scholarly journals Feasibility of a Reusable Radiochromic Dosimeter

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (21) ◽  
pp. 9906
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Newton ◽  
Maxwell Recht ◽  
Joseph A. Hauger ◽  
Gabriel Segarra ◽  
Chase Inglett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Optical Density ◽  
Dose Distribution ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Radiochromic Dosimeter

The current practice for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) uses ion chambers or diode arrays primarily because of their ease of use and reliability. A standard routine compares the dose distribution measured in a phantom with the dose distribution calculated by the treatment planning system for the same experimental conditions. For the particular problems encountered in the treatment planning of complex radiotherapy techniques, such as small fields/segments and dynamic delivery systems, additional tests are required to verify the accuracy of dose calculations. The dose distribution verification should be throughout the total 3D dose distribution for a high dose gradient in a small, irradiated volume, instead of the standard practice of one to several planes with 2D radiochromic (GAFChromic) film. To address this issue, we have developed a 3D radiochromic dosimeter that improves the rigor of current QA techniques by providing high-resolution, complete 3D verification for a wide range of clinical applications. The dosimeter is composed of polyurethane, a radical initiator, and a leuco dye, which is radiolytically oxidized to a dye absorbing at 633 nm. Since this chemical dosimeter is single-use, it represents a significant expense. The purpose of this research is to develop a cost-effective reusable dosimeter formulation. Based on prior reusability studies, three promising dosimeter formulations were studied using small volume optical cuvettes and irradiated to known clinically relevant doses of 0.5–10 Gy. After irradiation, the change in optical density was measured in a spectrophotometer. All three formulations retained linearity of optical density response to radiation upon re-irradiations. However, only one formulation retained dose sensitivity upon at least five re-irradiations, making it ideal for further evaluation as a 3D dosimeter.

scholarly journals Quality Assurance of Dose Distribution of Photon Beam Planning by Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA)

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-49
Author(s):  
M Jahangir Alam ◽  
Syed Md Akram Hussain ◽  
Kamila Afroj ◽  
Shyam Kishore Shrivastava
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Distribution ◽  
Maximum Dose ◽  
Photon Beam ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Analytical Algorithm

A three dimensional treatment planning system has been installed in the Oncology Center, Bangladesh. This system is based on the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA). The aim of this study is to verify the validity of photon dose distribution which is calculated by this treatment planning system by comparing it with measured photon beam data in real water phantom. To do this verification, a quality assurance program, consisting of six tests, was performed. In this program, both the calculated output factors and dose at different conditions were compared with the measurement. As a result of that comparison, we found that the calculated output factor was in excellent agreement with the measured factors. Doses at depths beyond the depth of maximum dose calculated on-axis or off-axis in both the fields or penumbra region were found in good agreement with the measured dose under all conditions of energy, SSD and field size, for open and wedged fields. In the build up region, calculated and measured doses only agree (with a difference 2.0%) for field sizes > 5 × 5 cm2 up to 25 × 25 cm2. For smaller fields, the difference was higher than 2.0% because of the difficulty in dosimetry in that region. Dose calculation using treatment planning system based on the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) is accurate enough for clinical use except when calculating dose at depths above maximum dose for small field size.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjmp.v4i1.14686 Bangladesh Journal of Medical Physics Vol.4 No.1 2011 43-49

Evaluating small field dosimetry with the Acuros XB (AXB) and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) dose calculation algorithms in the eclipse treatment planning system

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 353-364
Author(s):  
Sepideh Behinaein ◽  
Ernest Osei ◽  
Johnson Darko ◽  
Paule Charland ◽  
Dylan Bassi
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Average Dose ◽  
Water Phantom ◽  
Acuros Xb ◽  
Small Fields ◽  
Dose Measurements ◽  
The Brain

AbstractBackground:An increasing number of external beam treatment modalities including intensity modulated radiation therapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and stereotactic radiosurgery uses very small fields for treatment planning and delivery. However, there are major challenges in small photon field dosimetry, due to the partial occlusion of the direct photon beam source’s view from the measurement point, lack of lateral charged particle equilibrium, steep dose-rate gradient and volume averaging effect of the detector response and variation of the energy fluence in the lateral direction of the beam. Therefore, experimental measurements of dosimetric parameters such as percent depth doses (PDDs), beam profiles and relative output factors (ROFs) for small fields continue to be a challenge.Materials and Methods:In this study, we used a homogeneous water phantom and the heterogeneous anthropomorphic stereotactic end-to-end verification (STEEV) head phantom for all dose measurements and calculations. PDDs, lateral dose profiles and ROFs were calculated in the Eclipse Treatment Planning System version 13·6 using the Acuros XB (AXB) and the analytical anisotropic algorithms (AAAs) in a homogenous water phantom. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and measurements using the Exradin W1 Scintillator were also accomplished for four photon energies: 6 MV, 6FFF, 10 MV and 10FFF. Two VMAT treatment plans were generated for two different targets: one located in the brain and the other in the neck (close to the trachea) in the head phantom (CIRS, Norfolk, VA, USA). A Varian Truebeam linear accelerator (Varian, Palo Alto, CA, USA) was used for all treatment deliveries. Calculated results with AXB and AAA were compared with MC simulations and measurements.Results:The average difference of PDDs between W1 Exradin Scintillator measurements and MC simulations, AAA and AXB algorithm calculations were 1·2, 2·4 and 3·2%, respectively, for all field sizes and energies. AXB and AAA showed differences in ROF of about 0·3 and 2·9%, respectively, compared with W1 Exradin Scintillator measured values. For the target located in the brain in the head phantom, the average dose difference between W1 Exradin Scintillator and the MC simulations, AAA and AXB were 0·2, 3·2 and 2·7%, respectively, for all field sizes. Similarly, for the target located in the neck, the respective dose differences were 3·8, 5·7 and 3·5%.Conclusion:In this study, we compared dosimetric parameters such as PDD, beam profile and ROFs in water phantom and isocenter point dose measurements in an anthropomorphic head phantom representing a patient. We observed that measurements using the W1 Exradin scintillator agreed well with MC simulations and can be used efficiently for dosimetric parameters such as PDDs and dose profiles and patient-specific quality assurance measurements for small fields. In both homogenous and heterogeneous media, the AXB algorithm dose prediction agrees well with MC and measurements and was found to be superior to the AAA algorithm.

A user-oriented procedure for the commissioning and quality assurance testing of treatment planning system dosimetry in high-dose-rate brachytherapy

Brachytherapy ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 252-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasiliki Peppa ◽  
Evaggelos Pantelis ◽  
Eleftherios Pappas ◽  
Vasileios Lahanas ◽  
Constantinos Loukas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Dose Rate ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
High Dose Rate ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
High Dose ◽  
High Dose Rate Brachytherapy
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document