Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: While IAEA's TRS-483 code of practice is adapted for the calibration of CyberKnife machines, AAPM's TG-51 is still the protocol recommended by the manufacturer for their calibration. The differences between both protocols could lead to differences in absorbed dose to water during the calibration process.
Purpose: The aims of this work are to evaluate the difference resulting from the application of TG-51 (including the manufacturer's adaptations) and TRS-483 in terms of absorbed dose to water for a CyberKnife M6, and to evaluate the consistency of TRS-483.
Methods: Measurements are performed on a CyberKnife M6 unit under machine-specific reference conditions using a calibrated Exradin A12 ionization chamber. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are performed to estimate and using a fully modeled detector and an optimized CyberKnife M6 beam model. The latter is also estimated experimentally. Differences between the adapted TG-51 and TRS-483 protocols are identified and their impact is quantified.
Results: When using an in-house experimentally-evaluated volume averaging correction factor, a difference of 0.11% in terms of absorbed dose to water per monitor unit is observed when applying both protocols. This disparity is solely associated to the difference in beam quality correction factor. If a generic volume averaging correction factor is used during the application of TRS-483, the difference in calibration increases to 0.14%. In both cases, the disparity is not statistically significant according to TRS-483's reported uncertainties on their beam quality correction factor (i.e., 1%). MC results lead to and . Results illustrate that the generic beam quality correction factor provided in the TRS-483 might be overestimated by 0.36% compared to our specific model and that this overestimation could be due to the volume averaging component.
Conclusions: For clinical reference dosimetry of the CyberKnife M6, the application of TRS-483 is found to be consistent with TG-51.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10161123 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13976 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!