Characterisation and use of OSLD for in vivo dosimetry in head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
L. Jose Solomon Raj ◽  
Benedicta Pearlin ◽  
B. S. Timothy Peace ◽  
Rajesh Isiah ◽  
I. Rabi Raja Singh
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Dose Rate ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Rate Dependence ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
In Vivo Dosimetry ◽  
Intensity Modulated

Abstract Aim: This study reveals the characteristic nature and the use of optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD) as an in vivo dosimetry tool for head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Materials and methods: Calibration and characterisation of OSLD such as sensitivity, reproducibility, dose-rate dependence, beam quality dependence, output factor measurement and comparison of two bleaching techniques using halogen and compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) were initially performed. Later, eye dose measurements were performed for head and neck IMRT patients using OSLD and were compared with the corresponding dose calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). Results: While the sensitivity was found to be within ±5%, the dose-rate dependence and reproducibility were found to be within ±3%. The OSLD showed an under-response of 3% for 15 MV and an increase in response by 5% for Co60 (1·25 MeV) when compared with the 6 MV X-ray beam. Therefore, a separate calibration for different beam energies is required. The percentage deviation of OSLD to that of TPS was found to be within ±2·77%. The OSLD has been successfully used for the in vivo dosimetry of patients who received IMRT. Hence, it is concluded that OSLDs can serve as effective dosimeters for in vivo dosimetry.

Dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and field-in-field (FIF) technique for head-and-neck cancer

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Nguyen Thi Lan ◽  
Hoang Dai Viet ◽  
Duong Thanh Tai ◽  
James C. L. Chow
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Target Volumes

Abstract Purpose: This study compared the plan dosimetry between the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and field-in-field (FIF) technique for head-and-neck cancer using the Elekta Monaco treatment planning system (TPS). Materials and methods: A total of 20 head-and-neck cancer patients were selected in this study. IMRT and FIF plans for the patients were created on the Monaco TPS (ver. 5.11.02) using the 6-MV photon beam generated by the Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. The dose–volume histograms, maximum doses, minimum doses, mean doses of the target volumes and organs-at-risk (OARs), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) and monitor units (MUs) were determined for each IMRT and FIF plan. All IMRT plans passed the patient-specific quality assurance tests from the 2D diode array measurements (MatriXX Evolution System, IBA Dosimetry, Germany). Results: The results showed that the dose distribution to the target volumes of IMRT plans was better than FIF plans, while the dose (mean or max dose) to the OAR was significantly lower than FIF plan, respectively. IMRT and FIF resulted in planning target volume coverage with mean dose of 71·32 ± 0·76 and 73·12 ± 0·62 Gy, respectively, and HI values of 0·08 ± 0·01 (IMRT) and 0·19 ± 0·06 (FIF). The CI for IMRT was 0·98 ± 0·01 and FIF was 0·97 ± 0·01. For the spinal cord tolerance (maximum dose < 45 Gy), IMRT resulted in 39·85 ± 2·04 Gy compared to 41·37 ± 2·42 Gy for FIF. In addition, the mean doses to the parotid grand were 27·27 ± 7·48 and 48·68 ± 1·62 Gy for the IMRT and FIF plans, respectively. Significantly more MUs were required in IMRT plans than FIF plans (on average, 846 ± 100 MU in IMRT and 467 ± 41 MU in FIF). Conclusions: It is concluded that the IMRT technique could provide a better plan dosimetry than the FIF technique for head-and-neck patients.

scholarly journals Dosimetric Studies of Mixed Energy Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer Treatments

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Abdul Haneefa ◽  
K. K. Shakir ◽  
A. Siddhartha ◽  
T. Siji Cyriac ◽  
M. M. Musthafa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Energy ◽  
Photon Beam ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Mixed Beam ◽  
Mixed Field

Dosimetric studies of mixed field photon beam intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer using pencil beam (PB) and collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithms using Oncentra MasterPlan treatment planning system (v. 4.3) are investigated in this study. Three different plans were generated using 6 MV, 15 MV, and mixed beam (both 6 and 15 MV). Fifteen patients with two sets of plans were generated: one by using PB and the other by using CCC for the same planning parameters and constraints except the beam energy. For each patient’s plan of high energy photons, one set of photoneutron measurements using solid state neutron track detector (SSNTD) was taken for this study. Mean percentage of V66 Gy in the rectum is 18.55±2.8, 14.58±2.1, and 16.77±4.7 for 6 MV, 15 MV, and mixed-energy plans, respectively. Mean percentage of V66 Gy in bladder is 16.54±2.1, 17.42±2.1, and 16.94±41.9 for 6 MV, 15 MV, and mixed-energy plans, respectively. Mixed fields neutron contribution at the beam entrance surface is 45.62% less than at 15 MV photon beam. Our result shows that, with negligible neutron contributions, mixed field IMRT has considerable dosimetric advantage.

Evaluation of thermoplastic Klarity mask use during intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck carcinoma

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaldoon Radaideh
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Skin Dose ◽  
Surface Dose ◽  
Thermoluminescent Dosimeters ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Skin Doses ◽  
Dose Measurements

AbstractAimTo evaluate the Klarity® Mask with respect to skin doses and toxicity secondary to head and neck cancer radiation treatment.Materials and methodsThis prospective study included five nasopharyngeal cancer patients who underwent intensity-modulated radiation therapy and monitored for skin toxicity. An anatomical Perspex head and neck phantom was designed and used. All patients’ treatment plans were separately transferred to the phantom. Dosimetric measurements were performed using chip-shaped thermoluminescent dosimeters (LiF:Mg,Ti TLDs) which were distributed at certain target points on the phantom. Phantom was irradiated twicely with and without a Klarity® Mask. Three fractions for each patient plan were obtained and compared with treatment planning system (TPS) doses as guided by computed tomography.ResultsThe Klarity mask used for patient immobilisation increased the surface dose by 10·83% more than that without the mask. The average variations between skin dose measurements with and without the Klarity mask for all patients’ plans ranged from 10·26 to 11·83%. TPS overestimated the surface dose by 19·13% when compared with thermoluminescent dosimeters that measured the direct skin dose.ConclusionsKlarity immobilisation mask increases skin doses, as a consequence, surface dose measurements should be monitored and must be taken into account.

Comparison of Gamma Analyses with using Different Dosimetric Systems for Pre-Treatment Verification of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gokcen Inan ◽  
Osman Vefa Gul
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Linear Accelerator ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Array Detector ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Treatment Plans ◽  
2D Array

Purpose: The evaluation of the agreement between calculated and measured dose plays an essential role in the quality assurance (QA) procedures of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This study aimed to compare gamma analysis using Portal Dosimetry (PD), Epiqa, and 2D array detector for dose verification of radiotherapy treatment plans. Materials and Methods: Five fields step-and-shoot IMRT plan was used to performed for 20 prostate IMRT patients using the dual-energy DHX linear accelerator (Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA, USA). The treatment plans were created using Varian DHX Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) version 15.1. All measurements were performed by aS500 EPID integrated into Varian DHX linear accelerator and 2D array detector. The dose distribution was evaluated with gamma area histograms (GAHs) generated using different γ criteria (1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm 3%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm) for dose agreement and distance to agreement parameters. Statistical analyses were evaluated by using Mann Whitney Test and Kruskal-Wallis Test, and p-value of p <0.01 was considered to be significant. Results: The average pass rate for 20 IMRT plans was above 95% for all devices with 2%/2 mm, 3%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm. The mean and standard deviation passing rates (γ ≤1) were found to be 99.80±0.19, 99.35±0.34 and 97.53±0.71 for PD, Epiqa and 2D array respectively. All IMRT plans passed 2%/2 mm, 3%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm gamma by more than 95% of three dosimetric systems. They are all in good agreement with the literature. Conclusion: All three devices are acceptable for quality control of IMRT. Due to the simplicity and fast evaluation process, PD can be preferred for quality control.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document