Email this article 
Post a Comment 
A comparative study on patient specific absolute dosimetry using slab phantom, acrylic body phantom and goat head phantom
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the results of patient specific absolute dosimetry using slab phantom, acrylic body phantom and goat head phantom.
Methods: Fifteen intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans already planned on treatment planning system (TPS) for head-and-neck cancer patients were exported on all three kinds of phantoms viz. slab phantom, acrylic body phantom and goat head phantom, and dose was calculated using anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA). All the gantry angles were set to zero in case of slab phantom while set to as it is in actual plan in case of other two phantoms. All the plans were delivered by linear accelerator (LA) and dose for each plan was measured by 0.13 cc ion chamber. The percentage (%) variations between planned and measured doses were calculated and analyzed.
Results: The mean % variations between planned and measured doses of all IMRT quality assurance (QA) plans were as 0.65 (Standard deviation (SD): 0.38) with confidence limit (CL) 1.39, 1.16 (SD: 0.61) with CL 2.36 and 2.40 (SD: 0.86) with CL 4.09 for slab phantom, acrylic head phantom and goat head phantom respectively.
Conclusion: Higher dose variations found in case of real tissue phantom compare to results in case of slab and acrylic body phantoms. The algorithm AAA does not calculate doses in heterogeneous medium as accurate as it calculates in homogeneous medium. Therefore the patient specific absolute dosimetry should be done using heterogeneous phantom mimicking density wise as well as design wise to the actual human body.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Chen WZ, Xiao Y, Li J. Impact of dose calculation algorithm on radiationtherapy. World J Radiol 2014; 6:874-80.
Rana SB. Dose prediction accuracy of anisotropic analytical algorithm and pencil beam convolution algorithm beyond high density heterogeneity interface. South Asian J Cancer 2013; 2:26-30.
Sievinen J, Ulmer W, Kaissl W. AAA photon dose calculation model in Eclipse. Palo Alto (CA): Varian Medical Systems, RAD #7170B; 2005.
Gagné IM, Zavgorodni S. Evaluation of the analytical anisotropic algorithm in an extreme water-lung interface phantom using Monte Carlo dose calculations. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2006; 8:33-46.
Jabbari K. Review of fast montecarlo codes for dose calculation in radiation therapy treatment planning. J Med Signals Sens 2011; 1:73-86.
Rana S. Clinical dosimetric impact of Acuros XB and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) on real lung cancer treatment plans: review. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2:02019.
Ojala J. The accuracy of the Acuros XB algorithm in external beam radiotherapy – a comprehensive review. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2:020417.
Mallah J, Mihailidis D. SU-E-T-201: Issues encountered in film-based IMRT QA. Med Phys 2011; 38:3532.
Andenna C, Benassi M, Caccia B, et al. Comparison of dose distributions in IMRT planning using the gamma function. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2006; 25:229-34.
Nijsten SM, Mijnheer BJ, Dekker AL, et al. Routine individualised patient dosimetry using electronic portal imaging devices. Radiother Oncol 2007; 83:65-75.
Huang YC, Yeh CY, Yeh JH, et al. Clinical practice and evaluation of electronic portal imaging device for VMAT qualityassurance. Med Dosim 2013; 38:35-41.
Bouchard H, Seuntjens J. Ionization chamber-based reference dosimetry of intensity modulated radiation beams. Med Phys 2004; 31:2454-65.
Fraser D, Parker W, Seuntjens J. Characterization of cylindrical ionization chambers for patient specific IMRT QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2009; 10:2923.
Gurjar OP, Mishra SP, Bhandari V, et al. Radiation dose verification using real tissue phantom in modern radiotherapy techniques. J Med Phys 2014; 39:44-9.
ICRU Report 83. Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda; 2010.
Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: An international code of practice for dosimetry based on absorbed dose to water. IAEA, Vienna, 2000.
Low DA, Moran JM, Dempsey JF, et al. Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. Med Phys 2011; 38:1313-38.
Watson PE, Watson ID, Batt RD. Total body water volumes for adult males and females estimated from simple anthropometric measurements. Am J Clin Nutr 1980; 33:27-39.
Guyton AC. Textbook of Medical Physiology. 5th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1976.
Guyton AC. Textbook of Medical Physiology. 8th edition. Harcourt College Pub; 8th edition; 1990.
Wilson K. Ross and Wilson Anatomy and physiology in health and illness. 7thedition. Churchill Livingstone; 1992.
Broerse JJ, Zoetelief J. Dose inhomogeneities for photons and neutrons nearinterfaces. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2004; 112:509-17.
Binger T, Seifert H, Blass G, et al. Dose inhomogeneities on surfaces of different dental implants during irradiation with high-energy photons. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2008; 37:149-53.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14319/ijcto.32.13
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (ISSN 2330-4049)
© International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (IJCTO)
To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the 'ijcto.org' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.
Number of visits since October, 2013