Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T02:12:42.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dosimetric characterisation of anthropomorphic PRESAGE® dosimeter and EBT2 film for partial breast radiotherapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2017

Khalid Iqbal ,
Geoffrey S. Ibbott ,
Ryan Grant Lafratta ,
Kent A. Gifford  and
Saeed A. Buzdar
Khalid Iqbal*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Physics, Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas MD, Houston, TX, USA Department of Physics, The Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan Department of Radiation Oncology, Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital & Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan
Geoffrey S. Ibbott
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Physics, Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas MD, Houston, TX, USA
Ryan Grant Lafratta
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Physics, Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas MD, Houston, TX, USA
Kent A. Gifford
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Physics, Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas MD, Houston, TX, USA
Saeed A. Buzdar
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, The Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
*
Correspondence to: Khalid Iqbal, Department of Radiation Physics, Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas MD, Houston, TX, USA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital & Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan. Tel: +92 423 590 5000. Fax: +92 423 594 5206. E-mail: Khalid_phy@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose

Whole-breast external beam radiotherapy results in significant reduction in the risk for breast cancer-related death, but this may be offset by an increase in deaths from other causes and toxicity to surrounding organs. Partial breast irradiation techniques are approaches that treat only the lumpectomy area rather than the whole breast. Quality assurance in the radiation therapy treatment planning process is essential to ensure accurate dose delivery to the patient. For this purpose, this article compares the results from an anthropomorphic PRESAGE® dosimeter, radiation treatment planning system and from the GAFCHROMIC® EBT2 film.

Materials and methods

A breast dosimeter was created and a three-field partial plan was generated in the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system. Dose distribution comparisons were made between Pinnacle3 treatment planning system, GAFCHROMIC® EBT2 film and PRESAGE® dosimeter. Dose–volume histograms (DVHs), gamma maps and line profiles were used to evaluate the comparison.

Results

DVHs of gross tumour volume, clinical tumour volume and planning tumour volume for the PRESAGE® dosimeter and Pinnacle3 treatment planning system shows that both measured and calculated statistics were in agreement, with a value of 97.8% of the prescribed dose. Gamma map comparisons showed that all three distributions passed 95% at the ±3%/±3 mm criteria. Comparisons of isodose line distribution between the PRESAGE® dosimeter, EBT2 film and planning system demonstrated agreement, with an average difference of 1.5%.

Conclusions

This work demonstrated the feasibility of PRESAGE® to function as an anthropomorphic phantom and laid the foundation for research studies in PRESAGE®/optical-computed tomography three-dimensional dosimetry with the most complex anthropomorphic phantoms.

Keywords

breast PRESAGE®dosimetryGAFCHROMIC® filmpartial breasttreatment planning
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 96 - 103
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Njeh, C F, Saunders, M W, Langton, C M. Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI): a review of available techniques. Radiat Oncol 2010; 5 (1): 90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Oldham, M H, Sakhalkar, H, Guo, P, Adamovics, J. An investigation of the accuracy of an IMRT dose distribution using two- and three-dimensional dosimetry techniques. Med Phys 2008; 35: 2072–2080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Guo, P Y, Adamovics, J, Oldham, M. Characterization of a new radiochromic three-dimensional dosimeter. Med Phys 2006; 33: 1338–1345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Samuel, L B, William, E B, Corey, G C, Sua, Y, Oldham, M. Investigation into the feasibility of using PRESAGETM/optical-CT dosimetry for the verification of gating treatments. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55: 2187–2201.Google Scholar
5. Baldock, C, Deene, Y, Doran, D S et al. Polymer gel dosimetry. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55: R1–R63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Doran, S J. The history and principles of chemical dosimetry for 3-D radiation fields: gels, polymers and plastics. Appl Radiat Isot 2009; 67: 393–398.Google Scholar
7. Brown, S, Venning, A, De Deene, Y et al. Radiological properties of the PRESAGE and PAGAT polymer dosimeters. Appl Radiat Isot 2008; 66 (12): 1970–1974.Google Scholar
8. Healy, B J, Gibbs, A, Murry, R L, Prunster, J E, Nitschke, K N. Output factor measurements for a kilo voltage x-ray therapy unit. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2005; 28: 115–121.Google Scholar
9. Hill, R, Holloway, L, Baldock, C. A dosimetric evaluation of water equivalent phantoms for kilo voltage x-ray beams. Phys Med Biol 2005; 50: 331–344.Google Scholar
10. Hill, R, Kuncic, Z, Baldock, C. The water equivalence of solid phantoms for low energy photon beams. Med Phys 2010; 37: 4355–4363.Google Scholar
11. Hill, R F, Brown, S, Baldock, C. Evaluation of the water equivalence of solid phantoms using gamma ray transmission measurements. Radiat Meas 2008; 43: 1258–1264.Google Scholar
12. Brown, S, Bailey, D L, Willowson, K, Baldock, C. Investigation of the relationship between linear attenuation coefficients and CT Hounsfield units using radionuclides for SPECT. Appl Radiat Isot 2008; 66: 1206–1212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Seco, J, Evans, P M. Assessing the effect of electron density in photon dose calculations. Med Phys 2006; 33: 540–552.Google Scholar
14. Sellakumar, P, Samuel, E J, Supe, S S. Water equivalence of polymer gel dosimeters. Radiat Phys Chem 2007; 76: 1108–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Iqbal, K, Gifford, K A, Ibbott, G, Grant, L R, Buzdar, S A. Comparison of an anthropomorphic PRESAGE® dosimeter and radiochromic film with a commercial radiation treatment planning system for breast IMRT: a feasibility study. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2014; 15: 363–374.Google Scholar
16. Newton, J, Thomas, A, Ibbott, G, Oldham, M. Preliminary commissioning investigations with the DMOS-RPC optical-CT Scanner. J Phys Conf Ser 2010; 250 (1): 012078.Google Scholar
17. Devic, S. Radiochromic film dosimetry: past, present, and future. Phys Med 2011; 27: 122–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Devic, S, Seuntjens, J, Sham, E et al. Precise radiochromic film dosimetry using a flat-bed document scanner. Med Phys 2005; 32 (7): 2245–2253.Google Scholar
19. Aland, TMLML, Kairn, T, Kenny, J. Evaluation of a Gafchromic EBT2 film dosimetry system for radiotherapy quality assurance. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2011; 34 (2): 251–260.Google Scholar
20. MacDougall, N D, Miquel, M E, Keevil, S F. Effects of phantom volume and shape on the accuracy of MRI BANG gel dosimetry using BANG3. Br J Radiol 2008; 81: 46–50.Google Scholar
21. Iqbal, K, Gillin, M, Summers, P A, Dhanesar, S, Gifford, K A, Buzdar, SA. Quality assurance evaluation of spot scanning beam proton therapy with an anthropomorphic prostate phantom. Br J Radiol 2013; 86 (1031): 20130390.Google Scholar
22. Oldham, M, Sakhalkar, H, Guo, P, Adamovics, J. An investigation of the accuracy of an IMRT dose distribution using two-and three-dimensional dosimetry techniques. Med Phys 2008; 35 (5): 2072–2080.Google Scholar
23. Iqbal, K. Authentication of absorbed dose measurements for optimization of radiotherapy treatment planning. Doctoral dissertation, Islamia University, Bahawalpur 2014.Google Scholar