation gives this method the ability to detect an ion chamber measurement change in dose rate greater than 3.5% incorporating the positional uncertainty and sensitivity change. Conclusion: In the advent of complete equipment failure, a system can degrade and report erroneous measurements. Our quick secondary check for equipment drift provides a necessary tool to ensure patient safety.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)235
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume40
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Ions
X-Rays
Calibration
Radiation Dosimeters
Equipment Failure
Patient Safety
Uncertainty
Reading
Equipment and Supplies
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐T‐136 : Novel Secondary Quality Assurance Procedure for the INTRABEAM System Ion Chamber Using Commercial OSLDs. / Keller, J.; Laub, Wolfram; Pillai, S.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 40, No. 6, 2013, p. 235.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{60fe43b8c2f54371bd13794b17b5a3db,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐136: Novel Secondary Quality Assurance Procedure for the INTRABEAM System Ion Chamber Using Commercial OSLDs",
abstract = "Purpose: In recent events, our clinic has experienced a soft x‐ray ion chamber calibration drift of 8{\%}. For the INTRABEAMTM system which relies on an ion chamber measurement to deduce a dose rate correction factor for treatment, such an ion chamber change results in a large deviation between the planned patient dose and the treatment dose. We present a cross calibration method between an ion chamber and commercially available optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) to monitor the consistency of the soft x‐ray ion chamber. Methods: Our method uses the INTRABEAM™ system dose rate determined by a PTW soft x‐ray ion chamber (model 23342) under normal quality assurance procedures to produce the counts per dose rate for irradiated nanoDot™ OSLDs. The procedure replaces the ion chamber with an OSLD at the same position which is obtained with a fabricated stage of the same dimension as the ion chamber stage. Upon replacement of the ion chamber, the QA procedure is repeated irradiating a nanoDot™ OSLD for approximately two minutes with low energy kV x‐rays of energy 20 keV with 0.64 mm Al HVL. The QA procedure is repeated three times with a new OSLD for each irradiation. A ten minute waiting period is invoked prior to reading each nanoDot™ OSLD a total of three times. Results: This method produces an average counts per dose rate for all nanoDot™ OSLDs with a 1‐sigma standard deviation of 1.7{\%}. The low standard deviation gives this method the ability to detect an ion chamber measurement change in dose rate greater than 3.5{\%} incorporating the positional uncertainty and sensitivity change. Conclusion: In the advent of complete equipment failure, a system can degrade and report erroneous measurements. Our quick secondary check for equipment drift provides a necessary tool to ensure patient safety.",
author = "J. Keller and Wolfram Laub and S. Pillai",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1118/1.4814571",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "235",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐136

T2 - Novel Secondary Quality Assurance Procedure for the INTRABEAM System Ion Chamber Using Commercial OSLDs

AU - Keller, J.

AU - Laub, Wolfram

AU - Pillai, S.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Purpose: In recent events, our clinic has experienced a soft x‐ray ion chamber calibration drift of 8%. For the INTRABEAMTM system which relies on an ion chamber measurement to deduce a dose rate correction factor for treatment, such an ion chamber change results in a large deviation between the planned patient dose and the treatment dose. We present a cross calibration method between an ion chamber and commercially available optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) to monitor the consistency of the soft x‐ray ion chamber. Methods: Our method uses the INTRABEAM™ system dose rate determined by a PTW soft x‐ray ion chamber (model 23342) under normal quality assurance procedures to produce the counts per dose rate for irradiated nanoDot™ OSLDs. The procedure replaces the ion chamber with an OSLD at the same position which is obtained with a fabricated stage of the same dimension as the ion chamber stage. Upon replacement of the ion chamber, the QA procedure is repeated irradiating a nanoDot™ OSLD for approximately two minutes with low energy kV x‐rays of energy 20 keV with 0.64 mm Al HVL. The QA procedure is repeated three times with a new OSLD for each irradiation. A ten minute waiting period is invoked prior to reading each nanoDot™ OSLD a total of three times. Results: This method produces an average counts per dose rate for all nanoDot™ OSLDs with a 1‐sigma standard deviation of 1.7%. The low standard deviation gives this method the ability to detect an ion chamber measurement change in dose rate greater than 3.5% incorporating the positional uncertainty and sensitivity change. Conclusion: In the advent of complete equipment failure, a system can degrade and report erroneous measurements. Our quick secondary check for equipment drift provides a necessary tool to ensure patient safety.

AB - Purpose: In recent events, our clinic has experienced a soft x‐ray ion chamber calibration drift of 8%. For the INTRABEAMTM system which relies on an ion chamber measurement to deduce a dose rate correction factor for treatment, such an ion chamber change results in a large deviation between the planned patient dose and the treatment dose. We present a cross calibration method between an ion chamber and commercially available optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) to monitor the consistency of the soft x‐ray ion chamber. Methods: Our method uses the INTRABEAM™ system dose rate determined by a PTW soft x‐ray ion chamber (model 23342) under normal quality assurance procedures to produce the counts per dose rate for irradiated nanoDot™ OSLDs. The procedure replaces the ion chamber with an OSLD at the same position which is obtained with a fabricated stage of the same dimension as the ion chamber stage. Upon replacement of the ion chamber, the QA procedure is repeated irradiating a nanoDot™ OSLD for approximately two minutes with low energy kV x‐rays of energy 20 keV with 0.64 mm Al HVL. The QA procedure is repeated three times with a new OSLD for each irradiation. A ten minute waiting period is invoked prior to reading each nanoDot™ OSLD a total of three times. Results: This method produces an average counts per dose rate for all nanoDot™ OSLDs with a 1‐sigma standard deviation of 1.7%. The low standard deviation gives this method the ability to detect an ion chamber measurement change in dose rate greater than 3.5% incorporating the positional uncertainty and sensitivity change. Conclusion: In the advent of complete equipment failure, a system can degrade and report erroneous measurements. Our quick secondary check for equipment drift provides a necessary tool to ensure patient safety.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024803846&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024803846&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4814571

DO - 10.1118/1.4814571

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024803846

VL - 40

SP - 235

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -