BACKGROUND: Due to the complex surface of the human body, total or partial skin irradiation using large electron fields is challenging. The aim of the present study was to quantify the magnitude of dose optimization required after the application of standard fields. METHODS: Total skin electron irradiation (TSEI) was applied using the Stanford technique with six dual-fields. Patients presenting with localized lesions were treated with partial skin electron irradiation (PSEI) using large electron fields, which were individually adapted. In order to verify and validate the dose distribution, in vivo dosimetry with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) was performed during the first treatment fraction to detect potential dose heterogeneity and to allow for an individual dose optimization with adjustment of the monitor units (MU). RESULTS: Between 1984 and 2017, a total of 58 patients were treated: 31 patients received TSEI using 12 treatment fields, while 27 patients underwent PSEI and were treated with 4-8 treatment fields. After evaluation of the dosimetric results, an individual dose optimization was necessary in 21 patients. Of these, 7 patients received TSEI (7/31). Monitor units (MU) needed to be corrected by a mean value of 117 MU (±105, range 18-290) uniformly for all 12 treatment fields, corresponding to a mean relative change of 12% of the prescribed MU. In comparison, the other 14 patients received PSEI (14/27) and the mean adjustment of monitor units was 282 MU (±144, range 59-500) to single or multiple fields, corresponding to a mean relative change of 22% of the prescribed MU. A second dose optimization to obtain a satisfying dose at the prescription point was need in 5 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Thermoluminescent dosimetry allows an individual dose optimization in TSEI and PSEI to enable a reliable adjustment of the MUs to obtain the prescription dose. Especially in PSEI in vivo dosimetry is of fundamental importance.
BACKGROUND: Due to the complex surface of the human body, total or partial skin irradiation using large electron fields is challenging. The aim of the present study was to quantify the magnitude of dose optimization required after the application of standard fields. METHODS: Total skin electron irradiation (TSEI) was applied using the Stanford technique with six dual-fields. Patients presenting with localized lesions were treated with partial skin electron irradiation (PSEI) using large electron fields, which were individually adapted. In order to verify and validate the dose distribution, in vivo dosimetry with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) was performed during the first treatment fraction to detect potential dose heterogeneity and to allow for an individual dose optimization with adjustment of the monitor units (MU). RESULTS: Between 1984 and 2017, a total of 58 patients were treated: 31 patients received TSEI using 12 treatment fields, while 27 patients underwent PSEI and were treated with 4-8 treatment fields. After evaluation of the dosimetric results, an individual dose optimization was necessary in 21 patients. Of these, 7 patients received TSEI (7/31). Monitor units (MU) needed to be corrected by a mean value of 117 MU (±105, range 18-290) uniformly for all 12 treatment fields, corresponding to a mean relative change of 12% of the prescribed MU. In comparison, the other 14 patients received PSEI (14/27) and the mean adjustment of monitor units was 282 MU (±144, range 59-500) to single or multiple fields, corresponding to a mean relative change of 22% of the prescribed MU. A second dose optimization to obtain a satisfying dose at the prescription point was need in 5 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Thermoluminescent dosimetry allows an individual dose optimization in TSEI and PSEI to enable a reliable adjustment of the MUs to obtain the prescription dose. Especially in PSEI in vivo dosimetry is of fundamental importance.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cutaneous T‑cell lymphoma; Mycosis fungoides; Partial skin electron irradiation; Skin metastases; Thermoluminescent dosimetry; Total skin electron irradiation
Authors: Maria R Kamstrup; Robert Gniadecki; Lars Iversen; Lone Skov; Peter Meidahl Petersen; Annika Loft; Lena Specht Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Glenn W Jones; Barry M Kacinski; Lynn D Wilson; Rein Willemze; Margaret Spittle; Gerda Hohenberg; Leonore Handl-Zeller; Franz Trautinger; Robert Knobler Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Qinan Bao; Brian A Hrycushko; Joseph P Dugas; Frederick H Hager; Timothy D Solberg Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Ch Flores-Balcázar; D M Urías-Arce; Y Charli-Joseph; M A De León-Alfaro; S I Pérez-Álvarez; R Ramos-Prudencio Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2020-04-27