| Literature DB >> 24600172 |
Om Prakash Gurjar1, S P Mishra2, Virendra Bhandari3, Pankaj Pathak3, Prapti Patel3, Garima Shrivastav3.
Abstract
In vitro dosimetric verification prior to patient treatment has a key role in accurate and precision radiotherapy treatment delivery. Most of commercially available dosimetric phantoms have almost homogeneous density throughout their volume, while real interior of patient body has variable and varying densities inside. In this study an attempt has been made to verify the physical dosimetry in actual human body scenario by using goat head as "head phantom" and goat meat as "tissue phantom". The mean percentage variation between planned and measured doses was found to be 2.48 (standard deviation (SD): 0.74), 2.36 (SD: 0.77), 3.62 (SD: 1.05), and 3.31 (SD: 0.78) for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) (head phantom), intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT; head phantom), 3DCRT (tissue phantom), and IMRT (tissue phantom), respectively. Although percentage variations in case of head phantom were within tolerance limit (< ± 3%), but still it is higher than the results obtained by using commercially available phantoms. And the percentage variations in most of cases of tissue phantom were out of tolerance limit. On the basis of these preliminary results it is logical and rational to develop radiation dosimetry methods based on real human body and also to develop an artificial phantom which should truly represent the interior of human body.Entities:
Keywords: Head phantom; millennium 80 multileaf collimator system; real tissue; tissue phantom
Year: 2014 PMID: 24600172 PMCID: PMC3931228 DOI: 10.4103/0971-6203.125504
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Phys ISSN: 0971-6203
Figure 1Photographs of the (a) head phantom and (b) tissue phantom
Figure 2Dose distribution in case of (a) head phantom and (b) tissue phantom
Number of electrons per gram of various materials
Mass density of some organs of human and goat
In 3DCRT plans % variation between planned dose on treatment planning system and measured dose on linear accelerator using head phantom
In IMRT plans % variation between planned dose on treatment planning system and measured dose on linear accelerator using tissue phantom
Figure 3Graphical comparison of % variations between planned doses (on treatment planning system) and measured doses (on linear accelerator) in four types of measurements viz. three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy plans using head phantom, intensity modulated radiotherapy plans using head phantom, 3DCRT plans using tissue phantom, and IMRT plans using tissue phantom
In IMRT plans % variation between planned dose on treatment planning system and measured dose on linear accelerator using head phantom
In 3DCRT plans % variation between planned dose on treatment planning system and measured dose on linear accelerator using tissue phantom