O B Evwierhurhoma1, Z A Ibitoye2, C A Ojieh2, Jtk Duncan1. 1. Department of Radiotherapy, Eko Hospitals, Ekocorp Plc, Ikeja, Nigeria. 2. Department of Radiation Biology, Radiotherapy and Radiodiagnosis, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of in vivo dosimetry with thermolumiscent dosimeters (TLDs) as a veritable means of quality control in conventional radiotherapy procedures was determined in this work. AIM: The objective of this study was to determine the role of in vivo dosimetry with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) as part of quality control and audit in conventional radiotherapy procedures delivered with Co-60 teletherapy machine. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with cancers of the breast, pelvis, head and neck were admitted for this study. TLD system at the Radiation Monitoring and Protection Centre, Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos-Nigeria was used for the in vivo entrance dose readings. All patients were treated with Co-60 (T780c) teletherapy machine at 80 cm source to surface distance located at Eko Hospitals, Lagos. Two TLDs were placed on the patient surface within 1 cm from the center of the field of treatment. Build-up material made of paraffin wax with a density of 0.939 g/cm(3) and a thickness 0.5 cm was placed on top of the TLDs. A RADOS RE 200 TLD reader was used to read out the TLDs over 12 s and at a temperature of 300°C. RESULTS: The results showed that there was no significant difference between the expected dose and measured dose of breast (P = 0.11), H and N (P = 0.52), and pelvis (P = 0.31) patients. Furthermore, percentage difference between expected dose and measured dose of the three treatment sites were not significantly different (P = 0.11). More so, 88.9% (16/18) treated breast, 91.3% (21/23) pelvis, and 86.7% (13/15) H and N patients had percentage deviation difference less than 5%. In general, 89.3% (50/56) patients admitted for this study had their percentage deviation difference below 5% recommended standard limit. CONCLUSION: The values obtained establish that there are no major differences from similar studies reported in literature. This study was also part of quality control and audit of the radiotherapy procedures in the center as expected by national and international regulatory bodies.
BACKGROUND: The use of in vivo dosimetry with thermolumiscent dosimeters (TLDs) as a veritable means of quality control in conventional radiotherapy procedures was determined in this work. AIM: The objective of this study was to determine the role of in vivo dosimetry with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) as part of quality control and audit in conventional radiotherapy procedures delivered with Co-60 teletherapy machine. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with cancers of the breast, pelvis, head and neck were admitted for this study. TLD system at the Radiation Monitoring and Protection Centre, Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos-Nigeria was used for the in vivo entrance dose readings. All patients were treated with Co-60 (T780c) teletherapy machine at 80 cm source to surface distance located at Eko Hospitals, Lagos. Two TLDs were placed on the patient surface within 1 cm from the center of the field of treatment. Build-up material made of paraffin wax with a density of 0.939 g/cm(3) and a thickness 0.5 cm was placed on top of the TLDs. A RADOS RE 200 TLD reader was used to read out the TLDs over 12 s and at a temperature of 300°C. RESULTS: The results showed that there was no significant difference between the expected dose and measured dose of breast (P = 0.11), H and N (P = 0.52), and pelvis (P = 0.31) patients. Furthermore, percentage difference between expected dose and measured dose of the three treatment sites were not significantly different (P = 0.11). More so, 88.9% (16/18) treated breast, 91.3% (21/23) pelvis, and 86.7% (13/15) H and N patients had percentage deviation difference less than 5%. In general, 89.3% (50/56) patients admitted for this study had their percentage deviation difference below 5% recommended standard limit. CONCLUSION: The values obtained establish that there are no major differences from similar studies reported in literature. This study was also part of quality control and audit of the radiotherapy procedures in the center as expected by national and international regulatory bodies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Co-60 machine in vivo dosimetry; Conventional radiotherapy; Entrance dose; Thermoluminescent dosimeters
Authors: Alessandro M Costa; Gustavo L Barbi; Edenyse C Bertucci; Heberton Ferreira; Simone Z Sansavino; Beatriz Colenci; Linda V E Caldas Journal: Appl Radiat Isot Date: 2009-09-19 Impact factor: 1.513
Authors: C Fiorino; D Corletto; P Mangili; S Broggi; A Bonini; G M Cattaneo; R Parisi; A Rosso; P Signorotto; E Villa; R Calandrino Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: G J Meijer; A W Minken; K M van Ingen; B Smulders; H Uiterwaal; B J Mijnheer Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038