PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14528978

IMRT delivery verification using a spiral phantom.

Susan L Richardson·Wolfgang A Tomé·Nigel P Orton·Todd R McNutt·Bhudatt R Paliwal
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this paper we report on the testing and verification of a system for IMRT delivery quality assurance that uses a cylindrical solid water phantom with a spiral trajectory for radiographic film placement. This spiral film technique provides more complete dosimetric verification of the entire IMRT treatment than perpendicular film methods, since it samples a three-dimensional dose subspace rather than using measurements at only one or two depths. As an example, the complete analysis of the predicted and measured spiral films is described for an intracranial IMRT treatment case. The results of this analysis are compared to those of a single field perpendicular film technique that is typically used for IMRT QA. The comparison demonstrates that both methods result in a dosimetric error within a clinical tolerance of 5%, however the spiral phantom QA technique provides a more complete dosimetric verification while being less time consuming. To independently verify the dosimetry obtained with the spiral film, the same IMRT treatment was delivered to a similar phantom in which LiF thermoluminescent dosimeters were arranged along the spiral trajectory. The maximum difference between the predicted and measured TLD data for the 1.8 Gy fraction was 0.06 Gy for a TLD located in a high dose gradient region. This further validates the ability of the spiral phantom QA process to accurately verify delivery of an IMRT plan.

Explore related subjects

Film DosimetryHumansNeoplasmsPhantoms, ImagingRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRadiotherapy, ConformalReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityThermoluminescent DosimetryUnited StatesComparative StudyEvaluation StudyJournal ArticleValidation Study

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Susan L Richardson, Wolfgang A Tomé, Nigel P Orton, Todd R McNutt, Bhudatt R Paliwal. 2003. IMRT delivery verification using a spiral phantom.. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1603965

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2004

Verification of IMRT fields by film dosimetry.

In intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) the aim of an accurate conformal dose distribution is obtained through a complex process. This ranges from the calculation of the optimal distribution of fluence by the treatment planning system (TPS), to the dose delivery through a multilamellar collimator (MLC), with several segments per beam in the step and shoot approach. The above-mentioned consideration makes mandatory an accurate dosimetric verification of the IM beams. A high resolution and integrating dosimeter, like the radiographic film, permits one to simultaneously measure the dose in a matrix of points, providing a good means of obtaining dose distributions. The intrinsic limitation of film dosimetry is the sensitivity dependence on the field size and on the measurement depth. However, the introduction of a scattered radiation filter permits the use of a single calibration curve for all field sizes and measurement depths. In this paper the quality control procedure developed for dosimetric verification of IMRT technique is reported. In particular a system of film dosimetry for the verification of a 6 MV photon beam has been implemented, with the introduction of the scattered radiation filter in the clinical practice that permits one to achieve an absolute dose determination with a global uncertainty within 3.4% (1 s.d.). The film has been calibrated to be used both in perpendicular and parallel configurations. The work also includes the characterization of the Elekta MLC. Ionimetric independent detectors have been used to check single point doses. The film dosimetry procedure has been applied to compare the measured absolute dose distributions with the ones calculated by the TPS, both for test and clinical plans. The agreement, quantified by the gamma index that seldom reaches the 1.5 value, is satisfying considering that the comparison is performed between absolute doses.

Film Dosimetry↗
PubMed2004

Measurements of the relative output factors for CyberKnife collimators.

OBJECTIVE: To determine accurately the relative output factors, defined as the ratio of the nominal dose rate for a given collimator to that of the 60-mm collimator. This is particularly important for radiosurgical treatment of functional disorders, such as trigeminal neuralgia, in which a single large radiation dose is delivered to the target with a small collimator, such as the 5-mm collimator for CyberKnife radiosurgery. Numerous studies on the output factors have been reported for the Leksell gamma knife unit but none for the CyberKnife system. METHODS: Measurements of the relative output factors for all 12 collimators were performed by three different methods: silicon diode, radiographic film, and thermoluminescent dosimetry microcubes. The silicon diode is designed for measurements in small (1-50 MV) photon beams performed in water or air. Film and thermoluminescent dosimetry measurements were performed in a plastic phantom. RESULTS: The measured relative output factors for the three methods were very similar except for the three smallest collimators (5, 7.5, and 10 mm). The measured difference between the above methods was approximately 2%. The mean value of the output factor for the 5-mm collimator was 0.686 +/- 0.024. The uncertainties of the output factors are expected to increase with the decrease of collimator diameter. They range from approximately 1 to 4% of the relative output factor. CONCLUSION: The relative output factor can be measured with an acceptable accuracy even for the smallest (5-mm) CyberKnife collimators. This requires the selection of appropriate dosimetric detectors and measuring procedures. The results obtained with the diode are considered more accurate than with the other two methods.

Film Dosimetry↗
PubMed2003

Which one is at risk in intraoperative fluoroscopy? Assistant surgeon or orthopaedic surgeon?

BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic surgeons use intraoperative portable fluoroscopy and roentgenography. The present study was an attempt to find out if there is a difference between the occupational radiation exposure to the orthopaedic surgeon and assistant surgeon in the operating room while using intraoperative fluoroscopy or radiographic control and to measure it. METHODS: During a 3-month period, 107 consecutive operations were monitored for radiation exposure. At monthly intervals, the radiation doses were measured in millirem and recorded. The distance of the orthopaedic surgeon and the assistant surgeon from the X-ray source were noted in every fluoroscopic check. The orthopaedic surgeon was always at a safe distance (more than 90 cm), but the assistant surgeon always stood nearby (10 cm) the X-ray source for positioning of the patient. RESULTS: The radiation exposure according to the badge on the shoulder was consecutively 3, 4, 3 mrem for the orthopaedic surgeon and 20, 19, 22 mrem for the assistant surgeon. The radiation exposure according to the badges on the anaesthetic machine, in the room and under the apron of the orthopaedic surgeon were all zero, whereas the readings of the badge under the apron of the assistant surgeon were 7, 6, 5 mrem consecutively. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that although the radiation exposure during orthopaedic operations is below the recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Protection, there is a higher risk of exposure for the assistant surgeon. It has to be kept in mind that there could be morphological and functional damage in cells exposed to radiation. Therefore, we should continue to use appropriate shielding precautions in view of the unknown long-term risks.

Film Dosimetry↗