Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T03:24:30.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Study of dosimetric characteristics of a commercial optically stimulated luminescence system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2017

Gourav K. Jain ,
Arun Chougule ,
Ananth Kaliyamoorthy  and
Suresh K. Akula
Gourav K. Jain*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiological Physics, SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
Arun Chougule
Affiliation:
Department of Radiological Physics, SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
Ananth Kaliyamoorthy
Affiliation:
Department of Radiological Physics, SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
Suresh K. Akula
Affiliation:
Department of Radiological Physics, SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
*
Correspondence to: Gourav Kumar Jain, Department of Radiological Physics, SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302004, India. Tel: +91 94 6076 9135. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) have a number of advantages in radiation dosimetry making them an excellent dosimeter for in vivo dosimetry. The study aimed to study the dosimetric characteristics of a commercial optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) system by Landauer Inc., before using it for routine clinical practice for in vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy. Further, this study also aimed to investigate the cause of variability found in the literature in a few dosimetric parameters of carbon-doped aluminium oxide (Al2O3:C).

Materials and methods

The commercial OSLD system uses Al2O3:C nanoDotTM as an active radiation detector and InLightTM microStar® as a readout assembly. Inter-detector response, energy, dose rate, field size and depth dependency of the detector response were evaluated for all available clinical range of photon beam energies in radiotherapy.

Results

Inter-detector variation in OSLD response was found within 3·44%. After single light exposure for the OSL readout, detector reading decreased by 0·29% per reading. The dose linearity was investigated between dose range 50–400 cGy. The dose response curve was found to be linear until 250 cGy, after this dose, the dose response curve was found to be supra-linear in nature. OSLD response was found to be energy independent for Co60 to 10 MV photon energies.

Conclusions

The cause of variability found in the literature for some dosimetric characteristics of Al2O3:C is due to the difference in general geometry, construction of dosimeter, geometric condition of irradiation, phantom material and geometry, beam energy. In addition, the irradiation history of detector used and difference in readout methodologies had varying degree of uncertainties in measurements. However, the large surface area of the detector placed in the phantom with sufficient build-up and backscatter irradiated perpendicularly to incident radiation in Co60 beam is a good method of choice for the calibration of a dosimeter. Understanding the OSLD response with all dosimetric parameters may help us in estimation of accurate dose delivered to patient during radiotherapy treatment.

Keywords

aluminium oxideionisation chamberoptically stimulated luminescence dosimeterradiation dosimetry
Type
Technical Note
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 461 - 475
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. Kutcher, G J, Coia, L, Gillin, M et al. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology. Report of Task Group No. 40 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. AAPM Report No. 46. Med Phys 1994; 21 (4): 581–618.Google Scholar
2. Kirby, T H, Hanson, W F, Gastorf, R J, Chu, C H, Shalek, R J. Mailable TLD system for photon and electron therapy beams. Int J Radiat Oncol 1986; 12 (2): 261–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Dam, J V, Marinello, G. Methods for In Vivo Dosimetry in External Radiotherapy ESTRO Physics Booklet No. 1, 2nd edition. Brussels: ESTRO, 2006.Google Scholar
4. Kumar, A S, Sharma, S D, Ravindran, B P. Characteristics of mobile MOSFET dosimetry system for megavoltage photon beams. J Med Phys 2014; 39 (3): 142–149.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Jursinic, P A, Nelms, B E. A 2-D diode array and analysis software for verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy delivery. Med Phys 2003; 30: 870–879.Google Scholar
6. Saini, A S, Zhu, T C. Dose rate and SSD dependence of commercially available diode detectors. Med Phys 2004; 31: 914–924.Google Scholar
7. Yorke, E, Alecu, R, Ding, L et al Diode in vivo dosimetry for patients receiving external beam radiation therapy. Report of Task Group No. 62 of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. AAPM Report No. 87. https://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT_87.pdf. Accessed on 27th August 2016.Google Scholar
8. Soubra, M, Cygler, J, MacKay, G. Evaluation of a dual bias dual metal–oxide–silicon semiconductor field effect transistor detector as radiation detector. Med Phys 1994; 2: 567–572.Google Scholar
9. Lambert, J, Nakano, T, Law, S, Elsey, J, McKanzie, D R, Suchowerska, N. In vivo dosimeters for HDR brachytherapy: a comparison of a diamond detectors, MOSFET, TLD, and scintillation detector. Med Phys 2007; 34: 1759–1765.Google Scholar
10. International Atomic Energy Agency. Development of procedures for in vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy. IAEA Human Health Reports No. 8. Vienna: IAEA, 2013. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1606_web.pdf. Accessed on 27th August 2016.Google Scholar
11. Bhatt, B C. Thermoluminescence, optically stimulated luminescence and radiophotoluminesence dosimetry: an overall perspective. Radiat Prot Environ 2011; 34 (1): 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Antonov-Romanovskii, W, Keirum-Marcus, I F, Poroshina, M S, Trapeznikova, Z A. IR stimulable phosphors. Conference of the Academy o f Sciences o f the USSR on the Peaceful Uses o f Atomic Energy. USAEC Report AEC-tr-2435, Moscow, 1955, Session of the Division of Physical and Mathematical Sciences. Moscow: USAEC, 1956: 239–250.Google Scholar
13. Braeunlich, P, Schaefer, D, Scharmann, A. A simple model for thermoluminescence and thermally stimulated conductivity of inorganic photoconducting phosphors and experiments pertaining to infrared-stimulated luminescence. Proceedings o f the First International Conference on Luminescence Dosimetry, Stanford, June 1965. Stanford, CA: USAEC, 1967: 57–73.Google Scholar
14. Sanborn, E N, Beard, E L. Sulfides of strontium, calcium, and magnesium in infrared stimulated luminescence dosimetry. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Luminescence Dosimetry, Stanford, June 1965. Stanford, CA: USAEC, 1967: 183–191.Google Scholar
15. Akselrod, M S, Kortov, V S, Kravetsky, D J, Gotlib, V I. Highly sensitive thermoluminescent anion-defective-Al2O3:C single crystal detectors. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1990; 32: 15–20.Google Scholar
16. McKeever, S W S, Akselrod, M S, Markey, B G. Pulsed optically stimulated luminescence dosimetry using Al2O3:C. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1996; 65: 267–272.Google Scholar
17. Akselrod, M S, Lucas, A C, Polf, J C, McKeever, S W S. Optically stimulated luminescence of Al2O3. Radiat Meas 1998; 29 (3–4): 391–399.Google Scholar
18. McKeever, S W S, Akselrod, M S. Radiation dosimetry using pulsed optically stimulated luminescence of Al2O3:C. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1999; 84: 317–320.Google Scholar
19. Akselrod, M S, McKeever, S W S. A radiation dosimetry method using pulsed optically stimulated luminescence. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1999; 81 (3): 167–176.Google Scholar
20. Bøtter Jensen, L G, McKeever, S W S, Wintle, A G. Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dosimetry. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2003.Google Scholar
21. Akselrod, M S, Bøtter-Jensen, L, McKeever, S W S. Optically stimulated luminescence and its use in medical dosimetry. Radiat Meas 2007; 41: S78–S99.Google Scholar
22. Yukihara, E G, McKeever, S W S. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimetry in medicine. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53 (20): R351–R379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Viamonte, A, Da Rosa, L A R, Buckley, L A, Cherpak, A, Cygler, J E. Radiotherapy dosimetry using a commercial OSL system. Med Phys 2008; 35 (4): 1261–1266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Bos, A J J. High sensitivity thermoluminescence dosimetry. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 2001; 184: 3–28.Google Scholar
25. Edmund, J M, Andersen, C E. Temperature dependence of Al2O3:C response in medical luminescence dosimetry. Radiat Meas 2007; 42: 177–189.Google Scholar
26. Aznar, M C, Andersen, C E, Bøtter-Jensen, L et al. Real-time optical-fiber luminescence dosimetry for radiotherapy: physical characteristics and application to photon beams. Phys Med Biol 2004; 49: 1655–1669.Google Scholar
27. Gaza, R, McKeever, S W S, Akselrod, M S et al. A fiber dosimetry method based on OSL from Al2O3:C: for radiotherapy applications. Radiat Meas 2004; 34: 809–812.Google Scholar
28. Polf, J C, Yukihara, E G, Akselrod, M S, McKeever, S W S. Real-time luminescence from Al2O3:C fiber dosimeters. Radiat Meas 2004; 34: 227–240.Google Scholar
29. Yukihara, E G, Yosimura, E M, Lindstrom, T D, Ahmad, S, Taylor, K K, Mardirossian, G. High-precision dosimetry for radiotherapy using optically stimulated luminescence technique and thin Al2O3:C dosimeters. Phys Med Biol 2005; 50: 5619–5628.Google Scholar
30. Takegami, K, Hayashi, H, Okino, H et al. Practical calibration curve of small-type optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeter for evaluation of entrance skin dose in the diagnostic X-ray region. Jpn J Radiol Technol 2015; 8 (2): 286–294.Google Scholar
31. Jursinic, P A. Characterization of optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters, OSLDs, for clinical dosimetric measurements. Med Phys 2007; 34 (12): 4594–4604.Google Scholar
32. Yukihara, E G, Mardirossian, G, Mirzasadeghi, M, Guduru, S, Ahmad, S. Evaluation of Al2O3:C optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeters for passive dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams in radiotherapy. Med Phys 2008; 35 (1): 260–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Sawakuchi, G O, Yukihara, E, McKeever, S W S et al. Relative optically stimulated luminescence and thermoluminescence efficiencies of Al2O3:C dosimeters to heavy charged particles with energies relevant to space and radiotherapy dosimetry. J Appl Phys 2008; 104: 124903.Google Scholar
34. Reft, C S. The energy dependence and dose response of a commercial optically stimulated luminescent detector for kilovoltage photon, megavoltage photon, and electron, proton, and carbon beams. Med Phys 2009; 36: 1690–1699.Google Scholar
35. Jursinic, P A. Changes in optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter (OSLD) dosimetric characteristics with accumulated dose. Med Phys 2010; 37 (1): 132–140.Google Scholar
36. Jursinic, P A, Yahnke, C J. In vivo dosimetry with optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters, OSLDs, compared to diodes; the effects of buildup cap thickness and fabrication material. Med Phys 2011; 38 (10): 5432–5440.Google Scholar
37. Mrčela, I, Bokulić, T, Izewska, J, Budanec, M, Fröbe, A, Kusić, Z. Optically stimulated luminescence in vivo dosimetry for radiotherapy: physical characterization and clinical measurements in 60Co beams. Phys Med Biol 2011; 56 (18): 6065–6082.Google Scholar
38. Scarboro, S B, Followill, D S, Kerns, J R, White, R A, Kry, S F. Energy response of optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters for non-reference measurement locations in a 6 MV photon beam. Phys Med Biol 2011; 57 (18): 2505–2515.Google Scholar
39. Sharma, R, Jursinic, P A. In vivo measurements for high dose rate brachytherapy with optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters. Med Phys 2013; 40 (7): 071730-1–12.Google Scholar
40. Dunn, L, Lye, J, Kenny, J, Lehmann, J, Williams, J, Kron, T. Commissioning of optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters for use in radiotherapy. Radiat Meas 2013; 51–52: 31–39.Google Scholar
41. Jursinic, P A. Angular dependence of dose sensitivity of nanoDot optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters in different radiation geometries. Med Phys 2015; 42 (10): 5633–5641.Google Scholar
42. Pradhan, A S, Lee, J I, Kim, J L. Recent developments of optically stimulated luminescence materials and techniques for radiation dosimetry and clinical applications. Med Phys 2008; 33 (3): 85–99.Google Scholar
43. Landauer. InLight nanoDot™ Dosimeter. Glenwood, IL: Landauer, 2012.Google Scholar
44. Landauer. InLight microStar® Reader. Glenwood, IL: Landauer, 2010.Google Scholar
45. Palan, C B. Developments in OSL dosimetry. GJSET Publishing 2013; 14: 1–17.Google Scholar
46. Werner, B L, Das, I J, Khan, F M, Meigooni, A S. Dose perturbations at interfaces in photon beams. Med Phys 1987; 14: 585–595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47. Aird E G A, Burns J E, Day M J et al. Central axis depth dose data for use in radiotherapy. London: British Institute of Radiology, 1996; 46–61.Google Scholar
48. Schembri, V, Heijmen, B J M. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) of carbon-doped aluminum oxide (Al2O3:C) for film dosimetry in radiotherapy. Med Phys 2007; 34 (6): 2113–2118.Google Scholar
49. Andreo, P, Burns, D T, Hohlfeld, K et al. Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy: An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry Based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2000.Google Scholar
50. Mobit, P, Agyingi, E, Sandison, G. Comparison of the energy-response factor of LiF and Al2O3 in radiotherapy beams. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2006; 119 (1–4): 497–499.Google Scholar
51. Chen, S W, Wang, X T, Chen, L X, Tang, Q, Liu, X W. Monte Carlo evaluations of the absorbed dose and quality dependence of Al2O3:C in radiotherapy photon beams. Med Phys 2009; 36: 4421–4424.Google Scholar
52. Kerns, J R, Kry, S F, Sahoo, N, Followill, D S, Ibbott, G S. Angular dependence of the nanoDot OSL dosimeter. Med Phys 2011; 38 (7): 3955–3962.Google Scholar
53. Lehman, J, Dunn, L, Lye, J E et al. Angular dependence of the response of nanoDot OSLD system for measurements at depth in clinical megavoltage beams. Med Phys 2014; 41 (6): 061712-1–9.Google Scholar
54. Kim, D W, Chung, W K, Shin, D O et al. Dose response of commercially available optically stimulated luminescent detector, Al2O3:C for megavoltage photons and electrons. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2012; 149 (2): 101–108.Google Scholar