Liana Mulet1, Izabella Barreto1, Gil'ad N Cohen2, Antonio L Damato2, Thomas Mauceri3, Jennifer Pursley3, Christopher L Deufel4. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 2. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 5590. Electronic address: deufel.christopher@mayo.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This is a multi-institutional report on inter-observer and inter-instrument variation in the calibration of the absorbed dose rate for a planar 32P beta emitting brachytherapy source. Measurement accuracy is essential since the dose profile is steep and the source is used for the treatment of tumors that are located in close proximity to healthy nervous system structures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An RIC-100 32P source was calibrated by three institutions using their own equipment and following their standard procedures. The first institution calibrated the source with an electron diode and EBT3 film. The second institution used an electron diode. The third institution used HD810 film. Additionally, each institution was asked to calibrate the source using an electron diode and procedure that was shared among all institutions and shipped along with the radiation source. The dose rate was reported in units of cGy*min-1 at a water equivalent depth of 1 mm. RESULTS: Close agreement was observed in the measurements from different users and equipment. The variation across all diode detectors and institutions had a standard deviation of 1.8% and maximum difference of 4.6%. The observed variation among two different diode systems used within the same institution had a mean difference of 1.6% and a maximum variation of 1.8%. The variations among film and diode systems used within the same institution had a mean difference of 2.9% and a maximum variation of 4.3% CONCLUSIONS: The absorbed dose rate measurement protocol of the planar beta-emitting 32P source permits consistent dosimetry across three institutions and five different electron diode and radiochromic film systems. The methodologies presented herein should enable measurement consistency among other clinical users, which will help ensure high quality patient treatments and outcomes analysis.
PURPOSE: This is a multi-institutional report on inter-observer and inter-instrument variation in the calibration of the absorbed dose rate for a planar 32P beta emitting brachytherapy source. Measurement accuracy is essential since the dose profile is steep and the source is used for the treatment of tumors that are located in close proximity to healthy nervous system structures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An RIC-100 32P source was calibrated by three institutions using their own equipment and following their standard procedures. The first institution calibrated the source with an electron diode and EBT3 film. The second institution used an electron diode. The third institution used HD810 film. Additionally, each institution was asked to calibrate the source using an electron diode and procedure that was shared among all institutions and shipped along with the radiation source. The dose rate was reported in units of cGy*min-1 at a water equivalent depth of 1 mm. RESULTS: Close agreement was observed in the measurements from different users and equipment. The variation across all diode detectors and institutions had a standard deviation of 1.8% and maximum difference of 4.6%. The observed variation among two different diode systems used within the same institution had a mean difference of 1.6% and a maximum variation of 1.8%. The variations among film and diode systems used within the same institution had a mean difference of 2.9% and a maximum variation of 4.3% CONCLUSIONS: The absorbed dose rate measurement protocol of the planar beta-emitting 32P source permits consistent dosimetry across three institutions and five different electron diode and radiochromic film systems. The methodologies presented herein should enable measurement consistency among other clinical users, which will help ensure high quality patient treatments and outcomes analysis.
Authors: F M Khan; K P Doppke; K R Hogstrom; G J Kutcher; R Nath; S C Prasad; J A Purdy; M Rozenfeld; B L Werner Journal: Med Phys Date: 1991 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Brian P Marr; David H Abramson; Gil'ad N Cohen; Matthew J Williamson; Beryl McCormick; Christopher A Barker Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Michael R Folkert; Mark H Bilsky; Gil'ad N Cohen; Laszlo Voros; Jung Hun Oh; Marco Zaider; Ilya Laufer; Yoshiya Yamada Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Michael R Folkert; Mark H Bilsky; Gil'ad N Cohen; Marco Zaider; Lawrence T Dauer; Brett W Cox; Patrick J Boland; Ilya Laufer; Yoshiya Yamada Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Petri Sipilä; Jarkko Ojala; Sampsa Kaijaluoto; Ilkka Jokelainen; Antti Kosunen Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 2.102