I J Das1, C W Cheng, G A Healey. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A method is provided for the optimum field size and the choice of isodose line for the dose prescription in electron beam therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Electron beam dose uniformity was defined in terms of target coverage factor (TCF) which is an index of dose coverage of a given treatment volume. The TCF was studied with respect to the field size, the beam energy, and the isodose level for prescription from the measured data for various accelerators. The effect of the TCF on air gap between electron applicator/cone and the surface was investigated. Electron beams from scattering foil and scanned beam units were analyzed for the target coverage. RESULTS: A mathematical method is provided to optimize a field size for target coverage by a given isodose line in terms of TCF which is strongly dependent on the type of accelerator and the design of the collimator. For a given type of collimating system, the TCF does not depend on the type of electron beam production (scattering foil or swept scanned beam). Selection of isodose line for dose prescription is very critical for the value of the TCF and the dose coverage. The TCF is inversely proportional to the isodose value selected for the treatment and nearly linear with field size and beam energy. Air gap between applicator and the surface reduces the dose uniformity. Tertiary collimator moderately improves the lateral coverage for high energy beams. CONCLUSIONS: To adequately cover the target volume in electron beam treatment, lateral and depth coverage should be considered. The coverage at depth is strongly dependent on the choice of isodose line or beam normalization. If the dose prescription is at dmax (i.e., the 100% isodose line is selected), the choice of beam energy is not critical for depth coverage since dmax is nearly independent of energy for smaller fields. The 100% isodose line should not be chosen for treatment because of the significant constriction of this isodose line and inadequate coverage at depth. For a higher TCF, a minimum air gap between the cone to the surface of the patient is desired. If such is not possible, then a tertiary collimator at the skin is required. Whenever, a tertiary collimator is used, it is advised to increase the collimator field size by a factor of 1.4.
PURPOSE: A method is provided for the optimum field size and the choice of isodose line for the dose prescription in electron beam therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Electron beam dose uniformity was defined in terms of target coverage factor (TCF) which is an index of dose coverage of a given treatment volume. The TCF was studied with respect to the field size, the beam energy, and the isodose level for prescription from the measured data for various accelerators. The effect of the TCF on air gap between electron applicator/cone and the surface was investigated. Electron beams from scattering foil and scanned beam units were analyzed for the target coverage. RESULTS: A mathematical method is provided to optimize a field size for target coverage by a given isodose line in terms of TCF which is strongly dependent on the type of accelerator and the design of the collimator. For a given type of collimating system, the TCF does not depend on the type of electron beam production (scattering foil or swept scanned beam). Selection of isodose line for dose prescription is very critical for the value of the TCF and the dose coverage. The TCF is inversely proportional to the isodose value selected for the treatment and nearly linear with field size and beam energy. Air gap between applicator and the surface reduces the dose uniformity. Tertiary collimator moderately improves the lateral coverage for high energy beams. CONCLUSIONS: To adequately cover the target volume in electron beam treatment, lateral and depth coverage should be considered. The coverage at depth is strongly dependent on the choice of isodose line or beam normalization. If the dose prescription is at dmax (i.e., the 100% isodose line is selected), the choice of beam energy is not critical for depth coverage since dmax is nearly independent of energy for smaller fields. The 100% isodose line should not be chosen for treatment because of the significant constriction of this isodose line and inadequate coverage at depth. For a higher TCF, a minimum air gap between the cone to the surface of the patient is desired. If such is not possible, then a tertiary collimator at the skin is required. Whenever, a tertiary collimator is used, it is advised to increase the collimator field size by a factor of 1.4.
Authors: Alexander Venjakob; Michael Oertel; Dominik Alexander Hering; Christos Moustakis; Uwe Haverkamp; Hans Theodor Eich Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-10-17 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Song Gao; Manickam Muruganandham; Weiliang Du; Jared Ohrt; Rajat J Kudchadker; Peter A Balter Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 2.243