Relative energy response of indigenously developed optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters Al2 O3 :C, LiMgPO4 :B and LiCaAlF6 :Eu,Y in therapeutic photon and electron beams

The relative energy responses of three indigenously developed optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) phosphors in the disc form were studied in therapeutic photon and electron beams. Calibration in terms of absorbed dose was carried out in the dose range 5-500 cGy in ⁶⁰ Co gamma rays, high energy X-rays, and electron beams used in radiotherapy. The combined standard uncertainty in the estimation of absorbed dose using these OSL discs (OSLDs) was 3.3%. Dose-response curves of these OSLDs in ⁶⁰ Co gamma rays, 6 and 10 MV (flat and unflat), 15 MV and 6 and 15 MeV electron beams were found to be linear. Furthermore, these OSLDs exhibited a relative energy-dependent response for both photon and electron beams. The relative energy response correction factor for photon and electron beams were in the range 1.01-1.05 and 1.03-1.06, respectively.

Dosimetric impact of placement errors in optically stimulated luminescent in vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy

Introduction

Studies have suggested that optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) can be used for in vivo dosimetry of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Clinical uncertainties such as placement error have not been thoroughly investigated. The purpose of this work was to measure OSLD placement error in a clinical sample and analyze its dosimetric impact.

Methods and materials

The analysis consisted of three parts: first, quantification of placement error in a clinical sample of 128 patients yielding 293 cone-beam CT (CBCT) with visible OSLDs registered to the treatment plan; Second, correlation of placement error and clinical OSLD measurements; third, simulation of dosimeter placement in the treatment plan and correlation of recalculated dose with placement error.

Results

In the first analysis, average placement error was 9.7 ± 9.5 mm. In the second analysis, placement error and measured-to-planned dose agreement yielded no correlation (R² = 0.02) for a subsample of 77 CBCTs of 55 head-and-neck patients. Average placement error was 7.0 ± 6.0 mm. Several factors, including image-guided shifts, introduced uncharacterized uncertainty to the measured-to-planned dose agreement. The third analysis isolated placement error from these other effects. Average dosimetric error was -2.4 ± 19.3%. Simulated dosimetric impact was weakly correlated with placement error (R² = 0.39). Removing outliers reduced the average dosimetric error to -2.1 ± 10.9%, marginally improving the correlation (R² = 0.44).

Conclusion

Placement error can substantially impact measured-to-planned dose agreement of OSLDs in high gradient regions, demonstrating the criticality of accurate dosimeter placement for IMRT and VMAT treatments.

Rapid Multisite Remote Surface Dosimetry for Total Skin Electron Therapy: Scintillator Target Imaging

PURPOSE

The goal of this work is to produce a surface-dosimetry method capable of accurately and remotely measuring skin dose for patients undergoing total skin electron therapy (TSET) without the need for postexposure dosimeter processing. A rapid and wireless surface-dosimetry system was developed to improve clinical workflow. Scintillator-surface dosimetry was conducted on patients undergoing TSET by imaging scintillator targets with an intensified camera during TSET delivery.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Disc-shaped scintillator targets were attached to the skin surface of patients undergoing TSET and imaged with an intensified, time-gated, and linear accelerator-synchronized camera. Optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) were placed directly adjacent to scintillators at several dosimetry sites to serve as an absolute dose reference. Real-time image-processing methods were used to produce background-subtracted intensity maps of Cherenkov and scintillation emission. Rapid conversion of scintillator-light output to dose was achieved by using a custom fitting algorithm and calibration factor. Surface doses measured by scintillators were compared with those from OSLDs.

RESULTS

Absolute surface-dose measurements for 99 dosimetry sites were evaluated. According to paired OSLD estimates, scintillator dosimeters were able to report dose with <3% difference in 88 of 99 observed dosimetry sites and <5% difference in 98 of 99 observed dosimetry sites. Fitting a linear regression to dose data reported by scintillator versus OSLD, per dosimetry site, yielded an R² = 0.94.

CONCLUSIONS

Scintillators were able to report dose within <3% accuracy of OSLDs. Imaging of calibrated scintillator targets via an intensified, linear accelerator-synchronized camera provides rapid absolute surface-dosimetry measurements for patients treated with TSET. This technique has the potential to reduce the amount of time and effort necessary to conduct full-body dosimetry and can be adopted for use in any surface-dosimetry setting where the region of interest is observable throughout treatment.

Development and implementation of a remote audit tool for high dose rate (HDR) Ir-192 brachytherapy using optically stimulated luminescence dosimetry

PURPOSE

The aim of this work was to create a mailable phantom with measurement accuracy suitable for Radiological Physics Center (RPC) audits of high dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy sources at institutions participating in National Cancer Institute-funded cooperative clinical trials. Optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) were chosen as the dosimeter to be used with the phantom.

METHODS

The authors designed and built an 8 × 8 × 10 cm(3) prototype phantom that had two slots capable of holding Al2O3:C OSLDs (nanoDots; Landauer, Glenwood, IL) and a single channel capable of accepting all (192)Ir HDR brachytherapy sources in current clinical use in the United States. The authors irradiated the phantom with Nucletron and Varian (192)Ir HDR sources in order to determine correction factors for linearity with dose and the combined effects of irradiation energy and phantom characteristics. The phantom was then sent to eight institutions which volunteered to perform trial remote audits.

RESULTS

The linearity correction factor was kL = (-9.43 × 10(-5) × dose) + 1.009, where dose is in cGy, which differed from that determined by the RPC for the same batch of dosimeters using (60)Co irradiation. Separate block correction factors were determined for current versions of both Nucletron and Varian (192)Ir HDR sources and these vendor-specific correction factors differed by almost 2.6%. For the Nucletron source, the correction factor was 1.026 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.023-1.028], and for the Varian source, it was 1.000 (95% CI = 0.995-1.005). Variations in lateral source positioning up to 0.8 mm and distal∕proximal source positioning up to 10 mm had minimal effect on dose measurement accuracy. The overall dose measurement uncertainty of the system was estimated to be 2.4% and 2.5% for the Nucletron and Varian sources, respectively (95% CI). This uncertainty was sufficient to establish a ± 5% acceptance criterion for source strength audits under a formal RPC audit program. Trial audits of four Nucletron sources and four Varian sources revealed an average RPC-to-institution dose ratio of 1.000 (standard deviation = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors have created an OSLD-based (192)Ir HDR brachytherapy source remote audit tool which offers sufficient dose measurement accuracy to allow the RPC to establish a remote audit program with a ± 5% acceptance criterion. The feasibility of the system has been demonstrated with eight trial audits to date.