A versatile electron collimation system to be used with electron cones supplied with Varian's Clinac 18

Goede, Myron R.; Gooden, David S.; Еllis, Robert G.; Brickner, Theodore J.

doi:10.1016/0360-3016(77)90065-7

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Formalisms for characterizing output depend upon accelerator design and in particular on how the manufacturer chooses to flatten and collimate the fields. For machines with applicators, measurements of electron beam output as a function of field size are necessary for each applicator and each electron energy; therefore, the total number of output measurements is usually quite substantial (Khan et al, 1976;Goede et al, 1977;Choi et al, 1979;Biggs et al, 1979;Purdy et al, 1982).…”

Section: Output Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical electron‐beam dosimetry: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 25

et al. 1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Output Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical electron‐beam dosimetry: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 25

et al. 1991

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Electron beam treatments can be greatly enhanced by utilization of tools that help achieve the treatment objective. The most standard tool is the irregularly shaped treatment field, which is formed using Cerrobend inserts placed inside electron applicators, a technology early demonstrated by Goede et al (1977) and modelled in current treatment-planning systems. Hogstrom (2004) recently reviewed the fundamentals for utilizing additional tools, such as skin collimation, internal collimation, bolus and abutment techniques.…”

Section: Treatment and Treatment-planning Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of electron beam therapy physics

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For over 50 years, electron beams have been an important modality for providing an accurate dose of radiation to superficial cancers and disease and for limiting the dose to underlying normal tissues and structures. This review looks at many of the important contributions of physics and dosimetry to the development and utilization of electron beam therapy, including electron treatment machines, dose specification and calibration, dose measurement, electron transport calculations, treatment and treatment-planning tools, and clinical utilization, including special procedures. Also, future changes in the practice of electron therapy resulting from challenges to its utilization and from potential future technology are discussed.

show abstract

“…Achieving this balance is essential to maximize treatment efficacy. Traditionally, skin shielding has relied on conventional methods such as lead or Cerrobend blocks 1–4 . The toxic composition of lead and Cerrobend has led to the implementation of stringent regulatory requirements and costly infrastructure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally, skin shielding has relied on conventional methods such as lead or Cerrobend blocks. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 The toxic composition of lead and Cerrobend has led to the implementation of stringent regulatory requirements and costly infrastructure. These traditional skin shielding methods present limitations in terms of customization, geometric complexity, and ease of fabrication.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical note: A comparison of in‐house 3D‐printed and commercially available patient‐specific skin collimators for use with electron beam therapy

Herchko,

Rutenberg,

Beltran

et al. 2024

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeSkin collimation is a useful tool in electron beam therapy (EBT) to decrease the penumbra at the field edge and minimize dose to nearby superficial organs at risk (OARs), but manually fabricating these collimation devices in the clinic to conform to the patient's anatomy can be a difficult and time intensive process. This work compares two types of patient‐specific skin collimation (in‐house 3D printed and vendor‐provided machined brass) using clinically relevant metrics.MethodsAttenuation measurements were performed to determine the thickness of each material needed to adequately shield both 6 and 9 MeV electron beams. Relative and absolute dose planes at various depths were measured using radiochromic film to compare the surface dose, flatness, and penumbra of the different skin collimation materials.ResultsClinically acceptable thicknesses of each material were determined for both 6 and 9 MeV electron beams. Field width, flatness, and penumbra results between the two systems were very similar and significantly improved compared to measurements performed with no surface collimation.ConclusionBoth skin collimation methods investigated in this work generate sharp penumbras at the field edge and can minimize dose to superficial OARs compared to treatment fields with no surface collimation. The benefits of skin collimation are greatest for lower energy electron beams, and the benefits decrease as the measurement depth increases. Using bolus with skin collimation is recommended to avoid surface dose enhancement seen with collimators placed on the skin surface. Ultimately, the appropriate choice of material will depend on the desire to create these devices in‐house or outsource the fabrication to a vendor.

show abstract

A versatile electron collimation system to be used with electron cones supplied with Varian's Clinac 18

Cited by 9 publications

References 2 publications

Clinical electron‐beam dosimetry: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 25

Clinical electron‐beam dosimetry: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 25

Review of electron beam therapy physics

Technical note: A comparison of in‐house 3D‐printed and commercially available patient‐specific skin collimators for use with electron beam therapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About