Coralie Le Deroff1, Elodie A Pérès2, Xavier Ledoux1, Jérôme Toutain2, Anne-Marie Frelin-Labalme1,3. 1. Grand Accélérateur National d'Ions Lourds (GANIL), CEA/DRF, CNRS/IN2P3, Boulevard Henri Becquerel, 14076, Caen, France. 2. Normandie Univ, UNICAEN, CEA, CNRS, ISTCT/CERVOxy Group, Caen, France. 3. Advanced Resource Centre for Hadrontherapy in Europe (ARCHADE) Program, Caen, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: New preclinical image-guided irradiators and treatment planning systems represent a huge progress in radiobiology. Nevertheless, quality control of preclinical treatments is not as advanced as in clinical radiotherapy and in vivo dosimetry is less developed. In this study, we evaluate the use of a scintillating fiber dosimeter called DosiRat to verify the agreement between the doses planned with SmART-Plan and the measured doses during small animal irradiations. METHODS: In vivo dosimetry was first evaluated with DosiRat through dose measurements performed at the surface of a 3 × 9 × 3 cm3 phantom. Measured and planned doses were compared for different irradiation conditions (prescription point, anterior, and posterior beams, 5 mm and 10 mm irradiation fields). In a second phase, measured and planned doses were compared for rat brain irradiations performed with anterior beams, with DosiRat positioned at the beam entrance. Comparisons were performed for different tube currents (1.3 and 13 mA), collimations (5, 10 and 25 mm diameter), and planned doses (0.1, 0.5, 2, and 10 Gy). RESULTS: In the case of the phantom irradiations, planned and measured doses showed discrepancies smaller than the 5% accuracy of the TPS, except in cases in which the dosimeter was not centered in the irradiation field. The differences were larger for animal irradiations (from -3.3% to 8.8%) because of variations of the beam energy spectrum and the nonequivalence between materials at medium and low energy. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the complexity to implement one-dimension in vivo dosimetry in orthovoltage millimetric beams. Nevertheless, DosiRat is well adapted to in vivo dosimetry because of its small volume and its direct reading and allowed in vivo control of planned doses for anterior beams down to 5 mm diameter.
PURPOSE: New preclinical image-guided irradiators and treatment planning systems represent a huge progress in radiobiology. Nevertheless, quality control of preclinical treatments is not as advanced as in clinical radiotherapy and in vivo dosimetry is less developed. In this study, we evaluate the use of a scintillating fiber dosimeter called DosiRat to verify the agreement between the doses planned with SmART-Plan and the measured doses during small animal irradiations. METHODS: In vivo dosimetry was first evaluated with DosiRat through dose measurements performed at the surface of a 3 × 9 × 3 cm3 phantom. Measured and planned doses were compared for different irradiation conditions (prescription point, anterior, and posterior beams, 5 mm and 10 mm irradiation fields). In a second phase, measured and planned doses were compared for rat brain irradiations performed with anterior beams, with DosiRat positioned at the beam entrance. Comparisons were performed for different tube currents (1.3 and 13 mA), collimations (5, 10 and 25 mm diameter), and planned doses (0.1, 0.5, 2, and 10 Gy). RESULTS: In the case of the phantom irradiations, planned and measured doses showed discrepancies smaller than the 5% accuracy of the TPS, except in cases in which the dosimeter was not centered in the irradiation field. The differences were larger for animal irradiations (from -3.3% to 8.8%) because of variations of the beam energy spectrum and the nonequivalence between materials at medium and low energy. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the complexity to implement one-dimension in vivo dosimetry in orthovoltage millimetric beams. Nevertheless, DosiRat is well adapted to in vivo dosimetry because of its small volume and its direct reading and allowed in vivo control of planned doses for anterior beams down to 5 mm diameter.