Effect of angular dependence for small-field dosimetry using seven different detectors

Abstract

Background: Small-field dosimetry is challenging for radiotherapy dosimetry because of the loss of lateral charged equilibrium, partial occlusion of the primary photon source by the collimating devices, perturbation effects caused by the detector materials and their design, and the detector size relative to the radiation field size, which leads to a volume averaging effect. Therefore, a suitable tool for small-field dosimetry requires high spatial resolution, tissue equivalence, angular independence, and energy and dose rate independence to achieve sufficient accuracy. Recently, with the increasing use of combinations of coplanar and non-coplanar beams for small-field dosimetry, there is a need to clarify angular dependence for dosimetry where the detector is oriented at various angles to the incident beam. However, the effect of angular dependence on small-field dosimetry with coplanar and non-coplanar beams has not been fully clarified.

Purpose: This study clarified the effect of angular dependence on small-field dosimetry with coplanar and non-coplanar beams using various detectors.

Methods: Seven different detectors were used: CC01, RAZOR, RAZOR Nano, Pinpoint 3D, stereotactic field diode (SFD), microSilicon, and microDiamond. All measurements were taken using a TrueBeam STx with 6 MV and 10 MV flattening filter-free (FFF) energies using a water-equivalent spherical phantom with a source-to-axis distance of 100 cm. The detector was inserted in a perpendicular orientation, and the gantry was rotated at 15° increments from the incidence beam angle. A multi-leaf collimator (MLC) with four field sizes of 0.5 × 0.5, 1 × 1, 2 × 2, and 3 × 3 cm² , and four couch angles from 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° (coplanar and non-coplanar) were adopted. The angular dependence response (AR) was defined as the ratio of the detector response at a given irradiation gantry angle normalized to the detector response at 0°. The maximum AR differences were calculated between the maximum and minimum AR values for each detector, field size, energy, and couch angle.

Results: The maximum AR difference for the coplanar beam was within 3.3% for all conditions, excluding the maximum AR differences in 0.5 × 0.5 cm² field for CC01 and RAZOR. The maximum AR difference for non-coplanar beams was within 2.5% for fields larger than 1 × 1 cm² , excluding the maximum AR differences for RAZOR Nano, SFD, and microSilicon. The Pinpoint 3D demonstrated stable AR tendencies compared to other detectors. The maximum difference was within 2.0%, except for the 0.5 × 0.5 cm² field and couch angle at 90°. The tendencies of AR values for each detector were similar when using different energies.

Conclusion: This study clarified the inherent angular dependence of seven detectors that were suitable for small-field dosimetry. The Pinpoint 3D chamber had the smallest angular dependence of all detectors for the coplanar and non-coplanar beams. The findings of this study can contribute to the calculation of the AR correction factor, and it may be possible to adapt detectors with a large angular dependence on coplanar and non-coplanar beams. However, note that the gantry sag and detector-specific uncertainties increase as the field size decreases.

Keywords: angular dependence; ionization chamber; non-coplanar beam; small-field dosimetry; solid-state detector.