
doi: 10.1118/1.1584040
pmid: 12906200
The calibration and quality control of compensators is conventionally performed with an ion chamber in a water‐equivalent phantom. In our center, the compensator factor and four off‐axis fluence ratios are measured to verify the central axis beam modulation and orientation of the compensator. Here we report the investigation of an alternative technique for compensator quality control using an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device (a‐Si EPID). Preliminary experiments were performed to identify appropriate EPID operating parameters for this relative dosimetric study and also to quantify EPID operation. The pixel value versus energy fluence response of the EPID for both open and compensated fields was then determined, and expressed via calibration curves. For open fields the response was seen to be linear, whereas for compensated fields it exhibited a small quadratic component. To account for field size effects, we measured EPID scatter factors. These exhibited small but non‐negligible dependencies on compensator thickness and source–detector distance. Finally, a number of test and clinical compensators were evaluated to assess the suitability of the EPID for compensator quality control. Our results indicate that the a‐Si EPID can measure clinical compensator factors and off‐axis energy fluence ratios to within 2% of values measured by a Farmer chamber on average, and so is a suitable ion chamber replacement.
Quality Control, Silicon, Radiotherapy, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted, Transducers, Reproducibility of Results, Radiotherapy Dosage, Sensitivity and Specificity, Equipment Failure Analysis, Calibration, Feasibility Studies, Scattering, Radiation, X-Ray Intensifying Screens, Radiometry
Quality Control, Silicon, Radiotherapy, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted, Transducers, Reproducibility of Results, Radiotherapy Dosage, Sensitivity and Specificity, Equipment Failure Analysis, Calibration, Feasibility Studies, Scattering, Radiation, X-Ray Intensifying Screens, Radiometry
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 13 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
