P C Lee1, J M Sawicka, G P Glasgow. 1. Loyola University, Loyola-Hines Department of Radiotherapy, Maywood, IL 60513.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate a commercial silicone diode dosimeter for a patient dosimetry quality assurance program. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The diode dosimeter was calibrated against an ion chamber and percentage depth dose, linearity, anisotropy, virtual source position, and field size factor studies were performed. Correction factors for lack of full scatter medium in the diode entrance and exit dose measurements were acquired. Dosimetry equations were proposed for calculation of dose delivered at isocenter. Diode dose accuracy and reproducibility were tested on phantom and on four patients. A patient dosimetry quality assurance program based on diode measured dose was instituted and patient dose data were collected. RESULTS: Diode measured percentage depth dose and field factors agreed to within 3% with those measured with an ion chamber. The diode exhibited less than 1.7% angular dose anisotropy and less than 0.5% nonlinearity up to 4 Gy. Diode dose measurements in phantom showed that the calculated doses differed from the prescribed dose by less than 1.5%; the diode exhibited a daily dose reproducibility of better than 0.2%. On four selected patients, the measured dose reproducibility was 1.5%; the average calculated doses were all within +/- 7% of the prescribed doses. For 33 of 40 patients treated with a 6 MV beam, measured doses were within +/- 7% of the prescribed doses. For 58 of 63 patients treated with an 18 MV beam, measured doses were within +/- 7% of the prescribed doses. For 11 out of 12 patients, a second repeat measurements yielded doses within +/- 7% of the prescribed doses. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed diode-based patient dosimetry quality assurance program with dose tolerance at +/- 7% is simple and feasible. It is capable of detecting certain serious treatment errors such as incorrect daily dose greater than 7%, incorrect wedge use, incorrect photon energy and patient setup errors involving some incorrect source-to-surface-distance vs. source-to-axis-distance treatments.
PURPOSE: To evaluate a commercial silicone diode dosimeter for a patient dosimetry quality assurance program. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The diode dosimeter was calibrated against an ion chamber and percentage depth dose, linearity, anisotropy, virtual source position, and field size factor studies were performed. Correction factors for lack of full scatter medium in the diode entrance and exit dose measurements were acquired. Dosimetry equations were proposed for calculation of dose delivered at isocenter. Diode dose accuracy and reproducibility were tested on phantom and on four patients. A patient dosimetry quality assurance program based on diode measured dose was instituted and patient dose data were collected. RESULTS: Diode measured percentage depth dose and field factors agreed to within 3% with those measured with an ion chamber. The diode exhibited less than 1.7% angular dose anisotropy and less than 0.5% nonlinearity up to 4 Gy. Diode dose measurements in phantom showed that the calculated doses differed from the prescribed dose by less than 1.5%; the diode exhibited a daily dose reproducibility of better than 0.2%. On four selected patients, the measured dose reproducibility was 1.5%; the average calculated doses were all within +/- 7% of the prescribed doses. For 33 of 40 patients treated with a 6 MV beam, measured doses were within +/- 7% of the prescribed doses. For 58 of 63 patients treated with an 18 MV beam, measured doses were within +/- 7% of the prescribed doses. For 11 out of 12 patients, a second repeat measurements yielded doses within +/- 7% of the prescribed doses. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed diode-based patient dosimetry quality assurance program with dose tolerance at +/- 7% is simple and feasible. It is capable of detecting certain serious treatment errors such as incorrect daily dose greater than 7%, incorrect wedge use, incorrect photon energy and patient setup errors involving some incorrect source-to-surface-distance vs. source-to-axis-distance treatments.