We have investigated the energy and field-size dependence of the source position of the electron beams from a Varian Clinac-2,500 accelerator. Three independent experimental methods were used: (1) multipinhole camera (MPC), (2) back projection of the full width at half maximum (FWHM), and (3) the inverse square law (ISL). The positions of the virtual and effective sources were calculated using the multiple Coulomb scattering (MCS) formalism. The results obtained from the MPC agree, within the experimental uncertainties, with the calculated values for the virtual source position. Similarly, the results from the FWHM method agree with the calculations with the exception of those for small field sizes at the lower energies. This is consistent with the fact that both kinds of measurements are not very sensitive to scattering in the photon and electron collimators. In contrast, the source position determined by the ISL method shows strong dependence on field size and energy, and does not agree with the values predicted by the MCS formalism. This is due to contamination from electrons scattered in the x ray and electron collimation system. The techniques and results reported here should be generally applicable to other scatter foil linear accelerators.

No abstract

Errors of a new 6DoF couch were tested using CBCT images of a 3D phantom. The rotation errors were less than 0.3 degree and the translation errors were less than or equal to 0.8 mm in each direction. This level of accuracy is warranted for clinical radiotherapy utilization including stereotactic radiosurgery.

Purpose: To assess and report the in vivo dose for a patient with a pacemaker being treated in left breast intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT). The ZEISS Intrabeam 50 kVp X‐ray beam with a spherical applicator was used. Methods: The optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) (Landauer nanoDots) were employed and calibrated under the conditions of the Intrabeam 50 kVp X‐rays. The nanoDots were placed on the patient at approximately 15 cm away from the lumpectomy cavity both under and above a shield of lead equivalence 0.25 mm (RayShield X‐Drape D‐110) covering the pacemaker area during IORT with a 5 cm spherical applicator. Results: The skin surface dose near the pacemaker during the IORT with a prescription of 20 Gy was measured as 4.0±0.8 cGy. The dose behind the shield was 0.06±0.01 Gy, demonstrating more than 98% dose reduction. The in vivo skin surface doses during a typical breast IORT at a 4.5 cm spherical applicator surface were further measured at 5, 10, 15, and 20 cm away to be 159±11 cGy, 15±1 cGy, 6.6±0.5 cGy, and 1.8±0.1 cGy, respectively. A power law fit to the dose versus the distance z from the applicator surface yields the dose fall off at the skin surface following z^‐2.5, which can be used to estimate skin doses in future cases. The comparison to an extrapolation of depth dose in water reveals an underestimate of far field dose using the manufactory provided data. Conclusion: The study suggests the appropriateness of OSLD as an in vivo skin dosimeter in IORT using the Intrabeam system in a wide dose range. The pacemaker dose measured during the left breast IORT was within a safe limit.