Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimetry in medicine

Yukihara, E.G.; McKeever, S.W.S.

doi:10.1088/0031-9155/53/20/r01

Cited by 268 publications

(184 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

178

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Error bars include measurement (SDs) and estimated systematic uncertainties. For the solid‐state detectors, the latter are in the range of 2%–3% 20 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 . For all ionization chambers, we assume a systematic uncertainty of about 2%.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface dose measurements with commonly used detectors: a consistent thickness correction method

Reynolds

Higgins

2015

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to review application of a consistent correction method for the solid state detectors, such as thermoluminescent dosimeters (chips (cTLD) and powder (pTLD)), optically stimulated detectors (both closed (OSL) and open (eOSL)), and radiochromic (EBT2) and radiographic (EDR2) films. In addition, to compare measured surface dose using an extrapolation ionization chamber (PTW 30‐360) with other parallel plate chambers RMI‐449 (Attix), Capintec PS‐033, PTW 30‐329 (Markus) and Memorial. Measurements of surface dose for 6 MV photons with parallel plate chambers were used to establish a baseline. cTLD, OSLs, EDR2, and EBT2 measurements were corrected using a method which involved irradiation of three dosimeter stacks, followed by linear extrapolation of individual dosimeter measurements to zero thickness. We determined the magnitude of correction for each detector and compared our results against an alternative correction method based on effective thickness. All uncorrected surface dose measurements exhibited overresponse, compared with the extrapolation chamber data, except for the Attix chamber. The closest match was obtained with the Attix chamber (−0.1%), followed by pTLD (0.5%), Capintec (4.5%), Memorial (7.3%), Markus (10%), cTLD (11.8%), eOSL (12.8%), EBT2 (14%), EDR2 (14.8%), and OSL (26%). Application of published ionization chamber corrections brought all the parallel plate results to within 1% of the extrapolation chamber. The extrapolation method corrected all solid‐state detector results to within 2% of baseline, except the OSLs. Extrapolation of dose using a simple three‐detector stack has been demonstrated to provide thickness corrections for cTLD, eOSLs, EBT2, and EDR2 which can then be used for surface dose measurements. Standard OSLs are not recommended for surface dose measurement. The effective thickness method suffers from the subjectivity inherent in the inclusion of measured percentage depth‐dose curves and is not recommended for these types of measurements.PACS number: 87.56.‐v

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface dose measurements with commonly used detectors: a consistent thickness correction method

Reynolds

Higgins

2015

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Technical advances in the production of OSL materials and availability of the reading devices make them a very promising dosimetric tool for medical purposes. Current developments and specific applications of OSLDs in diagnostic radiology and radiation therapy are reconsidered [31][32][33].…”

Section: ""% #% #"mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of patient dose in medical processes byin-vivodose measuring devices: A review

Tunçel

2016

EPJ Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

"#!# In-vivo dosimetry (IVD) in medicine especially in radiation therapy is a well-established and recommended procedure for the estimation of the dose delivered to a patient during the radiation treatment. It became even more important with the emerging use of new and more complex radiotherapy techniques such as intensity-modulated or image-guided radiation therapy. While IVD has been used in brachytherapy for decades and the initial motivation for performing was mainly to assess doses to organs at risk by direct measurements, it is now possible to calculate 3D for detection of deviations or errors. Invivo dosimeters can be divided into real-time and passive detectors that need some finite time following irradiation for their analysis. They require a calibration against a calibrated ionization chamber in a known radiation field. Most of these detectors have a response that is energy and/or dose rate dependent and consequently require adjustments of the response to account for changes in the actual radiation conditions compared to the calibration situation. Correction factors are therefore necessary to take. Today, the most common dosimeters for patients' dose verification through in-vivo measurements are semiconductor diodes, thermo-luminescent dosimeters, optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters, metal-oxidesemiconductor field-effect transistors and plastic scintillator detectors with small outer diameters.

show abstract

“…The charge density that is trapped is proportional to the absorbed dose imparted to the OSLD. This dose record can be read by stimulating the Al 2 O 3 with the appropriate optical wavelength of light, around 540 nm, from a light‐emitting diode (LED) 8. Upon stimulation, trapped electrons excite toward the conduction band, and subsequently de‐excite to the valence band, producing the luminescence photons that are detected by the photomultiplier tube of an OSLD reader, such as the MicroStar TM Dosimetry System (http://www.landauer.com).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical validation of UF‐RIPSA: A rapid in‐clinic peak skin dose mapping algorithm for fluoroscopically guided interventions

Borrego

Marshall

Tran

et al. 2018

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to experimentally validate UF‐RIPSA, a rapid in‐clinic peak skin dose mapping algorithm developed at the University of Florida using optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) and tissue‐equivalent phantoms.MethodsThe OSLDs used in this study were InLightTM Nanodot dosimeters by Landauer, Inc. The OSLDs were exposed to nine different beam qualities while either free‐in‐air or on the surface of a tissue equivalent phantom. The irradiation of the OSLDs was then modeled using Monte Carlo techniques to derive correction factors between free‐in‐air exposures and more complex irradiation geometries. A grid of OSLDs on the surface of a tissue equivalent phantom was irradiated with two fluoroscopic x ray fields generated by the Siemens Artis zee bi‐plane fluoroscopic unit. The location of each OSLD within the grid was noted and its dose reading compared with UF‐RIPSA results.ResultsWith the use of Monte Carlo correction factors, the OSLD's response under complex irradiation geometries can be predicted from its free‐in‐air response. The predicted values had a percent error of −8.7% to +3.2% with a predicted value that was on average 5% below the measured value. Agreement within 9% was observed between the values of the OSLDs and RIPSA when irradiated directly on the phantom and within 14% when the beam first traverses the tabletop and pad.ConclusionsThe UF‐RIPSA only computes dose values to areas of irradiated skin determined to be directly within the x ray field since the algorithm is based upon ray tracing of the reported reference air kerma value, with subsequent corrections for air‐to‐tissue dose conversion, x ray backscatter, and table/pad attenuation. The UF‐RIPSA algorithm thus does not include the dose contribution of scatter radiation from adjacent fields. Despite this limitation, UF‐RIPSA is shown to be fairly robust when computing skin dose to patients undergoing fluoroscopically guided interventions.

show abstract

Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimetry in medicine

Cited by 268 publications

References 67 publications

Surface dose measurements with commonly used detectors: a consistent thickness correction method

Surface dose measurements with commonly used detectors: a consistent thickness correction method

Assessment of patient dose in medical processes byin-vivodose measuring devices: A review

Physical validation of UF‐RIPSA: A rapid in‐clinic peak skin dose mapping algorithm for fluoroscopically guided interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About