Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T07:18:13.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A novel technique for peripheral dose measurements in external beam radiation therapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2022

Gowri Balan  and
Velayudham Ramasubramanian Open the ORCID record for Velayudham Ramasubramanian [Opens in a new window]
Gowri Balan
Affiliation:
School of Advanced Sciences, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India Department of Medical Physics, Govt. Arignar Anna Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Institute, RCC, Kanchipuram, India
Velayudham Ramasubramanian*
Affiliation:
School of Advanced Sciences, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, India
*
Author for correspondence: Dr. Velayudham Ramasubramanian, Professor, School of Advanced Sciences, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore 632014, Tamil Nadu, India. Tel: +919994728148. E-mail: vrsramasubramanian@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

In radiotherapy, the dose delivered outside the field is known as peripheral dose (PD). In this study, we have attempted to develop a dataset using the PD values measured with a two-dimensional array, IMatrixx.

Methods:

The IMatrixx was used to measure the PD up to a distance of 45 cm from the field edge, in a Varian Clinac 2100-C machine. Solid water slabs and water phantom were used to get the required geometry for the PD measurements. The measurements were done for different field sizes, collimator angles, source to surface distance (SSD) and depths. The influence of gantry angles and photon energies on the PD was studied. The surface dose measurements were carried out using thermoluminescent detectors (TLD).

Results:

The dataset shows that the PD increased significantly with field size and depth and its increase was insignificant for collimator rotation and SSD. The influence of gantry angle was less pronounced at dmax than at the surface. The TLD measurements at the surface of patients were in agreement with the IMatrixx measurements.

Conclusions:

The IMatrixx can be used for the generation of PD values and it is less time-consuming, accurate, and commonly available in all radiotherapy departments.

Keywords

IMatrixxout-of-field doseperipheral dosesecondary cancer
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 22 , 2023 , e39
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NCRP. NCRP Report 170, Second Primary Cancers and Cardiovascular Disease after Radiation Therapy. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 2011.Google Scholar
Travis, L B, Ng, A K, Allan, J M et al. Second malignant neoplasms and cardiovascular disease following radiotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104: 357–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palm, A, Johansson, KA. A review of the impact of photon and proton external beam radiotherapy treatment modalities on the dose distribution in field and out-of-field; implications for the long-term morbidity of cancer survivors. Acta Oncol 2007; 46: 462–473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, J Y, Followill, D S, Wang, X A et al. Accuracy and sources of error of out-of field dose calculations by a commercial treatment planning system for intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatments. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013; 14: 186–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scarboro, S B, Followill, D S, Kerns, J R et al. Energy response of optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters for non-reference measurement locations in a 6 MV photon beam. Phys Med Biol 2012; 57: 2505–2515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kry, S F, Price, M, Followill, D et al. The use of LiF (TLD-100) as an out-of-field dosimeter. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2007; 8: 169–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knezevic, Z, Stolarczyk, L, Bessieres, I et al. Photon dosimetry methods outside the target volume in radiation therapy: optically stimulated luminescence (OSL), thermo luminescence (TL) and radio photo luminescence (RPL) dosimetry. J Rad Meas 2013; 57: 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosset, J M, Hetnal, M, Chargari, C. Second cancers after radiotherapy: update and recommendations. Radioprotection 2018; 53: 101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council of the National Academies. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006; 245.Google Scholar
Klein, E E, Maserang, B, Wood, R et al. Peripheral doses from pediatric IMRT. Med Phys 2006; 33 (7): 2525–2531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohsin, N I, Zakaria, A, Abdullah, R et al. Peripheral dose measurement for a 6 MV photon beam. J Med Phys Biop 2014; 1: 14–15.Google Scholar
Covington, E L, Ritter, T A, Moran, J M et al. Technical Report: evaluation of peripheral dose for flattening filter free photon beams. Med Phys 2016; 43 (6): 4789–4796.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gopiraj, A, Ramasubramanian, V. Comparison of peripheral dose measurements using ionisation chamber and MOSFET detector. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2009; 14: 176–183.Google Scholar