Review



mapcheck diode array  (Sun Nuclear Corporation)

 
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 90
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    Sun Nuclear Corporation mapcheck diode array
    Detector response variation during a period of one hour (short term) and one month (long term). The linac output variation was monitored and corrected using a Farmer chamber. The MatriXX readings were corrected for temperature and pressure variations during the long‐term tests; no correction was applied to the <t>MapCHECK</t> readings.
    Mapcheck Diode Array, supplied by Sun Nuclear Corporation, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/mapcheck diode array/product/Sun Nuclear Corporation
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    mapcheck diode array - by Bioz Stars, 2026-04
    90/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "Comparison of two commercial detector arrays for IMRT quality assurance"

    Article Title: Comparison of two commercial detector arrays for IMRT quality assurance

    Journal: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

    doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v10i2.2942

    Detector response variation during a period of one hour (short term) and one month (long term). The linac output variation was monitored and corrected using a Farmer chamber. The MatriXX readings were corrected for temperature and pressure variations during the long‐term tests; no correction was applied to the MapCHECK readings.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Detector response variation during a period of one hour (short term) and one month (long term). The linac output variation was monitored and corrected using a Farmer chamber. The MatriXX readings were corrected for temperature and pressure variations during the long‐term tests; no correction was applied to the MapCHECK readings.

    Techniques Used:

    Relative output as a function of field size for the 6 and 18 MV photon beams measured with the MapCHECK and MatriXX, and compared with the measurement using a Farmer‐type ion chamber. Measurement was done in a solid water phantom at 100 cm source to detector distance (SDD) and 10 cm depth. Field sizes varied from 4 × 4 cm 2 to 22 × 22 cm 2 .
    Figure Legend Snippet: Relative output as a function of field size for the 6 and 18 MV photon beams measured with the MapCHECK and MatriXX, and compared with the measurement using a Farmer‐type ion chamber. Measurement was done in a solid water phantom at 100 cm source to detector distance (SDD) and 10 cm depth. Field sizes varied from 4 × 4 cm 2 to 22 × 22 cm 2 .

    Techniques Used:

    Relative output as a function of SDD for the 6 and 18 MV photon beams measured with the MapCHECK and MatriXX, and compared with the measurement using a Farmer‐type ion chamber. The depth of the detectors was at 10 cm with a fixed field size of 10 × 10 cm 2 . The SDDs varied from 80 cm to 150 cm.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Relative output as a function of SDD for the 6 and 18 MV photon beams measured with the MapCHECK and MatriXX, and compared with the measurement using a Farmer‐type ion chamber. The depth of the detectors was at 10 cm with a fixed field size of 10 × 10 cm 2 . The SDDs varied from 80 cm to 150 cm.

    Techniques Used:

    Beam profiles of a half‐beam blocked 10 × 10 cm 2 field measured with the MapCHECK ( * ) and MatriXX (o) in the single detector mode at 10 cm depth with 1 mm steps, covering ±15 mm of the beam edge. Accurate movement of the detectors was achieved using a robotic treatment couch top. The convolved profiles using the best fit Gaussians are also shown as solid curves with σ of 2.4 mm and 2.6 mm for the 6 and 18 MV beams, respectively.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Beam profiles of a half‐beam blocked 10 × 10 cm 2 field measured with the MapCHECK ( * ) and MatriXX (o) in the single detector mode at 10 cm depth with 1 mm steps, covering ±15 mm of the beam edge. Accurate movement of the detectors was achieved using a robotic treatment couch top. The convolved profiles using the best fit Gaussians are also shown as solid curves with σ of 2.4 mm and 2.6 mm for the 6 and 18 MV beams, respectively.

    Techniques Used:

    DTA comparison between MatriXX/MapCHECK measurements and TPS calculations of one of the IMRT segments. The TPS calculations were done using both a beam model (BM1) commissioned using a finite‐sized ion chamber (CC04) measured beam profiles and a beam mode (BM2) commissioned using true beam profiles. DTA criteria of 2 % / 2 mm were used for the comparison and the passing rates are labeled in the top left corners. The blue dots represent failed points where the measurements are lower than TPS calculations; the red dots represent failed points where the measurements are higher than TPS calculations. comparison between MatriXX and BM1; (b) comparison between MapCHECK and BM1; (c) comparison between MatriXX and BM2; (d) comparison between MapCHECK and BM2.
    Figure Legend Snippet: DTA comparison between MatriXX/MapCHECK measurements and TPS calculations of one of the IMRT segments. The TPS calculations were done using both a beam model (BM1) commissioned using a finite‐sized ion chamber (CC04) measured beam profiles and a beam mode (BM2) commissioned using true beam profiles. DTA criteria of 2 % / 2 mm were used for the comparison and the passing rates are labeled in the top left corners. The blue dots represent failed points where the measurements are lower than TPS calculations; the red dots represent failed points where the measurements are higher than TPS calculations. comparison between MatriXX and BM1; (b) comparison between MapCHECK and BM1; (c) comparison between MatriXX and BM2; (d) comparison between MapCHECK and BM2.

    Techniques Used: Labeling

    Passing rates between MapCHECK and TPS calculated dose distributions and MatriXX and TPS calculated dose distributions for three 6 MV IMRT fields and three 18 MV IMRT fields. Both the original TPS calculated dose distributions and the TPS calculated dose distributions convolved with a Gaussian with a σ of 2.5 mm were used to compare with the MatriXX measured dose distributions.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Passing rates between MapCHECK and TPS calculated dose distributions and MatriXX and TPS calculated dose distributions for three 6 MV IMRT fields and three 18 MV IMRT fields. Both the original TPS calculated dose distributions and the TPS calculated dose distributions convolved with a Gaussian with a σ of 2.5 mm were used to compare with the MatriXX measured dose distributions.

    Techniques Used:



    Similar Products

    Image Search Results