论文部分内容阅读
[目的]比较两种放射剂量探测器(二维半导体阵列和放射性铬胶片)用于剂量分布测量的特性差异,探索和优化调强放射治疗(IMRT)计划验证与质量保证工作的规范及效率。[方法]分别应用该两种探测器对根据实际IMRT计划在模体上移植生成“归一调强野”和“合成调强野”验证计划进行剂量分布测量,比较两者之间及与计划计算的剂量分布差异。[结果]对同一个“归一调强野”验证计划:二维半导体阵列和放射性铬胶片测量的γ像素通过率分别为99.4%和95.0%;对相同IMRT计划的生成的“合成调强野”验证计划,放射性铬胶片测量的通过率为93.59%。[结论]两种剂量探测方法均方便易行,在对归一调强野验证计划的测量中均获得较满意的验证结果;同一IMRT计划的归一调强野与合成调强野验证结果可能有明显差异,建议适当提高归一调强野方式的IMRT计划验证的通过率指标,以更好地保证实际合成的IMRT治疗剂量分布的精确度。
[Objective] To compare the characteristics of two kinds of dosimeters (two-dimensional semiconductor array and radioactive chrome film) used in dose distribution measurement to explore and optimize the standard and efficiency of IMRT plan verification and quality assurance. [Methods] The two kinds of detectors were used respectively to measure the dose distribution of the “Imitative Tone Field” and “IMRT” planted on the phantom according to the actual IMRT plan, and compare the two Differences in dose distribution between planned and calculated. [Result] For the same “normalized field” verification scheme, the pass rates of γ pixels measured by two-dimensional semiconductor array and radioactive chrome film were 99.4% and 95.0%, respectively; the generated “” synthesis of the same IMRT plan Adjusting the Field "certification program, radioactive chromium film measured through the rate of 93.59%. [Conclusion] The two dosimetric methods were both convenient and easy to perform, and satisfactory results were obtained in the measurements of the normalized intensity field validation program. The results of normalized intensity field and combined intensity field verification of the same IMRT plan may be validated There are obvious differences. It is suggested that the IMRT plan pass-through rate index should be properly increased to ensure the accuracy of the dose distribution of the actual synthesized IMRT.