Comparison Flattening Filter and Flattening Filter-Free Techniques in Small-Fields Dosimetry with Various Types of Detectors

Document Type : Research Articles


1 Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.

2 Radiology Techniques Department, College of Health and Medical Techniques, Al-Mustaqbal University, Iraq.

3 Ionizing Radiation Metrology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards (NIS), Giza, Egypt.

4 Department of Radiotherapy, Shefaa-Alorman Hospital, Egypt.


Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the detector size effect on small-field dosimetry and compare the performance of 6MV WFF/FFF techniques. Methods: We investigated the detector size effect on small-field dosimetry and compared the performance of 6MV WFF/FFF techniques. PDD, profile curves, and absorbed dose were measured in water under reference conditions with 6MV (WFF/FFF) techniques. We employed Farmer FC65-P, CC13, CC01, and IBA Razor diode, with Versa Lineac. Subsequently, we replicated this assessment for small-fields under 5cmx5cm dimensions. Results: For both 6MV WFF/FFF, significant dose differences (Dmax=1.47cm), were ±4.55%, ±6.7, ±12.75% and ±33.3% for 4cmx4cm, 3cmx3cm, 2cmx2cm, and 1cmx1cm, respectively. The average difference relative to D10 was observed to be ±4.66%, ±5.73%, ±6.58%, and ±8.75% for the previous field sizes. Differences between WFF/FFF are neglected values at all field sizes>2.3%, also, the output of the largest detector FC65-P is lower at 55% in the smallest field size. Variation in the profile doesn’t exceed a difference of >5% in flatness between WFF/FFF at depth10cm, across all fields, while symmetry is >1%, but radiation output is considerably lower at 55% for FC65-P chamber in 2cmx2cm, 1cmx1cm compared to the CC01 chamber and Razor diode. Significant differences in 1cmx1cm, where FC65-P chamber exhibits around 49% difference compared to Razor diode with 6MV (WFF/FFF).  Conclusions: Significant differences were observed in doses with various detectors. Detector-size influences the dose. WFF/FFF techniques show no major differences in small-fields dosimetry. Utilize some situations the advantage of FFF boasting a higher dose rate, consequently reducing treatment time to half.


Main Subjects