The effectiveness evaluation of the optically stimulated luminescence for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)

Lee, Youngjin; Shin, Dong Jin; Kang, Sinhang; Bae, Se Young; Kim, Jong Seok; Seo, Kanghyen; Kim, Seung Hun; Lee, Haenghwa; Lee, Chang-Lae

doi:10.1016/j.ijleo.2016.10.062

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…16 In general, the nanoDot™ OSLD is accurate within ± 3% for therapeutic doses after calibration. [20][21]24,29 Our PDD measurement in solid water phantom also was consistent with these studies.The maximum deviation between the simulated dose of Monaco and the measured OSLD dose was −2.05% at a depth of 1.0 cm, and the deviations were almost all below 1.0% in the range of 1.5 cm to 6.0 cm. Due to the supra-linear characteristic of OSLD response at irradiation doses above 200 cGy, a quadratic polynomial fitting or polynomial fitting of higher order should be adopted to describe such a relationship, resulting in more precise measurements.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…According to Kim et al., the measurement deviation of nanoDot™ OSLD to a known dose can be within ±3.0% when solely using the factory calibration, and ±1.5% standard deviation can be achieved by applying calibration factors if all the OSLDs originate from the same batch 16 . In general, the nanoDot™ OSLD is accurate within ± 3% for therapeutic doses after calibration 20–21,24,29 . Our PDD measurement in solid water phantom also was consistent with these studies.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…19,27 It is the most widely-available OSLD used in diagnostic radiology and therapeutic radiation oncology. 21,[28][29] The device features a good response and high-precision measurement of highenergy photons and electrons. According to Kim et al, the measurement deviation of nanoDot™ OSLD to a known dose can be within ±3.0% when solely using the factory calibration, and ±1.5% standard deviation can be achieved by applying calibration factors if all the OSLDs originate from the same batch.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The nanoDot™ OSLD is mainly composed of a 5‐mm diameter and 0.2‐mm thickness aluminum oxide doped with carbon (Al 2 O 3 :C) ( ρ = 1.41 g/cm 3 ) and a 10 mm × 10 mm × 2 mm light‐tight plastic holder ( ρ = 1.03 g/cm 3 ) 19,27 . It is the most widely‐available OSLD used in diagnostic radiology and therapeutic radiation oncology 21,28–29 . The device features a good response and high‐precision measurement of high‐energy photons and electrons.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Dosimetric impact of hollow intraoral stents for head and neck cancer radiotherapy: A phantom study

Song

et al. 2023

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo investigate the dosimetric impact of the calculation boundaries and dose calculation algorithms of radiotherapy in head and neck cancer patients with an opened oral cavity connected to the exterior by a hollow intraoral positioning stent.Methods and MaterialsA homemade silicone phantom with an opened oral cavity was placed in a CIRS head phantom to model head and neck cancer patients with a hollow intraoral positioning stent. 3D‐CRT plans were designed on CT images of the phantom in Monaco and Pinnacle3 treatment planning systems (TPSs) with the same beam parameters. The default boundary and manually extrapolated boundary were both adopted in these two TPSs to explore the dosimetric impact on treatment plans. The nanoDot™ optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) were chosen to measure the planned dose surrounding the oral cavity of the head phantom after calibration.ResultThe doses in the air cavity and two measuring points at the joint area were dramatically changed from 0.0, 92.4 and 148.8 cGy to 177.8, 244.2 and 244.1 cGy in Monaco after adopting the extrapolated boundary. While the calculated doses at the same place were changed from 61.2, 143.7 and 198.3 cGy to 175.4, 234.7 and 233.2 cGy in Pinnacle3 with a similar calculation boundary. For the Monaco TPS, the relative errors compared to the OSLD measured doses were 2.94 ± 1.93%, 0.53 ± 8.64%, 2.65 ± 1.87% and 3.93 ± 1.69% at 4 measuring positions. In contrast, the relative errors 4.03 ± 1.93%, 4.85 ± 8.64%, 7.61 ± 1.87% and 5.61 ± 1.69% were observed in Pinnacle3.ConclusionThe boundary setting of an opened oral cavity in TPSs has a significant dosimetric impact on head and neck cancer radiotherapy. An extrapolated boundary should be manually set up to include the whole oral cavity in the dose calculation domain to avoid major dose deviations.

show abstract