PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to report that commercially available eye shields (designed for orthovoltage x-rays) are inadequate to protect the ocular structures from penetrating electrons for electron beam energies equal to or greater than 6 MeV. Therefore, a prototype medium size tungsten eye shield was designed and fabricated. The advantages of the tungsten eye shield over lead are discussed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Electron beams (6-9 MeV) are often used to irradiate eyelid tumors to curative doses. Eye shields can be placed under the eyelids to protect the globe. Film and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were used within a specially constructed polystyrene eye phantom to determine the effectiveness of various commercially available internal eye shields (designed for orthovoltage x-rays). The same procedures were used to evaluate a prototype medium size tungsten eye shield (2.8 mm thick), which was designed and fabricated for protection of the globe from penetrating electrons for electron beam energy equal to 9 MeV. A mini-TLD was used to measure the dose enhancement due to electrons backscattered off the tungsten eye shield, both with or without a dental acrylic coating that is required to reduce discomfort, permit sterilization of the shield, and reduce the dose contribution from backscattered electrons. RESULTS: Transmission of a 6 MeV electron beam through a 1.7 mm thick lead eye shield was found to be 50% on the surface (cornea) of the phantom and 27% at a depth of 6 mm (lens). The thickness of lead required to stop 6-9 MeV electron beams is impractical. In place of lead, a prototype medium size tungsten eye shield was made. For 6 to 9 MeV electrons, the doses measured on the surface (cornea) and at 6 mm (lens) and 21 mm (retina) depths were all less than 5% of the maximum dose of the open field (4 x 4 cm). Electrons backscattered off a tungsten eye shield without acrylic coating increased the lid dose from 85 to 123% at 6 MeV and 87 to 119% at 9 MeV. For the tungsten eye shield coated with 2-3 mm of dental acrylic, the lid dose was increased from 85 to 98.5% at 6 MeV and 86 to 106% at 9 MeV. CONCLUSION: Commercially available eye shields were evaluated and found to be clearly inadequate to protect the ocular structures for electron beam energies equal to or greater than 6 MeV. A tungsten eye shield has been found to provide adequate protection for electrons up to 9 MeV. The increase in lid dose due to electrons backscattered off the tungsten eye shield should be considered in the dose prescription. A minimum thickness of 2 mm dental acrylic on the beam entrance surface of the tungsten eye shield was found to reduce the backscattered electron effect to acceptable levels.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to report that commercially available eye shields (designed for orthovoltage x-rays) are inadequate to protect the ocular structures from penetrating electrons for electron beam energies equal to or greater than 6 MeV. Therefore, a prototype medium size tungsten eye shield was designed and fabricated. The advantages of the tungsten eye shield over lead are discussed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Electron beams (6-9 MeV) are often used to irradiate eyelid tumors to curative doses. Eye shields can be placed under the eyelids to protect the globe. Film and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were used within a specially constructed polystyrene eye phantom to determine the effectiveness of various commercially available internal eye shields (designed for orthovoltage x-rays). The same procedures were used to evaluate a prototype medium size tungsten eye shield (2.8 mm thick), which was designed and fabricated for protection of the globe from penetrating electrons for electron beam energy equal to 9 MeV. A mini-TLD was used to measure the dose enhancement due to electrons backscattered off the tungsten eye shield, both with or without a dental acrylic coating that is required to reduce discomfort, permit sterilization of the shield, and reduce the dose contribution from backscattered electrons. RESULTS: Transmission of a 6 MeV electron beam through a 1.7 mm thick lead eye shield was found to be 50% on the surface (cornea) of the phantom and 27% at a depth of 6 mm (lens). The thickness of lead required to stop 6-9 MeV electron beams is impractical. In place of lead, a prototype medium size tungsten eye shield was made. For 6 to 9 MeV electrons, the doses measured on the surface (cornea) and at 6 mm (lens) and 21 mm (retina) depths were all less than 5% of the maximum dose of the open field (4 x 4 cm). Electrons backscattered off a tungsten eye shield without acrylic coating increased the lid dose from 85 to 123% at 6 MeV and 87 to 119% at 9 MeV. For the tungsten eye shield coated with 2-3 mm of dental acrylic, the lid dose was increased from 85 to 98.5% at 6 MeV and 86 to 106% at 9 MeV. CONCLUSION: Commercially available eye shields were evaluated and found to be clearly inadequate to protect the ocular structures for electron beam energies equal to or greater than 6 MeV. A tungsten eye shield has been found to provide adequate protection for electrons up to 9 MeV. The increase in lid dose due to electrons backscattered off the tungsten eye shield should be considered in the dose prescription. A minimum thickness of 2 mm dental acrylic on the beam entrance surface of the tungsten eye shield was found to reduce the backscattered electron effect to acceptable levels.