Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:40:23.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Characterisation and use of OSLD for in vivo dosimetry in head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2020

L. Jose Solomon Raj
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu632004, India
Benedicta Pearlin
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu632004, India
B. S. Timothy Peace
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu632004, India
Rajesh Isiah
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu632004, India
I. Rabi Raja Singh*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu632004, India
*
Author for correspondence: I. Rabi Raja Singh, Professor in Radiological Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu632004, India. Tel: +91 9443627672/+91 416 2283069. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Aim:

This study reveals the characteristic nature and the use of optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD) as an in vivo dosimetry tool for head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

Materials and methods:

Calibration and characterisation of OSLD such as sensitivity, reproducibility, dose-rate dependence, beam quality dependence, output factor measurement and comparison of two bleaching techniques using halogen and compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) were initially performed. Later, eye dose measurements were performed for head and neck IMRT patients using OSLD and were compared with the corresponding dose calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS).

Results:

While the sensitivity was found to be within ±5%, the dose-rate dependence and reproducibility were found to be within ±3%. The OSLD showed an under-response of 3% for 15 MV and an increase in response by 5% for Co60 (1·25 MeV) when compared with the 6 MV X-ray beam. Therefore, a separate calibration for different beam energies is required. The percentage deviation of OSLD to that of TPS was found to be within ±2·77%. The OSLD has been successfully used for the in vivo dosimetry of patients who received IMRT. Hence, it is concluded that OSLDs can serve as effective dosimeters for in vivo dosimetry.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Contesini, M, Guberti, M, Saccani, R et al. Setup errors in patients with head-neck cancer (HNC), treated using the Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) technique: how it influences the customised immobilisation systems, patient’s pain and anxiety. Radiat Oncol 2017; 12:72.10.1186/s13014-017-0807-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engström, PE, Haraldsson, P, Landberg, T et al. In vivo dose verification of IMRT treated head and neck cancer patients. Acta Oncol 2005; 44:572578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aznar, MC, Andersen, CE, Bøtter-Jensen, L et al. Real-time optical-fibre luminescence dosimetry for radiotherapy: physical characteristics and applications in photon beams. Phys Med Biol 2004; 49:16551669.10.1088/0031-9155/49/9/005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viamonte, A, da Rosa, LAR, Buckley, LA et al. Radiotherapy dosimetry using a commercial OSL system: radiotherapy dosimetry using a commercial OSL system. Med Phys 2008; 35: 12611266.10.1118/1.2841940CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Essers, M, Mijnheer, B. In vivo dosimetry during external photon beam radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol*Biol*Phys 1999; 43: 245259.10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00341-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soubra, M, Cygler, J, Mackay, G. Evaluation of a dual bias dual metal oxide-silicon semiconductor field effect transistor detector as radiation dosimeter. Med Phys 1994; 21:567572.10.1118/1.597314CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halvorsen, PH. Dosimetric evaluation of a new design MOSFET in vivo dosimeter: assessment of in vivo dosimeter. Med Phys 2004; 32: 110117.10.1118/1.1827771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, HM, Lambert, GD, Harrison, RM. Automated TLD system for tumor dose estimation from exit dose measurements in external beam radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol, Biol, Phys 1997; 38: 899905.10.1016/S0360-3016(97)00282-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jursinic, PA. Characterization of optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters, OSLDs, for clinical dosimetric measurements: optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters for clinical dosimetric measurements. Med Phys 2007; 34:45944604.10.1118/1.2804555CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jursinic, PA, Yahnke, CJ. In vivo dosimetry with optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters, OSLDs, compared to diodes; the effects of buildup cap thickness and fabrication material: in vivo dosimetry with optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters. Med Phys 2011; 38:54325440.10.1118/1.3633939CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meeks, SL, Paulino, AC, Pennington, EC et al. In vivo determination of extra-target doses received from serial tomotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2002; 63:217222.10.1016/S0167-8140(02)00074-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schembri, V, Heijmen, BJM. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) of carbon-doped aluminum oxide (Al2O3:C) for film dosimetry in radiotherapy: OSL of (Al2O3:C) for film dosimetry in radiotherapy. Med Phys 2007; 34:21132118.10.1118/1.2737160CrossRefGoogle Scholar