Shakardokht M Jafari1,2, Tom J Jordan3, Gail Distefano3, David A Bradley1,4, Nicholas M Spyrou1, Andrew Nisbet1,3, Catharine H Clark1,3,5. 1. 1 Department of Physics, University of Surrey, London, UK. 2. 2 Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kabul Medical University, Kabul, Afghanistan. 3. 3 Department of Medical Physics, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK. 4. 4 Department of Physics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 5. 5 Radiation Dosimetry Group, National Physical Laboratory, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of using glass beads as novel thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs) for radiotherapy treatment plan verification. METHODS: Commercially available glass beads with a size of 1-mm thickness and 2-mm diameter were characterized as TLDs. Five clinical treatment plans including a conventional larynx, a conformal prostate, an intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) prostate and two stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) lung plans were transferred onto a CT scan of a water-equivalent phantom (Solid Water(®), Gammex, Middleton, WI) and the dose distribution recalculated. The number of monitor units was maintained from the clinical plan and delivered accordingly. The doses determined by the glass beads were compared with those measured by a graphite-walled ionization chamber, and the respective expected doses were determined by the treatment-planning system (TPS) calculation. RESULTS: The mean percentage difference between measured dose with the glass beads and TPS was found to be 0.3%, -0.1%, 0.4%, 1.8% and 1.7% for the conventional larynx, conformal prostate, IMRT prostate and each of the SBRT delivery techniques, respectively. The percentage difference between measured dose with the ionization chamber and glass bead was found to be -1.2%, -1.4%, -0.1%, -0.9% and 2.4% for the above-mentioned plans, respectively. The results of measured doses with the glass beads and ionization chamber in comparison with expected doses from the TPS were analysed using a two-sided paired t-test, and there was no significant difference at p < 0.05. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to use glass-bead TLDs as dosemeters in a range of clinical plan verifications. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Commercial glass beads are utilized as low-cost novel TLDs for treatment-plan verification.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of using glass beads as novel thermoluminescent dosemeters (TLDs) for radiotherapy treatment plan verification. METHODS: Commercially available glass beads with a size of 1-mm thickness and 2-mm diameter were characterized as TLDs. Five clinical treatment plans including a conventional larynx, a conformal prostate, an intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) prostate and two stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) lung plans were transferred onto a CT scan of a water-equivalent phantom (Solid Water(®), Gammex, Middleton, WI) and the dose distribution recalculated. The number of monitor units was maintained from the clinical plan and delivered accordingly. The doses determined by the glass beads were compared with those measured by a graphite-walled ionization chamber, and the respective expected doses were determined by the treatment-planning system (TPS) calculation. RESULTS: The mean percentage difference between measured dose with the glass beads and TPS was found to be 0.3%, -0.1%, 0.4%, 1.8% and 1.7% for the conventional larynx, conformal prostate, IMRT prostate and each of the SBRT delivery techniques, respectively. The percentage difference between measured dose with the ionization chamber and glass bead was found to be -1.2%, -1.4%, -0.1%, -0.9% and 2.4% for the above-mentioned plans, respectively. The results of measured doses with the glass beads and ionization chamber in comparison with expected doses from the TPS were analysed using a two-sided paired t-test, and there was no significant difference at p < 0.05. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to use glass-bead TLDs as dosemeters in a range of clinical plan verifications. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Commercial glass beads are utilized as low-cost novel TLDs for treatment-plan verification.
Authors: R Alfonso; P Andreo; R Capote; M Saiful Huq; W Kilby; P Kjäll; T R Mackie; H Palmans; K Rosser; J Seuntjens; W Ullrich; S Vatnitsky Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: C Bassinet; C Huet; S Derreumaux; G Brunet; M Chéa; M Baumann; T Lacornerie; S Gaudaire-Josset; F Trompier; P Roch; G Boisserie; I Clairand Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: S M Jafari; A I Alalawi; M Hussein; W Alsaleh; M A Najem; R P Hugtenburg; D A Bradley; N M Spyrou; C H Clark; A Nisbet Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Mohammad Hussein; Elizabeth J Adams; Thomas J Jordan; Catharine H Clark; Andrew Nisbet Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2013-11-04 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Luciant D Wolfsberger; Matthew Wagar; Paige Nitsch; Mandar S Bhagwat; Piotr Zygmanski Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 2.102