title: A comparative description of three multipurpose phantoms (MPP) for external audits of photon beams in radiotherapy: the water MPP, the Umeå MPP and the EC MPP.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To present a technical description and intercomparison of three multipurpose phantoms (MPP) developed for mailed dosimetry checks of therapeutic photon beams in reference and non-reference conditions.
  
  
  METHODS
  The W-MPP is a water MPP, whereas the Umeâ-MPP, made of perspex (PMMA, Plexiglas), and the EC-MPP, made of polystyrene, are solid MPPs. The W-MPP uses only thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) for dosimetry checks, the EC MPP uses film and TLD; the Umeâ phantom uses film and TLD, and offers in addition the possibility for ionization chamber measurements. Either using TLD or films, the MPPs have been designed to check on-axis and off-axis the following irradiation conditions: square and rectangular fields, asymmetric fields, wedged beams, oblique incidence and, for the solid MPPs, also the influence of inhomogeneities.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The MPPs have been compared for different aspects going from their dosimetric performance (number of dosimetric parameters that can be checked) to some practical consideration in the use of the different MPPs (set-up time, stability, instruction sheets, etc.). From a comparison between the solid multi-purpose phantoms, it turns out that the EC-MPP is capable of checking the largest number of dosimetric parameters per beam, but has the longest set-up time ( approximately 2 h) per beam according to the users. The Umeå-MPP has a smaller number of set-ups (hence a smaller average time) and also includes some parameters not checked with the EC-MPP (e.g. SSD accuracy). The major drawback however of the Umeå-MPP is considered to be its high density (>1.1 g/cm(3)) which increases the difficulty of the analysis with the treatment planning system. The W-MPP checks the smallest number of parameters, but is the fastest in set-up time, the easiest for mailing, and is water equivalent, which is advantageous for the TPS checks. The major drawback of this MPP is however the inability to check complete dose distribution (film) or inhomogeneities.
authors.affiliation: Service de Physique, Institut Gustave-Roussy, Villejuif, France.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Bridier
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Nyström
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Ferreira
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Gomola
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Huyskens
mesh_terms: D004867:Equipment Design; D006801:Humans; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging / Q000592:standards*; D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate; D011137:Polystyrenes; D011786:Quality Control; D011874:Radiometry / Q000379:methods; D011878:Radiotherapy / Q000295:instrumentation*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D014867:Water
chemical_list: D011137:Polystyrenes; D014867:Water; D019904:Polymethyl Methacrylate