Dose intercomparison at Italian hadrontherapy centers

PURPOSE

To perform the first dosimetric intercomparison for proton beams in Italy using ionization chambers, according to the IAEA TRS-398 code of practice.

METHODS

Measurement sites included: National Center for Oncological Hadron Therapy (CNAO, Pavia), Center for Proton Therapy (CTP, Trento) and Center for Hadron Therapy and for advanced Nuclear Applications (CATANA, Catania). For comparison we also included a 6 MV photon beam produced at Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri (ICSM, Pavia). For proton beams, both single pseudo-monoenergetic layers (in order to obtain a planned dose of 2 Gy at the reference depth of 2 cm in a water phantom) and Spread-out Bragg peaks (SOBP) have been delivered. Measurements were performed with a PTW Farmer 30010-1 and a PTW Advanced Markus type 34,045 ionization chamber.

RESULTS

Data obtained at CATANA, CNAO and CPT in terms of absorbed dose to water depth show good consistency within the experimental uncertainties, with a weighted mean of 1.99 ± 0.01 Gy and a standard error of 0.003 Gy, with reference to a nominal dose of 2 Gy as designed by the treatment planning system.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed a standard deviation of less than 1% for single layer and SOBP beams, for all chambers and a percent deviation less than 1.5% for single layer measurements. The weighted means of the absorbed doses for clinical proton beams (118.19 MeV and 173.61 MeV) are consistent within less than 1%. These results agree within the 1.5% difference considered acceptable for national dose intercomparison.

Design and implementation of a "cheese" phantom-based Tomotherapy TLD dose intercomparison

BACKGROUND

The unique beam-delivery technique of Tomotherapy machines (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif.) necessitates tailored quality assurance. This requirement also applies to external dose intercomparisons. Therefore, the aim of the 2014 SSRMP (Swiss Society of Radiobiology and Medical Physics) dosimetry intercomparison was to compare two set-ups with different phantoms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A small cylindrical Perspex phantom, which is similar to the IROC phantom (Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core, Houston, Tex.), and the "cheese" phantom, which is provided by the Tomotherapy manufacturer to all institutions, were used. The standard calibration plans for the TomoHelical and TomoDirect irradiation techniques were applied. These plans are routinely used for dose output calibration in Tomotherapy institutions. We tested 20 Tomotherapy machines in Germany and Switzerland. The ratio of the measured (Dm) to the calculated (Dc) dose was assessed for both phantoms and irradiation techniques. The Dm/Dc distributions were determined to compare the suitability of the measurement set-ups investigated.

RESULTS

The standard deviations of the TLD-measured (thermoluminescent dosimetry) Dm/Dc ratios for the "cheese" phantom were 1.9 % for the TomoHelical (19 measurements) and 1.2 % (11 measurements) for the TomoDirect irradiation techniques. The corresponding ratios for the Perspex phantom were 2.8 % (18 measurements) and 1.8 % (11 measurements).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the Perspex phantom-based set-up, the "cheese" phantom-based set-up without individual planning was demonstrated to be more suitable for Tomotherapy dose checks. Future SSRMP dosimetry intercomparisons for Tomotherapy machines will therefore be based on the "cheese" phantom set-up.