An extensive set of benchmark measurement of PDDs and beam profiles was performed in a heterogeneous layer phantom, including a lung equivalent heterogeneity, by means of several detectors and compared against the predicted dose values by different calculation algorithms in two treatment planning systems. PDDs were measured with TLDs, plane parallel and cylindrical ionization chambers and beam profiles with films. Additionally, Monte Carlo simulations by means of the PENELOPE code were performed. Four different field sizes (10 x 10, 5 x 5, 2 x 2, and 1 x 1 cm2) and two lung equivalent materials (CIRS, p(w)e=0.195 and St. Bartholomew Hospital, London, p(w)e=0.244-0.322) were studied. The performance of four correction-based algorithms and one based on convolution-superposition was analyzed. The correction-based algorithms were the Batho, the Modified Batho, and the Equivalent TAR implemented in the Cadplan (Varian) treatment planning system and the TMS Pencil Beam from the Helax-TMS (Nucletron) treatment planning system. The convolution-superposition algorithm was the Collapsed Cone implemented in the Helax-TMS. The only studied calculation methods that correlated successfully with the measured values with a 2% average inside all media were the Collapsed Cone and the Monte Carlo simulation. The biggest difference between the predicted and the delivered dose in the beam axis was found for the EqTAR algorithm inside the CIRS lung equivalent material in a 2 x 2 cm2 18 MV x-ray beam. In these conditions, average and maximum difference against the TLD measurements were 32% and 39%, respectively. In the water equivalent part of the phantom every algorithm correctly predicted the dose (within 2%) everywhere except very close to the interfaces where differences up to 24% were found for 2 x 2 cm2 18 MV photon beams. Consistent values were found between the reference detector (ionization chamber in water and TLD in lung) and Monte Carlo simulations, yielding minimal differences (0.4%+/-1.2%). The penumbra broadening effect in low density media was not predicted by any of the correction-based algorithms, and the only one that matched the experimental values and the Monte Carlo simulations within the estimated uncertainties was the Collapsed Cone Algorithm.

No abstract

To evaluate the dose values predicted by several calculation algorithms in two treatment planning systems, Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and measurements by means of various detectors were performed in heterogeneous layer phantoms with water- and bone-equivalent materials. Percentage depth doses (PDDs) were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs), plane parallel and cylindrical ionization chambers, and beam profiles with films. The MC code used for the simulations was the PENELOPE code. Three different field sizes (10 x 10, 5 x 5, and 2 x 2 cm2) were studied in two phantom configurations and a bone equivalent material. These two phantom configurations contained heterogeneities of 5 and 2 cm of bone, respectively. We analyzed the performance of four correction-based algorithms and one based on convolution superposition. The correction-based algorithms were the Batho, the Modified Batho, the Equivalent TAR implemented in the Cadplan (Varian) treatment planning system (TPS), and the Helax-TMS Pencil Beam from the Helax-TMS (Nucletron) TPS. The convolution-superposition algorithm was the Collapsed Cone implemented in the Helax-TMS. All the correction-based calculation algorithms underestimated the dose inside the bone-equivalent material for 18 MV compared to MC simulations. The maximum underestimation, in terms of root-mean-square (RMS), was about 15% for the Helax-TMS Pencil Beam (Helax-TMS PB) for a 2 x 2 cm2 field inside the bone-equivalent material. In contrast, the Collapsed Cone algorithm yielded values around 3%. A more complex behavior was found for 6 MV where the Collapsed Cone performed less well, overestimating the dose inside the heterogeneity in 3%-5%. The rebuildup in the interface bone-water and the penumbra shrinking in high-density media were not predicted by any of the calculation algorithms except the Collapsed Cone, and only the MC simulations matched the experimental values within the estimated uncertainties. The TLD and MOSFET detectors were suitable for dose measurement inside bone-equivalent materials, while parallel ionization chambers, applying the same calibration and correction factors as in water, systematically underestimated dose by 3%-5%.

No abstract

The purpose of this work was to simulate with the Monte Carlo (MC) code PENELOPE the dose distribution in lung tumours including breathing motion in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Two phantoms were modelled to simulate a pentagonal cross section with chestwall (unit density), lung (density 0.3 g cm(-3)) and two spherical tumours (unit density) of diameters respectively of 2 cm and 5 cm. The phase-space files (PSF) of four different SBRT field sizes of 6 MV from a Varian accelerator were calculated and used as beam sources to obtain both dose profiles and dose-volume histograms (DVHs) in different volumes of interest. Dose distributions were simulated for five beams impinging on the phantom. The simulations were conducted both for the static case and including the influence of respiratory motion. To reproduce the effect of breathing motion different simulations were performed keeping the beam fixed and displacing the phantom geometry in chosen positions in the cranial and caudal and left-right directions. The final result was obtained by combining the different position with two motion patterns. The MC results were compared with those obtained with three commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs), two based on the pencil beam (PB) algorithm, the TMS-HELAX (Nucletron, Sweden) and Eclipse (Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA), and one based on the collapsed cone algorithm (CC), Pinnacle(3) (Philips). Some calculations were also carried out with the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) in the Eclipse system. All calculations with the TPSs were performed without simulated breathing motion, according to clinical practice. In order to compare all the TPSs and MC an absolute dose calibration in Gy/MU was performed. The analysis shows that the dose (Gy/MU) in the central part of the gross tumour volume (GTV) is calculated for both tumour sizes with an accuracy of 2-3% with PB and CC algorithms, compared to MC. At the periphery of the GTV the TPSs overestimate the dose up to 10%, while in the lung tissue close to the GTV PB algorithms overestimate the dose and the CC underestimates it. When clinically relevant breathing motions are included in the MC simulations, the static calculations with the TPSs still give a relatively accurate estimate of the dose in the GTV. On the other hand, the dose at the periphery of the GTV is overestimated, compared to the static case.

No abstract

No abstract

The equivalent dose limit for the eye lens for occupational exposure recommended by the ICRP has been reduced to 20 mSv y(-1) averaged over defined periods of 5 y, with no single year exceeding 50 mSv. The compliance with this new requirement could not be easy in some workplace such as interventional radiology and cardiology. The aim of this study is to evaluate different possible approaches in order to have a good estimate of the eye lens dose during interventional procedures. Measurements were performed with an X-ray system Philips Allura FD-10, using a PMMA phantom to simulate the patient scattered radiation and a Rando phantom to simulate the cardiologist. Thermoluminescence (TL) whole-body and TL eye lens dosemeters together with Philips DoseAware active dosemeters were located on different positions of the Rando phantom to estimate the eye lens dose in typical cardiology procedures. The results show that, for the studied conditions, any of the analysed dosemeter positions are suitable for eye lens dose assessment. However, the centre of the thyroid collar and the left ear position provide a better estimate. Furthermore, in practice, improper use of the ceiling-suspended screen can produce partial protection of some parts of the body, and thus large differences between the measured doses and the actual exposure of the eye could arise if the dosemeter is not situated close to the eye.