Juan López-Tarjuelo1, Ana Bouché-Babiloni2, Virginia Morillo-Macías2, Agustín Santos-Serra1, Carlos Ferrer-Albiach2. 1. Servicio de Radiofísica y Protección Radiológica, Consorcio Hospitalario Provincial de Castellón, Avda. Dr. Clará, 19, Castellón de la Plana 12002, Spain. 2. Servicio de Oncología Radioterápica, Consorcio Hospitalario Provincial de Castellón, Avda. Dr. Clará, 19, Castellón de la Plana 12002, Spain.
Abstract
AIM: To estimate angular response deviation of MOSFETs in the realm of intraoperative electron radiotherapy (IOERT), review their energy dependence, and propose unambiguous names for detector rotations. BACKGROUND: MOSFETs have been used in IOERT. Movement of the detector, namely rotations, can spoil results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We propose yaw, pitch, and roll to name the three possible rotations in space, as these unequivocally name aircraft rotations. Reinforced mobile MOSFETs (model TN-502RDM-H) and an Elekta Precise linear accelerator were used. Two detectors were placed in air for the angular response study and the whole set of five detectors was calibrated as usual to evaluate energy dependence. RESULTS: The maximum readout was obtained with a roll of 90° and 4 MeV. With regard to pitch movement, a substantial drop in readout was achieved at 90°. Significant overresponse was measured at 315° with 4 MeV and at 45° with 15 MeV. Energy response is not different for the following groups of energies: 4, 6, and 9 MeV; and 12 MeV, 15 MeV, and 18 MeV. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposal to name MOSFET rotations solves the problem of defining sensor orientations. Angular response could explain lower than expected results when the tip of the detector is lifted due to inadvertent movements. MOSFETs energy response is independent of several energies and differs by a maximum of 3.4% when dependent. This can limit dosimetry errors and makes it possible to calibrate the detectors only once for each group of energies, which saves time and optimizes lifespan of MOSFETs.
AIM: To estimate angular response deviation of MOSFETs in the realm of intraoperative electron radiotherapy (IOERT), review their energy dependence, and propose unambiguous names for detector rotations. BACKGROUND: MOSFETs have been used in IOERT. Movement of the detector, namely rotations, can spoil results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We propose yaw, pitch, and roll to name the three possible rotations in space, as these unequivocally name aircraft rotations. Reinforced mobile MOSFETs (model TN-502RDM-H) and an Elekta Precise linear accelerator were used. Two detectors were placed in air for the angular response study and the whole set of five detectors was calibrated as usual to evaluate energy dependence. RESULTS: The maximum readout was obtained with a roll of 90° and 4 MeV. With regard to pitch movement, a substantial drop in readout was achieved at 90°. Significant overresponse was measured at 315° with 4 MeV and at 45° with 15 MeV. Energy response is not different for the following groups of energies: 4, 6, and 9 MeV; and 12 MeV, 15 MeV, and 18 MeV. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposal to name MOSFET rotations solves the problem of defining sensor orientations. Angular response could explain lower than expected results when the tip of the detector is lifted due to inadvertent movements. MOSFETs energy response is independent of several energies and differs by a maximum of 3.4% when dependent. This can limit dosimetry errors and makes it possible to calibrate the detectors only once for each group of energies, which saves time and optimizes lifespan of MOSFETs.
Entities:
Keywords:
ANOVA, analysis of variance; Angular response; CF, calibration factor; Energy dependence; GH, Games–Howell test; IOERT; IOERT, intraoperative electron radiotherapy; MOSFET; MOSFET, metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor; Rotations; T, Tukey's test
Authors: Felipe A Calvo; Laura Alonso Murillo; Morena Sallabanda; Javier Martinez-Villanueva; Rafael Herranz; Claudio V Sole Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2013-09-28
Authors: Felipe A Calvo; Morena Sallabanda; Claudio V Sole; Carmen Gonzalez; Laura Alonso Murillo; Javier Martinez-Villanueva; Juan A Santos; Javier Serrano; Ana Alavrez; Jose Blanco; Ana Calin; Marina Gomez-Espi; Miguel Lozano; Rafael Herranz Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2013-08-13
Authors: Juan López-Tarjuelo; Virginia Morillo-Macías; Ana Bouché-Babiloni; Carlos Ferrer-Albiach; Agustín Santos-Serra Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-05-29
Authors: Esther J Bloemen-van Gurp; Andre W H Minken; Ben J Mijnheer; Cary J G Dehing-Oberye; Philippe Lambin Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2006-08-17 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: J R Palta; P J Biggs; J D Hazle; M S Huq; R A Dahl; T G Ochran; J Soen; R R Dobelbower; E C McCullough Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1995-10-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Juan López-Tarjuelo; Virginia Morillo-Macías; Ana Bouché-Babiloni; Enrique Boldó-Roda; Rafael Lozoya-Albacar; Carlos Ferrer-Albiach Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 3.481