<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">IJMPCERO</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2168-5436</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ijmpcero.2017.62020</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">IJMPCERO-76542</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject><subject> Physics&amp;Mathematics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Penumbral Dose Characteristics of Physical and Virtual Wedge Profiles
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Salman</surname><given-names>Farrukh</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Nasir</surname><given-names>Ilyas</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Muhammad</surname><given-names>Naveed</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Abdul</surname><given-names>Haseeb</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Muhammad</surname><given-names>Bilal</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dr</surname><given-names>Najamuddin</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Javed</surname><given-names>Iqbal</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Atomic Energy Medical Centre, JPMC Karachi, Pakistan</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Institute of Space and Planetary Astrophysics, University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>10</day><month>05</month><year>2017</year></pub-date><volume>06</volume><issue>02</issue><fpage>216</fpage><lpage>224</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>December</day>	<month>15,</month>	<year>2016</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>Accepted:</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>24,</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>May</day>	<month>27,</month>	<year>2017</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  <b>Purpose</b>
  <b>:</b>
   Both physical and virtual wedges are used in radiotherapy to get uniform and desire
  d
   dose distribution in clinical setting. All linear accelerators of different venders have computer controlled dynamic wedges called virtual wedge filters. Penumbra is one of the important photon beam characteristics need
  ed
   to 
  be 
  underst
  ood
   in radiation therapy at the time of commissioning of Treatment Planning system (TPS) as well as applying various treatment planning algorithm
  s
   in clinical applications. In this study we measured the dose profiles of open field, physical wedges (PW) and virtual wedges (VW) for energies (6
   
  MV &amp; 15
   
  MV), various field sizes (10 
  &#215;
   
  10, 15 
  &#215; 15 &amp; 20 &#215; 20
   
  cm<sup>2</sup>), depths (d
  <sub></sub>
  <sub>max</sub>
  <sub></sub>
  , 10
   
  cm, 20
   
  cm) and wedge angles (15&#176;, 30&#176;, 45&#176; and 60&#176;). From beam profile we calculated the penumbral width for open and wedged fields.
   
  The study 
  was
   carried out on Siemens ONCOR IMRT Plus linear accelerator. The obtained penumbral width of PW and VW 
  of
   all wedge angles 
  was
   subtracted from the penumbral width of open field. The deviations in penumbral width were compared and statistically analyzed as a function of energy, depth, field size and wedge angles. <b>Material and Method:</b> The penumbral width 
  was
   measured using IBA CC13 ion chamber in IBA Blue phantom (a 3D water phantom).
   
  The source to surface distance (SSD) during our study was kept 100cm and measurement 
  was
   taken for 10 
  &#215; 10, 15 &#215; 15, 20 &#215; 20
   
  cm<sup>2</sup> field sizes and for 15&#176;, 30&#176;, 45&#176;, 60&#176; wedges. These measurements were taken for both 6
   
  MV and 15 MV photon energies. Virtual wedge profiles were acquired using LDA-99 linear detector array (IBA, Germany). The deviations in penumbral width for both PW and VW were calculated by subtracting the penumbral width from open field penumbral width in gun direction (in-plane) and deviation in VW penumbral width
  ,
   
  and 
  were obtained by subtracting the open field penumbral width in left-right direction (cross-plane) direction. The measured deviations were plotted for both PW and VW.
   
  Statistics on the measured deviations was performed by using SPSS Version 15. <b>Results &amp; Conclusion:</b> The results of one way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) show that the deviations are significant with energy 
  and 
  the deviations are higher in lower energy than higher energy. The deviations 
  i
  ncrease as depth increase
  s
  , the deviations are also significant with depth. The deviations increase with field sizes
  ;
   the deviations as a function of field size 
  are
   highly significant. The deviations are higher in PW than VW but the deviations with wedge type 
  are
   in-significant. As wedge angle increase
  s,
   deviations also increase
   and
   the effect of wedge angle is highly significant on deviations.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Physical Wedge</kwd><kwd> Virtual Wedge</kwd><kwd> Penumbra and Deviations</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>According to recent data secondary breast cancer and heart toxicity has become the most significant issue in modern radiotherapy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref1">1</xref>] . Improvement in dose distribution in the treatment of tumor and uniformity of dose in treating organs at risk, IMRT (Intensity modulated radiation therapy), VMAT (Volumetric modulated arc therapy) and wedge filters with 3DCRT (Three dimensional conformal radiotherapy) are commonly used in radiotherapy techniques. The knowledge and understanding of use of wedge filter during TPS (Treatment planning system) becomes more essential to reduce radiation toxicity. While treating thoracic, breast and pelvic tumors the use of wedge filter is very common and the steep dose gradient may produce hot spots in lungs, heart, and rectum in these cases [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref5">5</xref>] .</p><p>Penumbra is one of the important beam characteristics parameters which can be defined as the distance between 80% and 20% points of dose on a transverse beam profile. The term penumbra in a general means the region at the edge of a radiation beam, over which the rate of dose changes rapidly as a function of distance from the central axis. The physical penumbra is the sum of individual transmission penumbra and geometric penumbra and it is mostly due to the scatter in medium [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref6">6</xref>] . Transmission penumbra is the variation in the dose at the edges of the beam caused by collimator. The main reason is the different thickness of collimator blocking the beam. This occurs due to the beam energy from the edges or the blocks. Geometric penumbra is width of the penumbra at any depth due to geometry of setup. This occurs due to the size of source, and large sources have large geometric penumbra. Scatter penumbra is created under collimator jaws into the region of penumbral tail; there is a small component of dose produced by the jaws of collimator [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref6">6</xref>] .</p><p>The physical penumbra is affected by the beam energy, finite source size, source to surface distance (SSD), source to collimator distance (SCD) and depth in the water phantom [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref7">7</xref>] .</p><p>Penumbra creates greater doses than normal at the edges of tissues which is undesirable. For a steep dose gradient between the target volume and healthy tissues, the penumbral width should be as small as possible. In order to reduce penumbral width the diameter of source should be small. The diameter of source should be 2 - 3 mm for modern LINACS. Penumbra is reduced by increasing the source to collimator distance (SCD) and by using secondary blocks placed near to the patients for shaping the field [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref8">8</xref>] . Penumbra may also be weakened by strengthening the clearance between irradiation head to surface/skin in order to using wedges. It shows that penumbra also upon the direction of collimator edges. The leaves of collimator always are directed towards the source and independent position of leaf. This property is called the focusing. Focusing can be obtained by the movement of leaves in circular path or by the rotations of the edges of leaf [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref9">9</xref>] . For this reason MLCs (Multileaf collimators) curved edges are used in modern LINACS. But in case of curved leaves penumbra is not completely independent of leaf position [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref10">10</xref>] .</p><p>As far as the clinical importance or disadvantage is concern the penumbral region needs precise attention during treatment planning. Penumbra of the beam is not considered when delineating the PTV (Planning Target Volume), however when selecting the beam sizes, the width of the penumbra has to be taken into account. The variation in the penumbra has to implement during TPS especially it creates problem in delivering small off-center segments. Tissues near to the edges of field have greatest dose uncertainties and accurate measurement is required of the spatial dose variation with the limitation of computer controlled algorithm. Mega volt photon beams produce a high increase in dose in a few mm of tissues and organs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref11">11</xref>] . For IMRT which delivered through MLCs, beamlet dose intensities can be changed by moving the MLC leaves with in the irradiated field; therefore, accurately modeling penumbra and transmission for the MLC leaves is very important [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref12">12</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref13">13</xref>] .</p><p>In this study the comparison of penumbral dose for open field, physical and virtual wedge filter is carried out. The main purpose of this study to observe the behavior penumbra of open filed and wedge fields at various wedge angles, depth, energy and field size.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Method and Material</title><p>All the measurements were taken on Siemen’s ONCOR linear accelerator having 82 Leaves MLC as X-collimator, while VW produces by collimator jaws in Y- direction. In the commissioning of TPS, the beam data for wedge field (physical and virtual) needs to be more accurate and reproducible because minor fluctuation can cause greater impact in clinical setting due to dose gradient profile. Because of different techniques use to generate wedged dose distribution and their positions with respect to the target of linear accelerator, the physical wedge (PW) and virtual wedge (VW) are expected to have some different dosimetric characteristics [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref14">14</xref>] . The LINAC is installed at Atomic energy medical center (AEMC), Karachi for both 6 MV and 15 MV X-ray beams using 3D water phantom (Blue phantom, IBA Germany). The dimension of water tank is 480 mm &#215; 480 mm &#215; 400 mm and walls are made of acrylic. The point accuracy of water phantom in 0.1 mm has 500 mm/s scanning speed. We align the water phantom with the laser such that the horizontal axis (x-axis/cross-plane direction) is the left right position. For in-plane direction which is along the y-axis (gun target) direction. The scanning the orientation in gun target and left -right direction can compromise the TPS of wedged field but in open field orientation does matter.</p><p>For accurate scanning process, the phantom must be positioned so that it is adjusted with transverse (cross-plane) and radial (in-plane) directions. This can be done by aligning probe holders with the edge of fields. Standard relative dosimetry setup was arranged for measurement, using CC13 ion chambers, (IBA, Germany), portable IBA electrometer/control unit, CU500E and dosimetry computer having Omnipro-accept software. CC13 Ion chamber was kept at beam’s central axis, with chamber center at water surface, such that the distance from source to surface (SSD) was 100cm. Cross plane beam profiles were measured at three different depths (D<sub>max</sub>, 10 cm, 20 cm) for various field sizes (10 &#215; 10 cm<sup>2</sup>, 15 &#215; 15 cm<sup>2</sup>, 20 &#215; 20 cm<sup>2</sup>) for open field (cross-plane and in-plane).</p><p>All the profiles then converted into tabular data using option in the Omnipro accept software. Penumbral width for all cases (open field and wedge field) was calculated by beam profiles. Penumbral width deviations for PW were obtained by subtracting the penumbral width in PW field from open field (cross-plane) direction and penumbral width deviations for VW were obtained by subtracting the penumbral width in VW field from open field (in-plane) direction, All the deviations were finally analyzed as a function of wedge type (physical and virtual), wedge angle, field size, energy and depth by using statistical software package SPSS15. If deviations are positive means penumbral width in open filed are greater than penumbral width in wedge field and negative deviations shows vice versa.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results and Discussions</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> shows the deviations in penumbral width for both types of wedges from open field. These observations are for all wedge angles, field sizes, depth and energy as discusses in above sections.</p><p><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref> shows that in higher wedge angles (45˚ and 60˚ ) and in higher field width, the deviations is getting more negative i.e. here in wedge field the penumbral width is greater as compare to open field. This variation or difference in higher field size is due to the fact that collimator edge scatter and transmission penumbra increases with field size. Similarly, as depth increases the deviations in negative side increases more because the scattering is more prominent in lower energy component of beam. If we analyze the deviations statistically, as a function of different parameters shows in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> shows the dependence or significance of some factors like energy, depth, field sizes, wedge type and wedge angles on deviations.</p><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Energy Significance</title><p>As energy increases the deviations decreases and variation among the deviations</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Deviations in wedged and open penumbral width</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Energy (MV)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Depth (cm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Field sizes (cm<sup>2</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Deviations physical wedge</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Deviations virtual wedge</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15˚</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30˚</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45˚</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60˚</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15˚</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30˚</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45˚</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60˚</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >D<sub>max</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 &#215; 10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 &#215; 15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 &#215; 20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 &#215; 10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 &#215; 15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 &#215; 20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−11.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−20.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−4.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 &#215; 10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 &#215; 15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−6.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−13.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 &#215; 20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−8.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−13.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−7.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−5.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−15.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >D<sub>max</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 &#215; 10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 &#215; 15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 &#215; 20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−2.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 &#215; 10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 &#215; 15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 &#215; 20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−5.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 &#215; 10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 &#215; 15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−2.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 &#215; 20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−6.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−9.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−2.7</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><fig-group id="fig1"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref></label><caption><title> Represents deviations in penumbral width in presence of physical and virtual wedge for 6 MV energy. (a) D<sub>max</sub> (b) 10 cm (c) 20 cm.</title></caption><fig id ="fig1_1"><label></label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/11-2660238x2.png"/></fig><fig id ="fig1_2"><label></label><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/11-2660238x3.png"/></fig></fig-group><fig id="fig2"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref></label><caption><title> Represents deviations in penumbral width in presence of physical and virtual wedge for 15 MV energy. (a) D<sub>max</sub> (b) 10 cm (c) 20 cm</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/11-2660238x4.png"/></fig><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Statistical significance of parameters on penumbral deviations</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Parameters</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Categories</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >N</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Standard deviations</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >F-value</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P-value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Energy (MV)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5111</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.88005</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >3.889*</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5375</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.56488</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Depth (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >D<sub>max</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.125</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99648</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >4.594*</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0.012</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.0188</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2922</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.9292</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.69784</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Field sizes (cm<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 &#215; 10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8938</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.78018</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >10.424**</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 &#215; 15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7208</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.09274</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 &#215; 20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.4583</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.32203</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Wedge type</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Physical</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.80289</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.011<sup>NS</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >0.918</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Virtual</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9986</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.87643</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Wedge angle (˚)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8528</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.88236</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >6.658**</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.3028</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.43696</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3611</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.97045</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.5806</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.50116</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>NS = Not significant,* = significant, ** = highly significant.</p><p>also reduces with the increase in energy. Low energy has higher scattering which increases the mean penumbral deviations which shows that in higher energy the penumbral factor lesser than lower energy. As p-value is equal to 0.05 this effect is statistically significant.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Depth Significance</title><p>The increase in depth also increases the mean penumbral deviations and variation among the deviation. This is due to beam hardening effect with depth which increases the deviations, depth losses the energy of photons. The p value is less than 0.05 which makes the depth dependence statistically significant.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Field Sizes Significance</title><p>The mean penumbral deviations are direct effect on field sizes and variation among deviations. This is due to the fact that lateral configuration set by the jaws of collimator; it increases the field size, higher field sizes have higher scattering. This effect is highly statistically significant as p value is zero.</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Wedge Type Significance</title><p>The mean penumbral deviations are almost same in both PW and VW but variations among the deviations in VW are quit lesser than PW which make the use of it more convenient. As p value are greater than 0.05 it is statistically in-signi- ficant.</p></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. Wedge Angle Significance</title><p>The choice of wedge angle has been very important during TPS. The statistics shows that as wedge angle increases the mean penumbral deviations increases and the variations among deviations also increases. The higher the angles, the higher the scattering which increases the mean penumbral deviations. This is highly statistical significant as p value is zero.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusions</title><p>Penumbra creates greater doses than normal at the edges of tissues which are undesirable. For a steep dose gradient between the target volume and healthy tissues, the penumbral width should be as small as possible. As far as the clinical importance or disadvantage is concerned, the penumbral region needs precise attention during treatment planning. Penumbra of the beam is not considered when delineating the PTV, however when selecting the beam sizes, the width of the penumbra has to be taken into account. The variation in the penumbra has to be implemented during TPS especially it creates problem in delivering small off-center segments. This study is very helpful to understand the penumbral dose variation of open field, physical and virtual wedges and hence implementation in accurate commissioning and clinical use.</p><p>It is a well known fact that due to increased use of advance radiotherapy techniques like IMRT, VMAT, SRT etc, and where the experts are debating that hard wedges in radiotherapy should be discontinued [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref15">15</xref>] . There are still lots of radiotherapy centers in the world having lack of resources, and they are using hard wedges and EDW/Virtual wedges so it is important to check periodical wedge profile reproducibility [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref16">16</xref>] . The concept and understanding of this study will also be useful in case of IMRT delivery where the leakage penumbra effect of MLCs should be taken into account for accurate dose calculation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.76542-ref13">13</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Farrukh, S., Ilyas, N., Naveed, M., Haseeb, A., Bilal, M., Dr Najamuddin and Iqbal, J. (2017) Penum- bral Dose Characteristics of Physical and Virtual Wedge Profiles. International Jour- nal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, 6, 216-224. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijmpcero.2017.62020</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.76542-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Darby, S.C., Ewertz, M., McGale, P., Bennet, A.M., Blom-Goldman, U., Bronnum, D., Correa, C., Cutter, D., Gagliardi, G., Gigante, B., Jensen, M.B., Nisbet, A., Peto, R., Rahimi, K. and Taylor, C. (2013) Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease in Women After Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 11, 987-998. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1209825</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.76542-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bhatnagar, A.K., Brandner, E., Sonnik, D., Wu, A., Kalnicki, S. and Deutsch, M. (2006) Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Reduces the Dose to the Contralateral Breast When Compared to Conventional Tangential Fields for Primary Breast Irradiation. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 1, 41-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-005-9032-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.76542-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ling, T.C., et al. (2016) Analysis of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), Proton and 3D Conformal Radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for Reducing Perioperative Cardiopulmonary Complications in Esophageal Cancer Patients. Cancers (Basel), 6, 2356-2368. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers6042356</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.76542-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Xie, X., Ouyang, S., Wang, H., Yang, W., Jin, H., Hu, B. and Shen, L. (2014) Dosimetric Comparison of Left-Sided Whole Breast Irradiation with 3D-CRT, IP-IMRT and Hybrid IMRT. Oncology Reports, 31, 2195-2205.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.76542-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wolff, D., Stieler, F., Welzel, G., Lorenz, F., Abo-Madyan, Y., Mai, S., Herskind, C., Polednik, M., Steil, V. and Wenz, F. (2015) Comparison of Hybrid Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) Technique and Double Arc VMAT Technique in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Radiology and Oncology, 49, 291-298.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.76542-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pdgorsak, E.B. (2005) Radiation Oncology Physics: A Hand Book for Teachers and Students. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.76542-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schlegel, A.L., Bortfeld, T. and Grosu, A.L. (2006) New Technologies in Radiation Oncology. Springer, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-29999-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.76542-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Khan, F.M. (2003) Physics of Radiation Therapy. 3rd Edition, Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Philadelphia.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.76542-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pastyr, O., Echner, G., Hartmann, G.H. and Richter, J. (2011) Dynamic Edge Focussing: A New MLC-Design to Deliver IMRT with a Double Focussing High Precision Multi-Leaf Collimator. Journal of Radiotherapy &amp; Medical Oncology, 61, 624-643.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.76542-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Butson, M.J., Yu, P.K.N. and Cheung, T. (2003) Rounded End Multi-Leaf Penumbral Measurements with Radiochromic Film. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 48, 247-252. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/48/17/402</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.76542-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cherry, P. (2009) Practical Radiotherapy: Physics and Equipment. 2nd Edition, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.76542-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mohan, R., Arnfield, M., Tong, S. and Wu, Q. (2000) The Impact of Fluctuations in Intensity Patterns on the Number of Monitor Units and the Quality and Accuracy of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy. Journal of Medical Physics, 27, 1226-1237. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.599000</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.76542-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Grigorov, G.N. and Chow, J.C. (2016) Leakage-Penumbra Effect in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Step-and-Shoot Dose Delivery. World Journal of Radiology, 8, 73-81. https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v8.i1.73</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.76542-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Attalla, E.M., Abo-Elenein, H.S., Ammar, H. and El-Desoky, I. (2010) Comparison of Dosimetric Characteristics of Siemens Virtual and Physical Wedges for ONCOR Linear Accelerator. Journal of Medical Physics, 35.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.76542-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Christopher, F.N. and Suh, T.S. (2016) Radiotherapy Using Hard Wedges Is No Longer Appropriate and Should Be Discontinued. AAPM, Medical Physics, 43, 1031. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4939262</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.76542-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy (2016) Technical Quality Control Guidelines for Medical Linear Acclerators and Mulitleaf Collimators. www.cpqr.ca</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>>