PURPOSE: To determine and analyze the dosimetric consequences of current portal imaging practices for pediatric patients, and make specific recommendations for reducing exposure from portal imaging procedures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A survey was sent to approximately 250 Children's Oncology Group (COG) member institutions asking a series of questions about their portal imaging practices. Three case studies are presented with dosimetric analysis to illustrate the magnitude of unintended dose received by nontarget tissues using the most common techniques from the survey. RESULTS: The vast majority of centers use double-exposure portal image techniques with a variety of open field margins. Only 17% of portal images were obtained during treatment, and for other imaging methods, few centers subtract monitor units from the treatment delivery. The number of monitor units used was nearly the same regardless of imager type, including electronic portal imaging devices. Eighty-six percent imaged all fields the first week and 17% imaged all fields every week. An additional 1,112 cm3 of nontarget tissue received 1 Gy in one of the example cases. Eight new recommendations are made, which will lower nontarget radiation doses with minimal impact on treatment verification accuracy. CONCLUSION: Based on the survey, changes can be made in portal imaging practices that will lower nontarget doses. It is anticipated that treatment verification accuracy will be minimally affected. Specific recommendations made to decrease the imaging dose and help lower the rate of radiation-induced secondary cancers in children are proposed for inclusion in future COG protocols using radiation therapy.
PURPOSE: To determine and analyze the dosimetric consequences of current portal imaging practices for pediatric patients, and make specific recommendations for reducing exposure from portal imaging procedures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A survey was sent to approximately 250 Children's Oncology Group (COG) member institutions asking a series of questions about their portal imaging practices. Three case studies are presented with dosimetric analysis to illustrate the magnitude of unintended dose received by nontarget tissues using the most common techniques from the survey. RESULTS: The vast majority of centers use double-exposure portal image techniques with a variety of open field margins. Only 17% of portal images were obtained during treatment, and for other imaging methods, few centers subtract monitor units from the treatment delivery. The number of monitor units used was nearly the same regardless of imager type, including electronic portal imaging devices. Eighty-six percent imaged all fields the first week and 17% imaged all fields every week. An additional 1,112 cm3 of nontarget tissue received 1 Gy in one of the example cases. Eight new recommendations are made, which will lower nontarget radiation doses with minimal impact on treatment verification accuracy. CONCLUSION: Based on the survey, changes can be made in portal imaging practices that will lower nontarget doses. It is anticipated that treatment verification accuracy will be minimally affected. Specific recommendations made to decrease the imaging dose and help lower the rate of radiation-induced secondary cancers in children are proposed for inclusion in future COG protocols using radiation therapy.
Authors: Carina Marques Coelho; Raquel Calçada; Sofia Rodrigues; Juan Antonio Barragán; Ana Cravo Sá; Ana Paula Macedo; Maria de Fátima Monsanto Journal: Radiol Phys Technol Date: 2017-03-21