PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 7893360

Electron energy constancy check using a five-chamber detector array.

Abstract

Two methods are shown here to determine the 50% depth ionization (d50) using buildup materials of different thickness placed on top of a five-chamber detector array. In the first method, two sets of different thickness buildup material are required to perform the check, one set for checking 6 and 9 MeV, while another set is used for 12, 16, and 20 MeV electron beam from a Varian Clinac 2100C. The second method only requires two data points to determine the d50 depth for each energy. The d50 depths determined were compared with the d50 depth obtained using a water phantom with ionization chamber measurements. The method is simple to use especially for departments that use a similar detector to perform quality assurance tests such as output/symmetry/flatness check.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A K Ho, C N deSouza, C H Sibata, K H Shin. 1994. Electron energy constancy check using a five-chamber detector array.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0958-3947(16)30034-6

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Technical note: reconstructing dose distributions from manually planned electron boosts in breast radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: In breast radiotherapy, delivery of manually-calculated electron boosts limits retrospective dose-response analyses as dose distribution is unavailable. This work evaluates the feasibility of reconstructing dose distributions from manually planned electron boosts in breast-conserving radiotherapy. METHODS: Only 72 out of 198 breast cancer patients had complete stored dose distributions from sequential electron boosts in the REQUITE study. Arbitrary data from 70/72 patients were used to develop and validate dose reconstruction method. Twenty patients were used to determine optimal parameters for Monte-Carlo-based (MC) electron dose reconstruction on RayStation (v.11B-R), considering CT-calibration curve, MC-history number, andcalculation grid resolution. Remaining 50 patients were used to quantify dose reconstruction accuracy. The similarity between reconstructed and stored dose was evaluated using 3D-gamma index and dosimetric parameters extracted from breast and tumour bed contours. Dose difference location was evaluated using dose-location histogram. RESULTS: Calculation grid resolution significantly impacted electron dose distribution (p&#xa0;<&#xa0;0.01), where the finest grid (0.15&#xa0;cm) showed highest similarity to stored doses. CT-calibration curve and MC-history number had a negligible influence on dose reconstruction. Dosimetric difference between reconstructed and stored doses was&#xa0;<&#xa0;1&#xa0;Gy for breast and tumour bed. Reconstructed dose was achieved&#xa0;>&#xa0;90% gamma passing rate in the validation set. However, around 2.5&#xa0;Gy dose differences were observed at the skin and tissue interface regions. CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective electron boost dose reconstruction is feasible with acceptable accuracy, and could increase data completeness in large cohort studies. Caution is advised when assessing dose near tissue interface and further validation is needed outside the REQUITE dataset.

Electrons

Utilization of thermoluminescent dosimetry in total skin electron beam radiotherapy of mycosis fungoides.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to discuss the utilization of thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) in total skin electron beam (TSEB) radiotherapy to: (a) compare patient dose distributions for similar techniques on different machines, (b) confirm beam calibration and monitor unit calculations, (c) provide data for making clinical decisions, and (d) study reasons for variations in individual dose readings. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We report dosimetric results for 72 cases of mycosis fungoides, using similar irradiation techniques on two different linear accelerators. All patients were treated using a modified Stanford 6-field technique. In vivo TLD was done on all patients, and the data for all patients treated on both machines was collected into a database for analysis. Means and standard deviations (SDs) were computed for all locations. Scatter plots of doses vs. height, weight, and obesity index were generated, and correlation coefficients with these variables were computed. RESULTS: The TLD results show that our current TSEB implementation is dosimetrically equivalent to the previous implementation, and that our beam calibration technique and monitor unit calculation is accurate. Correlations with obesity index were significant at several sites. Individual TLD results allow us to customize the boost treatment for each patient, in addition to revealing patient positioning problems and/or systematic variations in dose caused by patient variability. The data agree well with previously published TLD results for similar TSEB techniques. CONCLUSION: TLD is an important part of the treatment planning and quality assurance programs for TSEB, and routine use of TLD measurements for TSEB is recommended.

Electrons

Improvements in absorbed dose measurements for external radiation therapy using ferrous dosimeter gel and MR imaging (FeMRI).

A ferrous gel, based on ferrous (Fe) sulphate and agarose, was used with a clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner to obtain relative dose distribution data from therapeutic photon and electron beams. The FeMRI gel was scanned using a new MRI acquisition protocol optimized for T1 measurements. Thorough comparisons with silicon semiconductor detector and ionization chamber measurements, as well as with Monte Carlo calculations, were performed in order to quantify the improvements obtained using FeMRI for dose estimations. Most of the relative doses measured with FeMRI were within 2% of the doses measured with other methods. The larger discrepancies (2-4%) found at shallow depths are discussed. The uncertainty in relative dose measurements using FeMRI was significantly improved compared with previously reported results (5-10%, one standard deviation, 1 SD), and is today between 1.6% and 3.3% (depending on dose level, 2 SD). This corresponds to an improvement in the minimum detectable dose (3 SD above background) from approximately 2 Gy to better than 0.6 Gy. The results obtained in this study emphasize the importance of obtaining basic FeMRI dose data before the method is extended to complicated treatment regimes.

Electrons