Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026
Evaluating equivalent square field size definitions for rectangular small fields.
СтатьяОценочное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Méndez Ignasi, Al Khalifa Mateb, Aljuaid Haya, Casar Božidar
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In the IAEA TRS-483 Code of Practice (CoP), rectangular small field sizes are approximated to equivalent square small fields using the definition proposed by Cranmer-Sargison et al. However, the CoP estimates the uncertainties associated with this formula only for rectangular fields with dimensions within the range 0.7 < X / Y < 1.4 $0.7 < X/Y < 1.4$ .
PURPOSE: The objective of the present study was to compare the accuracy of the Cranmer-Sargison definition with other formulas for equivalent square small fields in the context of measuring field output factors (FOFs) for rectangular small fields, both within and outside the range covered by the CoP.
METHODS: Measurements were conducted using Gafchromic EBT4 radiochromic films. The models compared included Cranmer-Sargison, Sterling, Superellipse, Sterling-Partial Superellipse, Sterling-Superellipse, Vadash and Bjärngard, and Fogliata. The most accurate definition of equivalent square field size was identified as the one yielding the lowest discrepancy between measured and analytical values, with the log-likelihood of the measurements selected as the metric. Analytical values were derived using the function introduced by Sauer and Wilbert, which relates FOFs to equivalent square field sizes.
RESULTS: The best results were achieved with the Fogliata model, followed in terms of accuracy by the Sterling-Partial Superellipse model. The Sterling-Superellipse and Vadash and Bjärngard models came next. It should be noted that the Sterling-Partial Superellipse and Sterling-Superellipse models rely solely on the geometric shape of the irradiation field size, whereas the Fogliata and Vadash and Bjärngard models incorporate a fitting parameter. The Sterling definition, while less accurate than these models, improved upon the Cranmer-Sargison definition and retained computational simplicity. Finally, the Cranmer-Sargison and Superellipse models exhibited the largest discrepancies.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several definitions of equivalent square small field size that could refine the IAEA TRS-483 CoP by improving the accuracy of field output correction factors for rectangular small fields. Among these definitions, the Fogliata model obtained the best results.
PURPOSE: The objective of the present study was to compare the accuracy of the Cranmer-Sargison definition with other formulas for equivalent square small fields in the context of measuring field output factors (FOFs) for rectangular small fields, both within and outside the range covered by the CoP.
METHODS: Measurements were conducted using Gafchromic EBT4 radiochromic films. The models compared included Cranmer-Sargison, Sterling, Superellipse, Sterling-Partial Superellipse, Sterling-Superellipse, Vadash and Bjärngard, and Fogliata. The most accurate definition of equivalent square field size was identified as the one yielding the lowest discrepancy between measured and analytical values, with the log-likelihood of the measurements selected as the metric. Analytical values were derived using the function introduced by Sauer and Wilbert, which relates FOFs to equivalent square field sizes.
RESULTS: The best results were achieved with the Fogliata model, followed in terms of accuracy by the Sterling-Partial Superellipse model. The Sterling-Superellipse and Vadash and Bjärngard models came next. It should be noted that the Sterling-Partial Superellipse and Sterling-Superellipse models rely solely on the geometric shape of the irradiation field size, whereas the Fogliata and Vadash and Bjärngard models incorporate a fitting parameter. The Sterling definition, while less accurate than these models, improved upon the Cranmer-Sargison definition and retained computational simplicity. Finally, the Cranmer-Sargison and Superellipse models exhibited the largest discrepancies.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several definitions of equivalent square small field size that could refine the IAEA TRS-483 CoP by improving the accuracy of field output correction factors for rectangular small fields. Among these definitions, the Fogliata model obtained the best results.