PURPOSE: Contemporary radiotherapy treatment techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy, could increase the radiation-induced malignancies because of the increased beam-on time, i.e., number of monitor units needed to deliver the same dose to the target and the larger volume irradiated with low doses. In this study, whole-body dose distributions from typical radiotherapy patient plans using different treatment techniques and therapy machines were measured using the same measurement setup and irradiation intention. METHODS: Individually calibrated thermoluminescent dosimeters were used to measure absorbed dose in an anthropomorphic phantom at 184 locations. The dose distributions from 6 MV beams were compared in terms of treatment technique (3D-conformal, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, helical TomoTherapy, stereotactic radiotherapy, hard wedges, and flattening filter-free radiotherapy) and therapy machine (Elekta, Siemens and Varian linear accelerators, Accuray CyberKnife and TomoTherapy). RESULTS: Close to the target, the doses from intensity-modulated treatments (including flattening filter-free) were below the dose from a static treatment plan, whereas the CyberKnife showed a larger dose by a factor of two. Far away from the treatment field, the dose from intensity-modulated treatments showed an increase in dose from stray radiation of about 50% compared to the 3D-conformal treatment. For the flattening filter-free photon beams, the dose from stray radiation far away from the target was slightly lower than the dose from a static treatment. The CyberKnife irradiation and the treatment using hard wedges increased the dose from stray radiation by nearly a factor of three compared to the 3D-conformal treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the dose outside of the treated volume is influenced by several sources. Therefore, when comparing different treatment techniques, the dose ratios vary with distance to the isocenter. The effective dose outside the treated volume of intensity-modulated treatments with or without flattening filter was 10%-30% larger when compared to 3D-conformal radiotherapy. This dose increase is much lower than the monitor unit scaled effective dose from a static treatment.
PURPOSE: Contemporary radiotherapy treatment techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy, could increase the radiation-induced malignancies because of the increased beam-on time, i.e., number of monitor units needed to deliver the same dose to the target and the larger volume irradiated with low doses. In this study, whole-body dose distributions from typical radiotherapy patient plans using different treatment techniques and therapy machines were measured using the same measurement setup and irradiation intention. METHODS: Individually calibrated thermoluminescent dosimeters were used to measure absorbed dose in an anthropomorphic phantom at 184 locations. The dose distributions from 6 MV beams were compared in terms of treatment technique (3D-conformal, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, helical TomoTherapy, stereotactic radiotherapy, hard wedges, and flattening filter-free radiotherapy) and therapy machine (Elekta, Siemens and Varian linear accelerators, Accuray CyberKnife and TomoTherapy). RESULTS: Close to the target, the doses from intensity-modulated treatments (including flattening filter-free) were below the dose from a static treatment plan, whereas the CyberKnife showed a larger dose by a factor of two. Far away from the treatment field, the dose from intensity-modulated treatments showed an increase in dose from stray radiation of about 50% compared to the 3D-conformal treatment. For the flattening filter-free photon beams, the dose from stray radiation far away from the target was slightly lower than the dose from a static treatment. The CyberKnife irradiation and the treatment using hard wedges increased the dose from stray radiation by nearly a factor of three compared to the 3D-conformal treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the dose outside of the treated volume is influenced by several sources. Therefore, when comparing different treatment techniques, the dose ratios vary with distance to the isocenter. The effective dose outside the treated volume of intensity-modulated treatments with or without flattening filter was 10%-30% larger when compared to 3D-conformal radiotherapy. This dose increase is much lower than the monitor unit scaled effective dose from a static treatment.
Authors: Marta Kruszyna-Mochalska; Agnieszka Skrobala; Piotr Romanski; Adam Ryczkowski; Wiktoria Suchorska; Katarzyna Kulcenty; Igor Piotrowski; Dorota Borowicz; Kinga Graczyk; Natalia Matuszak; Julian Malicki Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2022-04-23