PURPOSE: Measurement of the absorbed dose from radiotherapy beams is an essential component of providing safe and reproducible treatment. For an energy-dependent dosimeter such as thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), it is generally assumed that the energy spectrum is constant throughout the treatment field and is unperturbed by field size, depth, field modulation, or heterogeneities. However, this does not reflect reality and introduces error into clinical dose measurements. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the variability in the energy spectrum of a Varian 6 MV beam and to evaluate the impact of these variations in photon energy spectra on the response of a common energy-dependent dosimeter, TLD. METHODS: Using Monte Carlo methods, we calculated variations in the photon energy spectra of a 6 MV beam as a result of variations of treatment parameters, including field size, measurement location, the presence of heterogeneities, and field modulation. The impact of these spectral variations on the response of the TLD is largely based on increased photoelectric effect in the dosimeter, and this impact was calculated using Burlin cavity theory. Measurements of the energy response were also made to determine the additional energy response due to all intrinsic and secondary effects. RESULTS: For most in-field measurements, regardless of treatment parameter, the dosimeter response was not significantly affected by the spectral variations (<1% effect). For measurement points outside of the treatment field, where the spectrum is softer, the TLD over-responded by up to 12% due to an increased probability of photoelectric effect in the TLD material as well as inherent ionization density effects that play a role at low photon energies. CONCLUSIONS: It is generally acceptable to ignore the impact of variations in the photon spectrum on the measured dose for locations within the treatment field. However, outside the treatment field, the spectra are much softer, and a correction factor is generally appropriate. The results of this work have determined values for this factor, which range from 0.88 to 0.99 depending on the specific irradiation conditions.
PURPOSE: Measurement of the absorbed dose from radiotherapy beams is an essential component of providing safe and reproducible treatment. For an energy-dependent dosimeter such as thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), it is generally assumed that the energy spectrum is constant throughout the treatment field and is unperturbed by field size, depth, field modulation, or heterogeneities. However, this does not reflect reality and introduces error into clinical dose measurements. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the variability in the energy spectrum of a Varian 6 MV beam and to evaluate the impact of these variations in photon energy spectra on the response of a common energy-dependent dosimeter, TLD. METHODS: Using Monte Carlo methods, we calculated variations in the photon energy spectra of a 6 MV beam as a result of variations of treatment parameters, including field size, measurement location, the presence of heterogeneities, and field modulation. The impact of these spectral variations on the response of the TLD is largely based on increased photoelectric effect in the dosimeter, and this impact was calculated using Burlin cavity theory. Measurements of the energy response were also made to determine the additional energy response due to all intrinsic and secondary effects. RESULTS: For most in-field measurements, regardless of treatment parameter, the dosimeter response was not significantly affected by the spectral variations (<1% effect). For measurement points outside of the treatment field, where the spectrum is softer, the TLD over-responded by up to 12% due to an increased probability of photoelectric effect in the TLD material as well as inherent ionization density effects that play a role at low photon energies. CONCLUSIONS: It is generally acceptable to ignore the impact of variations in the photon spectrum on the measured dose for locations within the treatment field. However, outside the treatment field, the spectra are much softer, and a correction factor is generally appropriate. The results of this work have determined values for this factor, which range from 0.88 to 0.99 depending on the specific irradiation conditions.
Authors: Stephen F Kry; Uwe Titt; Falk Pönisch; David Followill; Oleg N Vassiliev; R Allen White; Radhe Mohan; Mohammad Salehpour Journal: Med Phys Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Stephen F Kry; Andrea Molineu; James R Kerns; Austin M Faught; Jessie Y Huang; Kiley B Pulliam; Jackie Tonigan; Paola Alvarez; Francesco Stingo; David S Followill Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ashley E Rubinstein; Zhongxing Liao; Adam D Melancon; Michele Guindani; David S Followill; Ramesh C Tailor; John D Hazle; Laurence E Court Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 4.071