2008
DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v9i1.2792
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Experimental evaluation of the accuracy of skin dose calculation for a commercial treatment planning system

Abstract: The present work uses the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) to investigate the accuracy of skin dose calculations. Micro‐MOSFETs (metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors) were used to measure skin dose for a range of irradiation conditions (open fields, physical wedges, dynamic wedges, various source‐to‐surface distances) for 6‐MV and 10‐MV beams, and the results were compared with the calculated mean dose to a “skin” structure 2 mm thick for semi‐cylindrical phantoms (representative of a neck… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
47
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
2
47
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Skin dose measurements during radiotherapy would be a useful tool for treatment monitoring, skin reaction estimation, 1 and treatment plan design and modification. [2][3][4][5][6][7] However, superficial dose is generally deposited in the build-up region, being sensitive to many factors including beam energy, beam type, beam filter, 8,9 incident angle, [10][11][12] distance, 9, 13 complex patient surface profiles, 7,14 internal heterogeneities, 15 patient movement, and deformation. These factors, especially irregular surface profiles, internal heterogeneities, movement and deformation of the treatment region, decrease the accuracy of superficial dose prediction and may result in underdosing or overdosing in specified treatment plans.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Skin dose measurements during radiotherapy would be a useful tool for treatment monitoring, skin reaction estimation, 1 and treatment plan design and modification. [2][3][4][5][6][7] However, superficial dose is generally deposited in the build-up region, being sensitive to many factors including beam energy, beam type, beam filter, 8,9 incident angle, [10][11][12] distance, 9, 13 complex patient surface profiles, 7,14 internal heterogeneities, 15 patient movement, and deformation. These factors, especially irregular surface profiles, internal heterogeneities, movement and deformation of the treatment region, decrease the accuracy of superficial dose prediction and may result in underdosing or overdosing in specified treatment plans.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on the experience with pacemaker function and ionizing radiation, it is reasonable to limit dose to the IT device to a total absorbed dose of 2 Gy. Some caution should be used when estimating the absorbed dose to the IT device using treatment planning systems when the device is in the buildup region, as dose errors can be as large as 25% [6,7]. Dose to the device should be verified with thermoluminescent dosimetry.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is owing to the considerable uncertainty in dosimetry on the surface due to the high dose gradient as well as the low accuracy in the surface region of the calculations by commercial TPS. 14,15 Therefore, even with the lens applicator, the deviation between the measured and the calculated doses was not eliminated completely since the MOSFET dosemeters were located inside the lens applicator at depths of 1.9 mm for the micro MOSFET dosemeter and 1.4 mm for the standard MOSFET dosemeter. While not eliminating deviation entirely, the lens applicator was able to reduce the deviation for in vivo dosimetry of the eye lens.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…13 In this region, dose calculation with commercial TPSs have been shown to be less accurate than in deeper parts of the body. 14,15 Even for advanced algorithms such as the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA v. 10; Varian® Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), dose calculation up to a depth of 6 mm has been shown to be inaccurate.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%