Dataset Information

Comparison of IPSM 1990 photon dosimetry code of practice with IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51.

ABSTRACT: Several codes of practice for photon dosimetry are currently used around the world, supported by different organizations. A comparison of IPSM 1990 with both IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51 has been performed. All three protocols are based on the calibration of ionization chambers in terms of standards of absorbed dose to water, as it is the case with other modern codes of practice. This comparison has been carried out for photon beams of nominal energies: 4 MV, 6 MV, 8 MV, 10 MV and 18 MV. An NE 2571 graphite ionization chamber was used in this study, cross-calibrated against an NE 2611A Secondary Standard, calibrated in the National Physical Laboratory (NPL). Absolute dose in reference conditions was obtained using each of these three protocols including: beam quality indices, beam quality conversion factors both theoretical and NPL experimental ones, correction factors for influence quantities and absolute dose measurements. Each protocol recommendations have been strictly followed. Uncertainties have been obtained according to the ISO Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Absorbed dose obtained according to all three protocols agree within experimental uncertainty. The largest difference between absolute dose results for two protocols is obtained for the highest energy: 0.7% between IPSM 1990 and IAEA TRS-398 using theoretical beam quality conversion factors.

SUBMITTER: Castrillon SV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5720500 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of IPSM 1990 photon dosimetry code of practice with IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51.

Castrillón Silvia Vargas SV Henríquez Francisco Cutanda FC

Journal of applied clinical medical physics 20090114 1

Several codes of practice for photon dosimetry are currently used around the world, supported by different organizations. A comparison of IPSM 1990 with both IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51 has been performed. All three protocols are based on the calibration of ionization chambers in terms of standards of absorbed dose to water, as it is the case with other modern codes of practice. This comparison has been carried out for photon beams of nominal energies: 4 MV, 6 MV, 8 MV, 10 MV and 18 MV. An NE 25 ...[more]

PMID: 19223831

Similar Datasets

Project description:UnlabelledThe International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has a long tradition of supporting development of methodologies for national networks providing quality audits in radiotherapy. A series of co-ordinated research projects (CRPs) has been conducted by the IAEA since 1995 assisting national external audit groups developing national audit programs. The CRP 'Development of Quality Audits for Radiotherapy Dosimetry for Complex Treatment Techniques' was conducted in 2009-2012 as an extension of previously developed audit programs.Material and methodsThe CRP work described in this paper focused on developing and testing two steps of dosimetry audit: verification of heterogeneity corrections, and treatment planning system (TPS) modeling of small MLC fields, which are important for the initial stages of complex radiation treatments, such as IMRT. The project involved development of a new solid slab phantom with heterogeneities containing special measurement inserts for thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and radiochromic films. The phantom and the audit methodology has been developed at the IAEA and tested in multi-center studies involving the CRP participants.ResultsThe results of multi-center testing of methodology for two steps of dosimetry audit show that the design of audit procedures is adequate and the methodology is feasible for meeting the audit objectives. A total of 97% TLD results in heterogeneity situations obtained in the study were within 3% and all results within 5% agreement with the TPS predicted doses. In contrast, only 64% small beam profiles were within 3?mm agreement between the TPS calculated and film measured doses. Film dosimetry results have highlighted some limitations in TPS modeling of small beam profiles in the direction of MLC leave movements.DiscussionThrough multi-center testing, any challenges or difficulties in the proposed audit methodology were identified, and the methodology improved. Using the experience of these studies, the participants could incorporate the auditing procedures in their national programs.

Project description:Although there are many works on evaluating dose calculations of the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) using various homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms, related work concerning dosimetry due to tangential photon beam is lacking. In this study, dosimetry predicted by the AAA and collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithm was evaluated using the tangential photon beam and phantom geometry. The photon beams of 6 and 15 MV with field sizes of 4 × 4 (or 7 × 7), 10 × 10 and 20 × 20 cm², produced by a Varian 21 EX linear accelerator, were used to test performances of the AAA and CCC using Monte Carlo (MC) simulation (EGSnrc-based code) as a benchmark. Horizontal dose profiles at different depths, phantom skin profiles (i.e., vertical dose profiles at a distance of 2 mm from the phantom lateral surface), gamma dose distributions, and dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of skin slab were determined. For dose profiles at different depths, the CCC agreed better with doses in the air-phantom region, while both the AAA and CCC agreed well with doses in the penumbra region, when compared to the MC. Gamma evaluations between the AAA/CCC and MC showed that deviations of 2D dose distribution occurred in both beam edges in the phantom and air-phantom interface. Moreover, the gamma dose deviation is less significant in the air-phantom interface than the penumbra. DVHs of skin slab showed that both the AAA and CCC underestimated the width of the dose drop-off region for both the 6 and 15 MV photon beams. When the gantry angle was 0°, it was found that both the AAA and CCC overestimated doses in the phantom skin profiles compared to the MC, with various photon beam energies and field sizes. The mean dose differences with doses normalized to the prescription point for the AAA and CCC were respectively: 7.6% ± 2.6% and 2.1% ± 1.3% for a 10 × 10 cm2 field, 6 MV; 16.3%± 2.1% and 6.7% ± 2.1% for a 20 × 20 cm2 field, 6 MV; 5.5% ± 1.2% and 1.7% ± 1.4% for a 10 × 10 cm2, 15 MV; 18.0% ± 1.3% and 8.3% ± 1.8% for a 20 × 20 cm², 15 MV. However, underestimations of doses in the phantom skin profile were found with small fields of 4 × 4 and 7 × 7 cm² for the 6 and 15 MV photon beams, respectively, when the gantry was turned 5° anticlockwise. As surface dose with tangential photon beam geometry is important in some radiation treatment sites such as breast, chest wall and sarcoma, it is found that neither of the treatment planning system algorithms can predict the dose well at depths shallower than 2 mm. The dosimetry data and beam and phantom geometry in this study provide a better knowledge of a dose calculation algorithm in tangential-like irradiation.

Project description:PurposeThere are limited clinical data on scanning-beam proton therapy (SPT) in treating locally advanced lung cancer, as most published studies have used passive-scatter technology. There is increasing interest in whether the dosimetric advantages of SPT compared with photon therapy can translate into superior clinical outcomes. We present our experience of SPT and photon intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with clinical dosimetry and outcomes in patients with stage III lung cancer.Methods and materialsPatients with stage III lung cancer treated at our center between 2013 and May 2018 were identified in compliance with our institutional review board (64 patients = 34 SPT + 30 IMRT). Most proton patients were treated with pencil beam scanning (28 of 34), and 6 of 34 were treated with uniform scanning. Fisher exact test, χ2 test, and Mann-Whitney test were used to compare groups. All tests were 2-sided.ResultsPatient characteristics were similar between the IMRT and SPT patients, except for worse lung function in the IMRT group. Mean dose to lung, heart, and esophagus was lower in the SPT group, with most benefit in the low-dose region (lungs, 9.7 Gy vs 15.7 Gy for SPT vs IMRT, respectively [P = .004]; heart, 7 Gy vs 14 Gy [P = .001]; esophagus, 28.2 Gy vs 30.9 Gy [P = .023]). Esophagitis and dermatitis grades were not different between the 2 groups. Grade 2+ pneumonitis was 21% in the SPT group and 40% in the IMRT group (P = .107). Changes in blood counts were not different between the 2 groups. Overall survival and progression-free survival were not different between SPT and IMRT (median overall survival, 41.6 vs 30.7 months, respectively [P = .52]; median progression-free survival, 19.5 vs 14.6 months [P = .50]).ConclusionsWe report our experience with SPT and IMRT in stage III lung cancer. Our cohort of patients treated with SPT had lower doses to normal organs (lungs, heart, esophagus) than our IMRT cohort. There was no statistically significant difference in toxicity rates or survival, although there may have been a trend toward lower rates of pneumonitis.

Project description:This report addresses uncertainties pertaining to brachytherapy single-source dosimetry preceding clinical use. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Technical Note 1297 are taken as reference standards for uncertainty formalism. Uncertainties in using detectors to measure or utilizing Monte Carlo methods to estimate brachytherapy dose distributions are provided with discussion of the components intrinsic to the overall dosimetric assessment. Uncertainties provided are based on published observations and cited when available. The uncertainty propagation from the primary calibration standard through transfer to the clinic for air-kerma strength is covered first. Uncertainties in each of the brachytherapy dosimetry parameters of the TG-43 formalism are then explored, ending with transfer to the clinic and recommended approaches. Dosimetric uncertainties during treatment delivery are considered briefly but are not included in the detailed analysis. For low- and high-energy brachytherapy sources of low dose rate and high dose rate, a combined dosimetric uncertainty <5% (k=1) is estimated, which is consistent with prior literature estimates. Recommendations are provided for clinical medical physicists, dosimetry investigators, and source and treatment planning system manufacturers. These recommendations include the use of the GUM and NIST reports, a requirement of constancy of manufacturer source design, dosimetry investigator guidelines, provision of the lowest uncertainty for patient treatment dosimetry, and the establishment of an action level based on dosimetric uncertainty. These recommendations reflect the guidance of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) for their members and may also be used as guidance to manufacturers and regulatory agencies in developing good manufacturing practices for sources used in routine clinical treatments.

Dataset Information

Comparison of IPSM 1990 photon dosimetry code of practice with IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51.

Publications

Comparison of IPSM 1990 photon dosimetry code of practice with IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets